Whoever posts last is best

[Grahamm]

"The solution isn’t to get rid of tires or electric cars, but perhaps shift the materials of the tires to natural or non-fossil fuel sources, the scientists said. For instance, many tires are made of synthetic rubber derived from crude oil, which includes carcinogens."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-e...tion-cars/

[robbo]

Those "perfectly good cars" still produce pollution which accumulates in the central areas of London.

ULEZ is nothing but a money generator for an ineffective inefficient mayor. If he was really bothered about pollution he’d ban all non compliant vehicles, but for £12.50 you can fill your boots. I’ve friends who are understandably attached to long owned non compliant cars, who just shrug and pay the money. Personally I won’t prop up the Kahn regime, so got a compliant car.
Anyone who’s in to their cars, no doubt owns something fairly recent, so ULEZ has no impact. Others need a car, and run something that’s legal and safe. A nurse, fireman, policeman or in fact anyone who has to work nightshifts, suddenly has had to pay £25 just to go to work for one shift. When I was in hospital in Chichester the staff didn’t believe what I was telling them regarding the charges. For some it would make going to work, too expensive.
I just googled “prevailing wind over London”, and apparently it’s south westerly, so at a guess I’d say the air was changed daily with that from the Atlantic. Maybe a ULEZ scheme would better serve Colchester,Cambridge and Norwich, which seems to be in the path of London’s exhaust.

[Grahamm]

Try looking at the history of the great London smogs, especially that of 1952 which was estimated by the government of the time to have killed at least 4,000 people, although later estimates reckon this could have been up to 10,000.

After that, the first Clean Air Act was passed which, of course, people and power station owners objected to because it meant they had to stop using cheap "nutty slack" and switch to "smokeless" fuels to heat their homes or generate electricity.

[robbo]

I don’t have to try looking at the history of London smogs as lived through them as born just after the war, living at Crystal Palace, where, due to the altitude above London, many asthmatics were recommended to live due to the normally clean air.
However when the winter weather conditions were “wrong” all the smoke from coal heated houses, the only alternative was paraffin, became trapped along with the smoke from trains , the majority being steamed powered. As you say, this resulted in the clean air act and the advent of smokeless fuel. The electrification of the train network also helped. I still maintain the worst air pollution areas in central London today is on the tube network, and for thousands it is their only viable means of transport or way of getting to work.
The introduction of ULEZ hasn’t improved air quality in the outer suburbs as it was more than acceptable before it’s introduction, but it has inflicted a lot of financial hardship on many people who are the ones least able to afford it.

[BBROWN1664]

I can honestly say i have never paid Khan a penny to go into the ULEZ zone and have no plans to pay the scumbag anything.

My son on the other had has paid to take my van in and the other son wanted dropping off at Theifrow last week so paid for my car to go in too.

[Grahamm]

A misinformation campaign about London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone is being led by a small but noisy group whose unscientific and unrepresentative views are being amplified by parts of the media. They are attempting to mislead the public by misrepresenting the threat from air pollution in London and the effectiveness of the ULEZ in combating this problem. Many of the proponents of this misinformation also have a track record of inaccurate claims about climate change.

The published evidence shows clearly that concentrations of air pollution have declined across London due to the ULEZ, but remain above the safe limits set by the World Health Organization.

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/...sion-zone/

[robbo]

I can honestly say i have never paid Khan a penny to go into the ULEZ zone and have no plans to pay the scumbag anything.

My son on the other had has paid to take my van in and the other son wanted dropping off at Theifrow last week so paid for my car to go in too.

Keep it up, that’s good going. In the 14 months that it affected me, I only got caught out once, by a newly installed camera that was chopped down the same afternoon, but had to pay four times to attend funeral,MOT etc, so less than £65.  I only succumbed to a change of car due to earache from the Mrs, who didn’t enjoy the convoluted camera dodging trips to Tescos or negotiating the narrow lanes out to the M25. 
I doubt if any consideration was given for those like yourself that live outside the zone, but still suffer the consequences on their work commute, visiting their doctor, dentist etc. Quite possibly when the ULEZ/LEZ income drops to a certain level as motorists, for whatever reason, change to compliant vehicles, we’ll have pay per mile to look forward to.

[fazerscotty]

As a country bumpkin, with the advent of ULEZ zones around the country (Bristol & Birmingham spring to mind), I have started plotting my routes on Google Maps to ensure that I am not paying into a scheme that is clearly there to punish the workers etc that cannot upgrade their cars to the latest model.
My main reason for doing this is when I see the numbers of public buses, all way past their sell by date, pumping out clouds of pollutants and/or sitting in bus stops with the engine idling (yes, even with a sign on the bus stop saying "no running engines", I start to wonder who is actually paying attention to pollution - the various local authorities who are using it to "tax" motorists who need to travel, but then exclude their own fleets of vehicles.
On a recent trip to Birmingham to see Dr Feelgood, the sat nav route wanted to take me through the centre of the cities exclusion zone. So I went the long way, which was quicker, involved less traffic and didn't cost me a bean in "tax".
Maybe that should be the way forward, to encourage drivers & riders to plan their route better, to take into account the clogged city roads.
So in a nutshell, I feel sorry for the people who have become trapped, getting taxed more for their everyday existence, but I will not be visiting anywhere, that I cannot get to, without paying an additional tax, because I cannot afford to buy a new car.

[Grahamm]

Here's how the Portsmouth Clean Air Zone works:

https://cleanerairportsmouth.co.uk/charges/

No "punishment", just less pollution.

