Printable View
I’ve got a Vespa, not an electric one though. I don’t use it it as much as I’d like, partly as I mainly WFH and old and boring these days so rarely go anywhere without the family. One of the big deterrents to feeling safe on a scooter is the state of the roads. If it’s not massive pot holes that are death traps it’s the parts of the road warped by the weight of busses. As much fun as scooters are the roads in Edinburgh aren’t fit for purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Any motorbike / moped registered after 2006 are exempt [emoji736]Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
Not to mention the weight of modern cars. Modern SUV’s are nearly three tons. Everyone complains about the condition of the roads without making the connection that it’s us who are to blame. We keep buying bigger and bigger cars and expect the roads to stay the same with no extra wear and tear. We certainly don’t fund the council extra to deal with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Modfather
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oddly enough the council has largely relaid my whole route into work in the last two years or so!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Modfather
Taken ages but hey what’s a few temporary traffic lights tail backs when you can just jump the queue each time [emoji12]
Go like Paris and tax cars on weight and size as well as emissions, as you say its the weight of the cars that are damaging the roads so charge for itQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
That's in the pipeline from what I saw recently, the end of exemption from vehicle tax for electric vehicles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I’d be 100% behind this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bear in mind that the average EV also weighs half as much again as a petrol/diesel vehicle. The more EVs on the road then there is more wear and tear on the roads.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Modfather
Which is why we need to move away from cars in cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by w pilton hibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Urmm while it was always a poorly thought out replacement that lacked imagination, foresight and proper integration with even the public transport that existed at the time this is surely something that can’t be allowed to happen!
Seems mental that the Council can be caught cold so close to the lease end date!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o.amp
If there is no other site available that the city can use then it should be allowed to compulsory purchase the site. It is strategically important to the people of the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You would think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Considering all the public transport / active travel agendas at play it would seem a complete travesty for a capital city to not have a bloomin’ bus station!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by w pilton hibby
Classic shifting of goal posts :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Where is the shifting. Charge by size and weight regardless of engine type, whilst also trying to cut cars to a minimumQuote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
The elephant in the room though, bad roads are annoying the planet heating up kills. Stopping gas is miles away from the importance of pot holes
April 2024 was warmer globally than any previous April on record. This is the 11th consecutive month at record levels.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNZ-12_W...pg&name=medium
https://x.com/ScottDuncanWX/status/1789757911486378164
Liz Truss in the Torygraph today urging Sunak to end all net zero targets, **** bag. Did she not hurt us enough in her embarrassingly short reign
Labour end the ban on onshore wind turbines, good news. Remarkable fact since Russias full blown invasion, Ukraine has managed to install 12 times more onshore wind turbine capacity than we currently have in the UK
How can that be? The last UK govt was most world beatingyist govt evah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Ukraine completed about 200MW of onshore wind last year. The first since the war started. It went into the war with about 1.7Gw of wind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The U.K. has almost 30Gw of installed capacity with onshore accounting for about 14Gw.
The UK has also been much more focused on the substantially more effective offshore wind..so much so it has the leaves offshore wind capacity in the world. On top of that there is another 8Gw already in construction.
Back to onshore there is already 8Gw of planning consented applications. 6Gw in planning and waiting approval and 7Gw in pre planning.
On a more specific note The South Kyle onshore farm went operational in 2023 providing 230Mw
So the concept of Ukraine having 12x anything with regards to wind power v the U.K. doesn’t ring entirely true unless someone has picked a rather specific period of time and set of stats to fit their point while completely missing the bigger picture.
Sorry it's the 2 years since the war started and it's England not uk, its devolved and we have done much better than England. Yes offshore is more productive but onshore is better than literally burning fossil fuels like we're doing just now. Everything is far to slow in the uk. The same is said about solar, offshore and nuclear is cheaper yes but we need every weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
Also yes it's a specific period the last two years but they are dodging mines, drones, have 1 million men fighting and have regular power outages.
https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4332875/labour-government-lifts-facto-ban-onshore-wind-farms
Campaigners highlighted how as a result of the rules Ukraine has been able to install 12 times more onshore wind energy capacity than England since Russia's invasion, despite being at war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Aye no doubt England has had an odd problem with onshore and taken in isolation I suppose the 12x thing might mean something.
But the U.K. has a national grid so taking England only, onshore only as some sort of comparator is a bit odd.
You could easily as say that the UK grid added over 2Gw of renewables in the last year alone which surpasses all of Ukraine’s total installed capacity.
It doesn’t after all matter, when trying not to burn fossil fuels, if the renewable is generated offshore in Dogger Bank or onshore on the north east coast of England instead.
But I get the point. England’s planning laws for onshore have stymied progress there and thankfully common sense has finally prevailed on that front.
The great thing for Ukraine is that the windmills are harder for the Russians to take out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A huge backfire of Putins war is getting the west to go full throttle towards energy independence and renewables. 34% of Russias federal budget comes from oil and gas, a world running on renewables must be scary for themQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Interesting thread and article in the FT
https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1821866681704013859
It's about the greens in England but I can see similarities here. Will there be a split in the greens. The older green voter polls far more Nimby, anti onshore wind and solar, anti nuclear. The younger greens are completely pro decarbonisation even if that means using countryside to save the planet.
Also mentioned is something I was utterly baffled with last year. The greens in Germany chose to close their nuclear power stations and who would have thought it caused a rise in CO2 emissions in Germany, burning gas and coal took up the slack.
The shock of Chernoble caused a massive decline in nuclear projects. We burned fossil fuels instead.
"We estimate that the decline in Nuclear power Plants caused by Chernobyl led to the loss of approximately 141 million expected life years in the U.S., 33 in the U.K. and 318 million globally". https://nber.org/conferences/si-2024-political-economy
Has the issue of what to do with nucular waste been properly addressed yet, or is it still 'dump it in the sea somewhere far away and hope for the best'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Not disagreeing with your general argument, but it was actually Angela Merkel's CDU that made the decision in 2011 to close the nuclear power stations, mainly as a reaction to the disaster in ***ushima.
Like you said, though, there has been a lot of discussion over whether the final closure should have been delayed until they could replace those with greener sources of power.
EDIT: Apparently, I can't write F..u..k..ushima
It's safely sealed in countries all over the world. There are projects to try and use it to generate power but none are yet economical. I think the problem is there is a generation that think it get put in the sea or just in the ground as is.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Finland are leading the way with disposal and are happy to take others waste at a cost. They secure it deep underground in solid cases. They say it is safe from earthquake and wars for 100,000 years. Nuclear waste is spent in 1000 years.
I'm sure in a few hundred years we'd have the technology to take it out and deal with it although in 100,000 years it probably won't matter.
Whilst it's there it's saving lives from reducing CO2. Never mind what If's burning fossil fuels is killing us now, never mind destroying the planet that will kill more.
33 million UK live years gone because unlike France we didn't slow down Nuclear production. Also the massive electricity price spike we saw in the last years didn't happen in France due to their nuclear power self sufficiency
I just read it from the FT article. But reading further it was the greens that closed the final stations, clever when your so reliant on gas and can't buy from Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith_M
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/german-greens-minister-robert-habeck-under-fire-over-2022-nuclear-shutdown/
I'd eventually like to not need nuclear and be purely renewable, I'm sure we won't need it in 100 years. In the meantime we are burning fossil fuels, it's crazy
Steel and copper cans. So long as it's stainless steel, I'm convinced that'll last 100,000 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
You sound like an expert the Finns should hire you. The other option is drilling for gas and lighting it on fire for energyQuote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee