UKC

Are high energy prices all bad?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 John Kelly 25 Jul 2022

Won't the high prices help to reduce our consumption?

A good thing?

9
 Forest Dump 25 Jul 2022
In reply to John Kelly:

See also Jevons Paradox 

 Dave Ferguson 25 Jul 2022
In reply to John Kelly:

yes it will reduce consumption substantially.

Unfortunately those least able to pay will be doing most for the planet at real cost to their own health. There will be very sad stories this winter of the vulnerable and the elderly losing their lives because they can't afford to heat their homes.

Those of us who can afford it will continue to be as wasteful as we have ever been.

One question I have is, why do we waste so much energy on street lighting and keeping shops lit and heated all night when empty. You've only got to fly over the UK at night (slap my wrist) to see the utter wastefulness in all this unnecessary lighting.

1
In reply to John Kelly:

Net zero.

The temperature in many peoples houses this winter.

2
OP John Kelly 25 Jul 2022
In reply to Dave Ferguson:

But on the plus side more walking and cycling which will definitely improve peoples health 

Shops, street lamps - can I add chilling cans of carbonated sugar water 

Post edited at 22:06
1
 wintertree 25 Jul 2022
In reply to John Kelly:

The more oil and gas cost, the more money Russia takes from other countries for its fossils - a list topped by China, Germany and Italy but with the shame spread well around.  Apparently NATO countries have given Russia $54 Bn in the first 100 days of this war for their fossils. 

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/whos-still-buying-fossil-fuels-from-russia...

If prices keep rising this winter, I'm sure it will result in ever more dramatic cuts to consumption, as well as cuts to expenditure elsewhere leading to recession (or worse) and further reduction in energy demand.  The goal should be to maintain a standard of living whilst cutting energy consumption rather than slashing our living standards.  Not many options to a sudden shock to the system however.

I think it's probably time for a blanket 50 mph speed limit until the spring, perhaps then with just EVs being released to higher speeds.  Wintertree, Sr always used to tell me to visualise an egg between my foot and the throttle, but these days it's the people of Ukraine.  I'm lucky that the pandemic helped me to re-arrange my life to involve much less driving, but I'm not naive enough to think everyone is in the same boat as me.

27
In reply to wintertree:

> I think it's probably time for a blanket 50 mph speed limit until the spring, perhaps then with just EVs being released to higher speeds.

Worth noting that oil is currently cheaper than it was from 2005-2013 (so someone between the drill and the pump is taking the piss), and remembering that your electric car in the UK is still 40-50% powered by gas which really, really isn't. So if anything it should be the opposite ;-p

 SDM 26 Jul 2022
In reply to John Kelly:

Most tariffs have seen a much bigger rise in the standing charge than the unit price. So reducing your consumption isn't a very effective way to keep your costs down. You still pay most of the increase regardless of how much you use.

Vulnerable people will die this winter because of fuel poverty.

The vulnérable are also priced out of more environmentally friendly options like solar panels, EVs, heat pumps etc.

We need to find a way to reduce consumption and reduce reliance on fossil fields. But not like this. This is not a good thing.

 Flinticus 26 Jul 2022
In reply to John Kelly:

Does it encourage more fossil fuel extraction? 

 S Ramsay 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Flinticus:

Yes, but it also encourages more renewables to be installed. High fuel prices are fairly essential to making the transition to renewables, or at least making it quickly, as they provide an incentive to invest in renewables, and this applies to individuals as well as corporations. The majority of the population is never going to invest in a heat pump* or solar panels when gas is 3p/kWh.

*Electricity going through the roof doesn't encourage heat pump installation but install enough renewables and it will eventually come down or do it in combination with solar panels in order to be able to run it cheaply

 Michael Hood 26 Jul 2022
In reply to S Ramsay:

Renewables are only part of the solution, until energy storage is properly worked out, things like wind farms aren't much use on days with no wind. Similarly, but not quite as bad for solar farms on cloudy days. We still need considerable base capacity that is totally reliable.

But, why oh why are we not concentrating on reducing our consumption. My biggest gripe is new homes. Why are they not required to have much higher standards of insulation, and surely every south facing new roof should be covered in solar panels. To me these seem like complete no-brainers.

And why hasn't every tall block of flats got a mini wind turbine on the roof.

Post edited at 08:10
1
 wintertree 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Our EV mostly chargers from our solar at this time of year.

In terms of gas vs diesel, we get very little gas from Russia but quite a bit of refined heavy oils like diesel so in terms of direct support to their atrocities, it’s the diesel pump that’s sending money from people’s pockets to the war.

>Worth noting that oil is currently cheaper than it was from 2005-2013   (so someone between the drill and the pump is taking the piss), 

You could be forgiven for thinking it’s a stitch up from a globs cartel who never miss an opportunity to profit.  The price of crude has almost doubled in the last 18 months, and this is pouring additional cash in to Russia. I don’t know how much the UK’s buying has changed this year but we were buying a lot more refined diesel from Russia than gas.

5
 mrphilipoldham 26 Jul 2022
In reply to wintertree:

> The goal should be to maintain a standard of living whilst cutting energy consumption rather than slashing our living standards. 

 

Good luck with that!

> I think it's probably time for a blanket 50 mph speed limit until the spring, perhaps then with just EVs being released to higher speeds.  

Ah just what the country needs, yet more division between the haves and the have-nots. Move over peasant, I’m more important in my Tesla.

 neilh 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Michael Hood:

Have you ever lived in a modern apartment?They for the most part do not need any heating these days.incredibly efficient .

1
 montyjohn 26 Jul 2022
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

>> I think it's probably time for a blanket 50 mph speed limit until the spring, perhaps then with just EVs being released to higher speeds.  

> Ah just what the country needs, yet more division between the haves and the have-nots. Move over peasant, I’m more important in my Tesla.

Not to mention that a high speed differences would likely lead to more accidents.

1
 montyjohn 26 Jul 2022
In reply to John Kelly:

> Won't the high prices help to reduce our consumption?

What it will do is strangle our economy meaning we will have even less money to pay for expensive energy.

It will probably result in the removal (or reduction) of the green levy sooner or later and a flirtation with cheaper CAPEX alternatives like shale-gas.

 Forest Dump 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Michael Hood:

Because roof mounted wind turbines are often dog doo da

 neilh 26 Jul 2022
In reply to montyjohn:

Nothing compared with the effect on Germany's economy. Its industrial powerhouse status has in effect been built on reliable low cost gas from Russia.

I do shake my head in despair at the current complaints over Russian interference in the flow of gas.What on earth did people expect.. a free lunch for supporting Ukraine.

We are locked in a war with Russia.......what we are seeing is the economic price being played out.

Post edited at 10:25
 montyjohn 26 Jul 2022
In reply to neilh:

Well Trump called them out for it 4 years ago but everyone ignored the because it was Trump that said it.

youtube.com/watch?v=O24rulfjA8U&

 neilh 26 Jul 2022
In reply to montyjohn:

One of his few good call-outs. 

 pec 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> Worth noting that oil is currently cheaper than it was from 2005-2013 (so someone between the drill and the pump is taking the piss),

I'm sure that's the case. Oil is priced in dollars and between those dates the pound was worth between about 1.6 and 2.1 dollars so you could buy a lot more oil for your pound then than you can now when it's worth about 1.2 dollars.

I'm not suggesting the oil companies aren't making a profit but probably not taking the piss.

5
 MG 26 Jul 2022
In reply to pec:

> I'm sure that's the case. Oil is priced in dollars and between those dates the pound was worth between about 1.6 and 2.1 dollars so you could buy a lot more oil for your pound then than you can now when it's worth about 1.2 dollars.

You conveniently missed the explanation for most of that change...

1
 wintertree 26 Jul 2022
In reply to montyjohn:  

> Not to mention that a high speed differences would likely lead to more accidents.

On dual carriageways and motorways, it’s basically the same speed difference as between lorries and cars obeying their respective speed limits.  In practice differentials are often higher.

I’m far more keen to get a blanket 50 mph limit in on motorways etc than to create divisiveness over the conditions it might end on.  It would translate in to an immediate and direct reduction in to British money flowing in to Russia, and it brings sound environmental benefits.

Clearly not a popular opinion!  
 

 wintertree 26 Jul 2022
In reply to neilh:

> I do shake my head in despair at the current complaints over Russian interference in the flow of gas.What on earth did people expect.. a free lunch for supporting Ukraine.

One could be forgiven for thinking that it’s only just dawning on the German political leadership that Russia systematically lies.  Nord stream throughout halved within days of it being reopened post servicing….

 montyjohn 26 Jul 2022
In reply to wintertree:

> It would translate in to an immediate and direct reduction in to British money flowing in to Russia, and it brings sound environmental benefits.

> Clearly not a popular opinion!  

I can't see it taking off to be honest. It does pose an interesting ethics question but I don't think it's all that relevant to the UK since we import so little Russian oil and gas and will likely not be importing any by the end of the year.

However, if we used less, would we export more, thus saving other countries from important Russian oil and gas or would we just stockpile more?

Or just import a bit less from Norway, again helping other countries out.

 wintertree 26 Jul 2022
In reply to montyjohn:

> I can't see it taking off to be honest.

As I understand it, energy blackouts to around 8m households are part of the scenario modelling for this winter.  I’d rather limit my motorway speed than get my energy cut off twice a day.