[agricola]

Be interesting to see, if and when the scheme has achieved its objective ie air quality at acceptable levels, whether the scheme would then be withdrawn. I would suggest not, as that would leave a huge black hole in the authority's finances. According to TFL, emission levels have reduced significantly since the schemes introduction, but interestingly, does not say whether iy now complies with the relevant guidelines.

[robbo]

Here's how the Portsmouth Clean Air Zone works:

https://cleanerairportsmouth.co.uk/charges/

No "punishment", just less pollution.

So doesn’t affect any privately owned car, van or motorcycle, and has no financial impact on local residents unless they drive professionally in some capacity………….so nothing like ULEZ. Just ran the plate of my perfectly good car that I was forced to get rid of, and there’s no charge for it to pollute Portsmouth. Clamping down on professionally used vehicles would have been a lot fairer, as Portsmouth has done.

[Grahamm]

Now factor in the relative sizes; London being over 25 times the size of Portsmouth.

Also Portsmouth only has just over 200,000 people compared to the 8.8 million or so in London.

[robbo]

According to Khans office, all the financial hardship that he has inflicted on vehicle owners is going to reward them with an extra 13 minutes of life, due to his implementation of ULEZ. Bearing in mind there was nothing wrong with the air quality, certainly in the southern suburbs, formerly Surrey and Kent, before the introduction of ULEZ. As far as I know the mayors office haven’t/won’t publish the one year on figures for those areas as it’s more than likely there’ll be no change. Regarding my extra 13 minutes, I’d rather have kept the money to pay for my funeral.?

[Grahamm]

I believe you mentioned that the prevailing wind is from the south west, so where would all the pollution from those suburbs go?

The less visible but equally toxic pollutants of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, benzines, and aldehydes continue to spoil London’s air. Traffic fumes and other exhausts are liable to become trapped between the surrounding hills and below a stagnant capping mass of warm urban air at an altitude of about 3,000 feet (900 meters), causing immediate increases in eye irritation, asthma, and bronchial complaints.

Britannica

[robbo]

I suppose, given the average wind speed over this part of the country is approx 10mph, then Dorset/Hampshires pollution will be over the North Sea around Grt.Yarmouth in about 24 hours, having combined with London's pollution. Not pleasant if you live north east of London I should imagine. I still maintain that the tube network, which is unique to London, is the main source of the
capitals pollution, and can understand people complaining of eye irritation and breathing problems.

[agricola]

I fear the nation is on a fast track to economic chaos, partly due to this fixation on net zero. Recently, we had two weeks without sunshine and wind, resulting in the nation having to import huge amounts of electrickery from overseas at inflated prices because we could not produce enough ourselves. Reliance on others in an unstable world is not a safe place to be. No doubt some of us have seen news regarding the latest COP fiasco, where the oil producers, and those that have huge amounts yet to explore, showed little sign of tailing back their plans. Why should they, its the source of their power, wealth, and influence. Followed on by news that the UK govt has decided on our behalf to give away tens of billions to other nations, most of whom are corrupt and will likely spend it on weapons/palaces/luxury vehicles etc, while forcing our own citizens to pay increasing taxes. Once the polar ice caps have melted sufficiently, the major players will be there too, while we hope for windy sunny days.

[Grahamm]

The future of Energy Storage from M.I.T.

[agricola]

The future of Energy Storage from M.I.T.

The intermittency of wind and solar generation and the goal of decarbonizing other sectors through electrification increase the benefit of adopting pricing and load management options that reward all consumers for shifting electricity uses with some flexibility away from periods when the balance between supply and demand is tight to periods of abundance. Advanced metering and behind the meter communications technologies make it feasible for state regulators to implement such strategies for residential and small commercial consumers.

The terminology here in this paragraph  from the above report, describes my concerns to a tee. Intermittent supply, unreliable and expensive storage, fluctuating consumer prices designed to constrict domestic usage, with regulators controlling your supply remotely.

[fazerscotty]

I fear the nation is on a fast track to economic chaos, partly due to this fixation on net zero. Recently, we had two weeks without sunshine and wind, resulting in the nation having to import huge amounts of electrickery from overseas at inflated prices because we could not produce enough ourselves. Reliance on others in an unstable world is not a safe place to be. No doubt some of us have seen news regarding the latest COP fiasco, where the oil producers, and those that have huge amounts yet to explore, showed little sign of tailing back their plans. Why should they, its the source of their power, wealth, and influence. Followed on by news that the UK govt has decided on our behalf to give away tens of billions to other nations, most of whom are corrupt and will likely spend it on weapons/palaces/luxury vehicles etc, while forcing our own citizens to pay increasing taxes. Once the polar ice caps have melted sufficiently, the major players will be there too, while we hope for windy sunny days.

I'm waiting for Starmer, the pensioner, farmer, United Kingdom harmer to give away the Falklands - there's a massive oil & gas field below it. Maggie knew it and was prepared to shed blood to defend it, however, give it away two tier Kier will just hand it over to the Argentinians in a blink.
I have seen a chart of Stalin's achievements - Starmer's already caught up with Stalin's list LOL.
When the current government talk about Net Zero - they actually mean that the UK will be worth NET ZERO

[Grahamm]

@fazerscotty

Remember the days when making a phone call on a landline cost less in the afternoon and even cheaper after 6pm or on weekends to encourage people not to use the system when it was busiest?

Supply is not necessarily "intermittent", nor will storage have to be "expensive and unreliable", what we need is a simple change of mindset in the way people use electricity.

It's similar to the way that people switching to EVs from petrol needed to change their way of thinking from "drive until the tank is nearly empty, then fill up" which caused them to complain that it took ages to charge their car back to full and, instead, drive half the distance, charge up so they have enough in the battery to get them to their destination with a safe margin, then charge up again whilst they're doing what they need to do after they arrive.