> since we import so little Russian oil and gas 

Refined diesel however…

> However, if we used less, would we export more, thus saving other countries from important Russian oil and gas

More likely we’d import less from countries other than Russia, allowing those countries to displace Russian supplies in to third party nations.

Message Removed 27 Jul 2022
Reason: inappropriate content
 Petrafied 27 Jul 2022
In reply to John Kelly:

> Won't the high prices help to reduce our consumption?

> A good thing?

If you're wealthy, then probably.  If you're poor and have (for example) Raynaud's probably less so.  Still, so long as you're OK.

Post edited at 06:43
1
Message Removed 27 Jul 2022
Reason: Repetitive content
Message Removed 27 Jul 2022
Reason: Repetitive content
Message Removed 27 Jul 2022
Reason: Repetitive content
 ablackett 27 Jul 2022
In reply to wintertree:

>  

> It would translate in to an immediate and direct reduction in to British money flowing in to Russia, and it brings sound environmental benefits.

What is the typical fuel saving if a diesel/petrol car goes at 50mph rather than 70mph?

It clear and well accepted that there is a saving, however I’ve never seen it quantified. I would presume that you either have seen the numbers or have done the test yourself!

 wintertree 27 Jul 2022
In reply to ablackett:

About 20% which is far less than the basic physics (force, work over the total distance both being prop. to v^2).

https://www.mpgforspeed.com/

Also likely to lead to less congestion and freer traffic flows bring secondary savings.

Total savings are less as not all miles driven would benefit from the change, and as compliance can be an issue (!).  The US have done it in the past - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

 wintertree 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Roovetsdonger:

Thank you for that delightful private message.  What a way to start the day.  I'm afraid I'm not going to oblige your delightful request.  

I am sorry that you were so enraged by someone having a pretty moderate view on how we might soften the coming winter for the poorer people in society.  There have been much stronger measures suggested by others (e.g. the exponential energy pricing model).

Post edited at 08:38
 Offwidth 27 Jul 2022
In reply to wintertree:

For the ecomomy the maximum speed might be best set at 60 given that's where the mpg starts to drop from it's maximum. Time is also money.  A lot could be done to cut fuel waste at the slow end as well.... like intelligent linking of traffic lights on urban through routes to minimise stop start.

 Xharlie 27 Jul 2022
In reply to John Kelly:

> Won't the high prices help to reduce our consumption?

> A good thing?

No, not a good thing, because it will disproportionately affect the poor and those who are, on real terms, **least** responsible for rampant consumption.

 neilh 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Xharlie:

One of the issues being as Sunak says for example if you cut the 5% VAT then for 50% of the population it makes no real difference. So producing an equitable system that helps those in fuel poverty  can be easier said than done.

 neilh 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

One of the difficulties is global pricing of gas and oil. Although every one is talking of the worst case, it could possibly reduce due to for example recession or a change in Ukraine.

Steel prices for example are now predicted to drop in Q4 this year having stabilised. 
 

Predicting and hedging of commodity prices is a fraught game at the best of times. 

 wercat 27 Jul 2022
In reply to ablackett:

> What is the typical fuel saving if a diesel/petrol car goes at 50mph rather than 70mph?

> It clear and well accepted that there is a saving, however I’ve never seen it quantified. I would presume that you either have seen the numbers or have done the test yourself!

Well several times I have posted my personal numerically expressed experience in the 1990s when I had a 4 day a week job that required drastic measures to make it pay.  I had to do a weekly commute to the North East on mixed roads in a 2 litre Cavalier SRi which had quite a few miles on the clock.

Dropping to never exceeding 60mph and generally sticking to 50 on single carriageways raised my miles per tank from about 420 to over 600 miles on more than one occasion and made about 10 to 20 minutes on a journey of 75 miles or so.

That is with an old technology heavy car not built for efficiency and not new either.

you may or many not (as I have posted before) remember olice vehicles in the 1970s enforcing a necessary motorway limit of 50mph after the Middle East conflict caused a fuel emergency.

Add to that reduced wear and tear on tyres and brakes and road surfaces and fewer accidents and I think you can see quite a reduction in polluting events and processes and resource usage.

Plus we are now seeing cities impose these limits on motorways to reduce air pollution from exhausts, brake linings and tyres etc.

Why are you not convinced?

Post edited at 09:51
 wercat 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

I have found a considerable benefit from 50 over 60mph.  We have a VW Polo whose range prediction algorithm changes drastically moving from 50 up to 60

"50 for the Planet!"

Post edited at 09:54
 blurty 27 Jul 2022
In reply to John Kelly:

Cheap ubiquitous energy has driven the rises in living standard in the developed world; to take something away from people is never a vote winner and, as pointed out above, it's those with the lowest incomes that are hit the hardest by energy price increases.

Renationalising the energy companies and get busy building nuclear would be my panacea

1
 Offwidth 27 Jul 2022
In reply to wercat:

I've consistently found urban driving is where my mpg is very low, even without congestion, (it's been terrible in the past when regularly commuting during congestion). Better urban traffic control and getting more people out of cars (from improvements to bike lanes, pedestrian areas and public transport) is way more important than the difference between 50 and 70 on motorways when traffic is flowing smoothly. When I got my latest car I did a test and there was almost no difference between 60 and 70 on a quiet steady motorway drive on fuel use for the same journey (and on the subsequent range predictor afterwards: for a Ford 1 litre turbo eco petrol engine) so it's certainly not a 14% drop in mpg for me.

Average speed control and slip road traffic control on congested motorways, keeping a steady flow, makes a big difference as well. Getting more people into efficient cars would also be great.

 montyjohn 27 Jul 2022
In reply to wintertree:

> Refined diesel however…

I can't find the figure now, but I recall it's 18% UK diesel from Russia, which isn't impossible to replace.

What frustrates me is all the fudging to achieve net zero (if that's the right term). We've off-shored oil refining from the UK because the energy is cheaper (valid reason) and because we don't want to take the Co2 hit (invalid reason). The the Co2 is produced regardless of where it's refined, and arguably it's better to do it in the UK as we have so much wind power.

I find the green movement really frustrating, not their goals, which I fully agree with, but the methods that end up being adopted, like dodgy carbon offseting which time and time again doesn't do what it says, or offshoring .

Recent news we've got challenges against north sea extraction on the basis of emissions, but we need alternatives to Russia. The choice is ether Russia C02 source, or our own. The green alternatives will come through once we get over this current hurdle.

 Harry Jarvis 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

> I've consistently found urban driving is where my mpg is very low, even without congestion, (it's been terrible in the past when regularly commuting during congestion). Better urban traffic control and getting more people out of cars (from improvements to bike lanes, pedestrian areas and public transport) is way more important than the difference between 50 and 70 on motorways when traffic is flowing smoothly.

Given that people will continue to drive in urban environments and on motorways, is there a problem with trying to reduce fuel use in both situations? You may be right to say that getting people out of cars is an admirable target, but that only suits a certain proportion of the travelling public. In personal terms, reducing fuel costs for motorway drivers may make a significant difference to their weekly budget.

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

From Bloomberg this morning... Last paragraph is interesting, I wonder how that will play out if there is a gas supply emergency in EU

"UK Energy Bills Are Set to Top £500 Per Month as Russia Cuts Gas

Price cap will climb to record this winter, BFY analysis shows

UK faces a cost-of-living crisis that will leave few untouched

By William Mathis

(Bloomberg) -- 

UK households are set to see record energy costs this winter as Russia clamps down on Europe’s gas supplies, pushing power prices to new highs and aggravating Britain’s cost-of-living crisis. 

Average bills for January alone are likely to be above £500 ($603), more than three times last year’s level, according to analysis from BFY Group Ltd. 

“Huge swathes of the British public aren’t going to be able to afford their bills this winter,” said BFY senior consultant Gemma Berwick. “Average families with two working parents will be in fuel poverty.” 

Russia is curbing flows on the Nord Stream pipeline to Germany -- Russia’s main gas link to the European Union -- citing maintenance issues with turbines. That’s sent energy costs soaring, with countries in the region racing to stockpile fuel for the winter and limit further economic damage from the crisis.

The cut in gas flows through Nord Stream is set to push up the UK’s energy price cap -- the maximum utilities can charge consumers -- to £3,420 in the fourth quarter of the year, according to BFY. That amount would then rise to £3,850 in the first quarter of 2023, it said. That’s even higher than recent analysis from Cornwall Insight Ltd., released before the latest increase in gas prices. 

While Britain has said it’s weaned itself off Russian gas, its market and supplies are closely tied to the continent and major gas producer Norway. The UK has multiple gas terminals, but lacks sufficient storage facilities of its own. As a result, it exports the fuel to continental Europe in the summer. It can then import during the energy-intensive winter months."

 Offwidth 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Where did I say anything different? I just think the best standard motorway speed limit to resolve that would  be 60, as it is only 3% down on the government average MPG figures, when balanced against the fact that speed reduction has it's own economic costs. The more important thing on motorways to save fuel is having average speed control and lighted entrance control to ensure traffic always keeps moving during busy periods (often that, by necessity, will be slower than  60). People who want to drive slower to save fuel costs can already do that.

Post edited at 12:31
 elsewhere 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> While Britain has said it’s weaned itself off Russian gas, its market and supplies are closely tied to the continent and major gas producer Norway. The UK has multiple gas terminals, but lacks sufficient storage facilities of its own. As a result, it exports the fuel to continental Europe in the summer. It can then import during the energy-intensive winter months."

Sell cheap, buy high?

"A decision to close permanently the UK’s largest natural gas storage site will leave the country more dependent on imports and greater volatility in prices in winter months, an alliance of energy companies has warned." FT AUGUST 16 2017

https://www.ft.com/content/564a1ec0-8288-11e7-a4ce-15b2513cb3ff

"The licence is the first step to a potential reopening of the site that closed in 2018 and previously provided about 70% of Britain’s gas storage capacity." Reuters July 21, 2022

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/britains-centrica-awarded-gas-stora...

 Harry Jarvis 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

> Where did I say anything different? I just think the best standard motorway speed limit to resolve that would  be 60, as it is only 3% down on the government average MPG figures

So you agree that reduced motorway speeds would be of benefit in terms of reduced fuel use. Your earlier post seemed to dismiss this idea.

I don't know the relevance of your reference to the government average MPG figures. These figures, even when they are not fiction, are a simple comparator. They do not say anything meaningful about optimum efficiency. 

1
In reply to elsewhere:

It does seem crazy some of the decisions that have been made in the past, hindsight a wonderful thing!

A friend of mine is currently cementing gas wells shut in the North Sea which still have plenty of gas in them apparently. But the energy company that owns them has had enough....another strange decision in my view.

Zelensky's comments on the situation haven't been aligned either. Firstly we were funding the war by relying on Russian gas and oil (fair point), but now Putin has almost switched off the gas supply, it's "an act of terrorism" Can't have it both ways

 jimtitt 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

It's even more confusing, Gazprom applied to deliver the NordStream reduction via Transgas from today as it has loads of spare capacity. That they then have to pay more transit fees to the Ukraine and Slovakia make it hard to see the real plan.

 neilh 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Except they are negotitiatig the reopening of an underground facility which is massive.  Think it’s in the North Sea. It was mothballed a couple of years ago. 

Post edited at 13:04
 wintertree 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> It does seem crazy some of the decisions that have been made in the past, hindsight a wonderful thing!

No hindsight needed to see the gutting of gas storage capacity as a gaping vulnerability.  

If I recall correctly it was one of the cold winters about a decade ago where we were down to 36 hours of gas reserves and there was concern the next inbound LNG tanker would be kept at sea by a winter storm.  Thankfully it landed and offloaded in time so we didn’t find out if the power grid could shed 50% of its load without tripping out and testing the black start capability.

 fred99 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Given that people will continue to drive in urban environments ...

This week there has been negligible traffic on the roads during "rush hour" - and they can't all be queuing up at Dover ! Reason - School holidays.

Maybe if a few more people didn't take Jeremy and Jemima 500 to 1000 metres to school in the car - or unnecessarily large Chelsea Tractor - but walked instead, then there might be a massive reduction in fuel use, along with a corresponding increase in air quality.

 mrphilipoldham 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

Likewise. Gearing of my car makes cruising at 50 a little awkward. I can sit at 70 in 6th and it's never that far above idling. Sitting at 50 the engine wants to be in 5th and with a higher rpm, which is why I'll either go slower at 45ish with the engine happy in 5th or a little faster at 55ish in 6th. Either way, there's no discernible difference in mpg at 50 or 70 under the same driving and road conditions. 

In reply to wintertree:

"No hindsight needed to see the gutting of gas storage capacity as a gaping vulnerability. "

Tend to agree, although renting storage off a "friendly" neighbour probably didn't seem too risky 12 months ago.

The Rough storage facility only provides 10 days worth of UK gas demand when fully up and running, so whilst very useful, doesn't provide a huge amount of headroom to insulate from this winters gas shortages

 Jimbo C 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Dave Ferguson:

> One question I have is, why do we waste so much energy on street lighting

I may be wrong but... Mass street lighting was introduced to prevent demand dropping below the minimum base line supplied by nuclear (as well as the Economy 7 tariff and night time storage heaters). The nuclear base line is now a lot lower than what was envisaged and about half of the mid 90s peak. Street lights now being LED rather than sodium will have balanced this somewhat but I think that many street lights are far too bright and there is surely an opportunity to save energy.

What we really need is energy storage. On sunny, windy Summer mornings the potential supply from nuclear + solar + wind can exceed demand on occasion. Without storage, that means paying wind generators to put the brakes on some of their turbines.

 wercat 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

I've often thought that speed limits should depend on whether going uphill or downhill as you have dramatic gravity assistance to braking uphill and fuel economy/pollution performance is improved by not having the engine labour. 

I'm sure we pollute round here far more because the lights are constantly disruptive (multiple cycles of having  lights go red and having to wait while approaching and negotiating a single roundabout.

 petemeads 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Rough could only export at a rate that meant about 3 months of storage to top-up other supplies during periods of maximum demand. It could turn around to re-inject quite quickly if the opportunity/need arose. Not really fair to say only 10 days max. rate supply, it was way larger than all the other storage put together.

 wercat 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> It does seem crazy some of the decisions that have been made in the past, hindsight a wonderful thing!

 Why Hindsight??????

This lack of storage as compared with European countries was highlighted frequently in the late 90s and during the Blair Brown era when we suffered periods of expensive gas.

I had understood that there were moves planned then to correct our lack of storage capacity as it was a known vulnerability

Using the term "hindsight" simply excuses the incompetent nation breaking Brexiteer Government of culpability

4
 wercat 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

mmm, seems the writers were ideal people to plan for disaster recovery and resilience.

 Rog Wilko 28 Jul 2022
In reply to ablackett:

> What is the typical fuel saving if a diesel/petrol car goes at 50mph rather than 70mph?

As already reported here a few weeks ago on a recent journey from  Bridgewater to Kendal (virtually all motorway) I recorded a 25% improvement in fuel economy in my diesel van by setting cruise to 60 mph. Incidentally found the driving much less stressful.

As to Wintertree’s suggestion of exempting EVs from a putative speed limit to save energy - electric cars get their energy from somewhere. Even if that somewhere is domestic solar panels, you are still using energy which would go into the grid if you didn’t put it into your car battery.

 wintertree 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Rog Wilko:

> As to Wintertree’s suggestion of exempting EVs from a putative speed limit to save energy - electric cars get their energy from somewhere. Even if that somewhere is domestic solar panels, you are still using energy which would go into the grid if you didn’t put it into your car battery.

Suggestion was about what might be released from a global limit once the winter crisis is past.

BEVs used less energy than equivalent ICE.

Still, it was a bad suggestion, it should have been that release to higher speeds on motorways is based purely on fuel economy, probably with a threshold that keeps smaller, modern ICE in the released group.  I doubt that would be a much more popular suggestion but I think it’s another useful lever against giant low economy SUVs (something that’s coming to electric as well now…)

Agree on the solar panels, but for homeowners who forked out for them since FITs ended (as we have), they have invested their personal resources in to improving grid capacity.  We could have had a couple of nice foreign holidays but put the money in to offsetting the energy usage of our BEV.  Quite a few people I think do similar.  For those people, switching to EVs adds comparable capacity to the grid - all be it with a seasonality problem. I was also motivated by establishing a redundant microgrid and as the seasons go by, I worry less and less about the extra cost of that being potentially wasted.  If it wasn’t for that I’d have endorsed the approach from another poster who noted elsewhere that investing in renewable projects puts the capacity in better locations and offers a better return post FITs.

 grectangle 28 Jul 2022
In reply to John Kelly:

Richest 1% of global population have double the carbon emissions of poorest half.  

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-...

Demand for private jets is higher than ever.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/21/kylie-jenner-short-priv...

This is not going to effect those who have the highest carbon footprints.  Those of us who are squeezed in the middle aren't going to make a bit of difference overall.  Energy companies laughing all the way.

In reply to wintertree:

> If it wasn’t for that I’d have endorsed the approach from another poster who noted elsewhere that investing in renewable projects puts the capacity in better locations and offers a better return post FITs.

That other poster is also equally motivated by the difference in capacity added to the grid for the money. Hard to get £500/kW on your roof.

[https://moneyweek.com/516638/will-solar-energy-investment-funds-keep-shinin...]

In reply to wintertree:

> I think it's probably time for a blanket 50 mph speed limit

There's an obvious and expensive downside to that, which coincidentally occurred to me while on a boring dual carriageway. Stick with me here, this one was more interesting than I thought to work out…

Seems like the average UK motorist spends ~520h a year driving [1], about ¼ of which is on motorways [2], so say 130h a year of motorway driving.

If you’re on about reducing the speed limit from 70 to 50, hence increasing motorway time by 40%, that implies they’ll each spend an extra 52h a year on the motorway (neglecting any benefits of smoother traffic flow, people being put off travelling by the extra tedium etc.)

Now do someone please check my maths in case I've dropped a x1000 somewhere, but if there are 31m motorists in the UK [3] that means 1612 million hours (or 184000 years) of lifetime lost per year. With a life expectancy of 80 years, of which let’s say you spend about 2/3 awake (53 yrs), this means you’re effectively murdering 3471 people every year in one of the most boring and tedious ways imaginable. Still sound like a good plan?

[1] - https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8287098/B...

[2] - https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-7685131/The-average-UK-dri...

[3] – it was far more difficult than I expected to find that number. Inferred from here: https://www.themotorombudsman.org/press-releases/14-million-uk-motorists-fe...

Post edited at 11:22
1
 Rog Wilko 29 Jul 2022
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Perhaps we should have no motorway speed limits like Germany. Or maybe make 75 mph the legal minimum?

2
 Harry Jarvis 29 Jul 2022
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

I don't think your maths really stacks up. Spending more time on motorways isn't lifetime lost. it's simply life spent in a different way.  

An extra 52 hours per year is equivalent to 1 hour per week, or less than 10 minutes per day (for 7 days per week) or 12 minutes for a 5 day working week. 

The benefits of driving slower, aside from fuel savings, include smoother traffic flow and considerably less stress. The savings in fuel costs also enable more spending on other activities. 

4
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> I don't think your maths really stacks up.

Which part?

> Spending more time on motorways isn't lifetime lost. it's simply life spent in a different way.

It's time not spent in the place you're going doing the things you were going there to do, so it basically is. You're not working, playing or doing anything to contribute to the betterment of mankind.

> An extra 52 hours per year is equivalent to 1 hour per week, or less than 10 minutes per day (for 7 days per week) or 12 minutes for a 5 day working week.

Yeah, that's still the 1612 million hours, like I said.

> The benefits of driving slower, aside from fuel savings, include smoother traffic flow and considerably less stress. The savings in fuel costs also enable more spending on other activities. 

The downsides are lost earnings/productivity or less of your three score and ten to do what you want with. Someone other than me thankfully has to decide on the right balance.

I'm not advocating for insane sociopathic driving. Just thought it'd be interesting to do the maths on the societal implications of speed limits for a bit of a break on a Friday. Don't read too much into it.

2
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Missing from your analysis is the years of life  potentially saved through more efficient driving (or people being incentivised to use public transport if driving is a little less convenient); more efficient driving means reduced air pollution and impact on the climate. I’ve no idea where to start with quantifying that to see how it stacks up against your extra time in a car though.

4
 Ian W 29 Jul 2022
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> Which part?

> It's time not spent in the place you're going doing the things you were going there to do, so it basically is. You're not working, playing or doing anything to contribute to the betterment of mankind.

> Yeah, that's still the 1612 million hours, like I said.

> The downsides are lost earnings/productivity or less of your three score and ten to do what you want with. Someone other than me thankfully has to decide on the right balance.

There was a big study done on the M42 in the early noughties with variable speed limits; introducing them on the section of the M42 between the M6 and M40 rather than having a blanket 70 increased average speeds by 8mph, whilst reducing the number of speeding tickets by 50%. The increase in average speed was mainly caused by the reduction in queues trying to squeeze past accidents.....

 jimtitt 29 Jul 2022
In reply to Ian W:

I live near (and use) a section of the A9 in Germany which is the busiest proper motorway and it has all that controlled stuff so varies between unlimited and usually 120, can be lower. When it's busy and they drop to 120km/hr the average speed goes up to 128 because they also open the hard shoulder for trucks. My average speed unfortunately drops as running my normal 170 is pushing it a bit!

 Ian W 29 Jul 2022
In reply to jimtitt:

> I live near (and use) a section of the A9 in Germany which is the busiest proper motorway and it has all that controlled stuff so varies between unlimited and usually 120, can be lower. When it's busy and they drop to 120km/hr the average speed goes up to 128 because they also open the hard shoulder for trucks. My average speed unfortunately drops as running my normal 170 is pushing it a bit!

I would so love your post to refer to mph, not kph!

4
 jimtitt 29 Jul 2022
In reply to Ian W:

Unfortunately my current wheels are kinda dead over 200km/hr. The ones before cruised at 240 no problem and 160mph was achievable. Might have got 170 but I doubt it! Now the kids are older maybe time for an upgrade.

 Rog Wilko 30 Jul 2022
In reply to jimtitt:

> Unfortunately my current wheels are kinda dead over 200km/hr. The ones before cruised at 240 no problem and 160mph was achievable. Might have got 170 but I doubt it! Now the kids are older maybe time for an upgrade.

Reminds me why I steer clear of German motorways.

1
 Rog Wilko 30 Jul 2022
In reply to Rog Wilko:

…… where the death rate on autobahns is 75% higher on those without speed limits.

1
 jimtitt 30 Jul 2022
In reply to Rog Wilko:

Someone with a good grasp of statistics!

71% of fatalities on German motorways are where there is no speed limit.

70% of the German motorway network has no speed limit.

You can work that out right?

 Ian W 30 Jul 2022
In reply to jimtitt:

> Unfortunately my current wheels are kinda dead over 200km/hr. The ones before cruised at 240 no problem and 160mph was achievable. Might have got 170 but I doubt it! Now the kids are older maybe time for an upgrade.

Oh yes. Time indeed. It'd be rude not to........

 jimtitt 30 Jul 2022

In reply to RobAJones:

Suggest what you like, the premise was that 75% of deaths occur on unlimited motorways. The statistics from the German statistics agency and the ministry of transport tell us that there is no difference in the fatality rate.

 Dax H 30 Jul 2022
In reply to ablackett:

> What is the typical fuel saving if a diesel/petrol car goes at 50mph rather than 70mph?

60 mph not 50.

My van, 36 mpg over 30 mpg. 

My motorbike,(current a 650) 70 mpg over 55 mpg

My motorbike, (last one a 1200) 55 over 45. I once hit a 6 mile stretch of 50 limit and set the cruise control, re set my mpg counter and got low 70s

Wife's car, 53 over 41. (only based on 1 weeks use where I drove on holiday and her normal driving is 99% urban and the holiday was 99% motorway and country roads so not really a fair test)

I would test my van at 50 for a few weeks but unless everyone was limited to that I think it would be dangerous on the motorway. 

 RobAJones 30 Jul 2022
In reply to jimtitt:

> Suggest what you like, the premise was that 75% of deaths occur on unlimited motorways. The statistics from the German statistics agency and the ministry of transport tell us that there is no difference in the fatality rate.

Sorry, not sure how I deleted the post you have reponded to. As I said in it I'm not disputing the figures, just the conclusion.  

1
 jimtitt 30 Jul 2022
In reply to RobAJones:

And used different statistics about a different scenario to disagree with their conclusion.

 RobAJones 30 Jul 2022
In reply to jimtitt:

> And used different statistics about a different scenario to disagree with their conclusion.

Again apologies for the deleted post, (community shield isn't going the way I'd hoped) The additional information I offered was an example of where when a speed limit was introduced the number of fatalities/serious accidents reduced significantly. I'm not disputing the German figures, just not convinced that deaths per km of motorway is a better measure than deaths per million miles travelled. The sceptic in me thinks the German government are keen to use the former as it suggests on German autobahns half as many deaths happen per km as on British motorways. The British Government use the latter as it suggests that the distance travelled per death is double that in Germany. 

2
 Rog Wilko 30 Jul 2022
In reply to jimtitt:

Taking a closer look at Germany, federal and state statistics reported by Der Spiegel show that there 0.95 fatal accidents per billion kilometres driven on German autobahn sections with speed limits. When it comes the parts without a speed limit, however, there are 1.67 fatal accidents - 75 percent more than on stretches with a speed limit.

1
 Ben Callard 31 Jul 2022
In reply to fred99:

> Maybe if a few more people didn't take Jeremy and Jemima 500 to 1000 metres to school in the car - or unnecessarily large Chelsea Tractor - but walked instead, then there might be a massive reduction in fuel use, along with a corresponding increase in air quality.

Its not because the kids are on holiday, it's because the parents are too.

 jimtitt 31 Jul 2022
In reply to Rog Wilko:

> Taking a closer look at Germany, federal and state statistics reported by Der Spiegel show that there 0.95 fatal accidents per billion kilometres driven on German autobahn sections with speed limits. When it comes the parts without a speed limit, however, there are 1.67 fatal accidents - 75 percent more than on stretches with a speed limit.

Interesting, I guess the difference is either that fatal accidents can include more than one fatality and the busier the motorway the more likely there is to be a speed restriction. The classic killer is usually a minibus ploughing into the back of a broken down truck in the middle of the night or a truck running into the back of a traffic jam.

 Dax H 31 Jul 2022
In reply to Ben Callard:

> Its not because the kids are on holiday, it's because the parents are too.

A lot of people bring this out but I disagree.

The day after the schools break up the volume of traffic drops right off at school start time and school finishing time. This lasts for the full 6 weeks.

There is also a drop in traffic volume for the 5pm rush hour but its a fraction of the drop for the 3pm school run.

The day the kids go back the traffic comes back with a bang. 

 Ian W 31 Jul 2022
In reply to Ben Callard:

> Its not because the kids are on holiday, it's because the parents are too.

Eh? whether the parents are on holiday or not, or even work or not, the sole reason for "the school run" is to take the kids to school; no kids at school, no school run.

 fred99 31 Jul 2022
In reply to Ben Callard:

> Its not because the kids are on holiday, it's because the parents are too.

Are you seriously suggesting that all these parents are on holiday for six weeks, and that they all have week long holidays every half term as well.

That works out at an incredible amount of holiday !

I suggest that you are wrong.

 Dax H 31 Jul 2022
In reply to fred99:

> Are you seriously suggesting that all these parents are on holiday for six weeks, and that they all have week long holidays every half term as well.

> That works out at an incredible amount of holiday !

> I suggest that you are wrong.

Plus all the parents go away every half term going on Ben's post. I'm wishing I had had kids now if parents get that many holidays. 

Post edited at 16:39

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...