Contentious (to some) thread.. :)

[st4]

Spot on Oil reserves enough to last over 400 years, not accounting for new fields and re entering old fields with new drilling techniques.

Coal enough for at least 2500 years and you can make petrol and diesel from Coal as they do in South Africa.

Gas enough to last over 5000 years and you can make petrol and diesel from that as Shell do with there GTL process

Fossil fuels are here to stay so the greenies better get used to it, shame our government doesn't have the balls to promote it like the Aussies do

Hydrogen, electric cars, cars running on water what a load of tosh

Exactly, I do not care about carbon this and global that.

And even if it were to run out sooner, I would still want to use it up before other countries develop and want a slice of the action.

 

[Apial]

Id feel guity if I had bought any Hybrid or Electric car due to the amount of Toxic & harmful chemicals within the batteries and componants.

Maybe, but I'd feel richer!

Surely the battery has to be recycled and you can only lease the battery and not own it outright?

 

[Frankie]

I can't afford a V8/V12,I also don't see the logic in me buying a Prius that will probably fall apart after a few years. So instead of buying a new eco car every year or few years and causing more damage I'll only be using the same old car,I'll be chucking out clouds of noxious fumes but nowhere near what most people use in their daily routine.I only do a few thousand miles a year,then about 3,000 miles to and from Portugal each year as I don't fly.
Unless I win the lottery I plan on keeping the old girl pretty much forever,she's only going to get better the older she gets.

 

[hawk20]

But how will we manage without all the other basic things we take for granted that are made from oil?

The stone age never ended, that's a myth.

We won't run out of oil. As it gets scarcer it will get much dearer and then other fuels will replace it.

In addition we can make oil synthetically. Not that complex. We made it as far back as the second world war. And now there are bio-fuels as well.

 

[trando]

I don't think I have to justify my choice of car to anyone. Especially a bearded duffel-coat wearing vegetarian sporting bicycle clips, to pick a stereotype at random...

Cheers,

Gaz

Quite.

And when and if the fuel does run out, how guilty will all the non V8 drivers feel knowing that they never had the experience of driving an AMG in anger and never will...

I'll stick with mine thanks (12,000 miles a year).

Trando

 

[finisterre]

One point that perhaps should be mentioned.

Shortage of oil is not the problem, there is enough oil to coat the earth with a foot of slurry. If we had a million years of the stuff we would still need to moderate our consumption. The problem is freeing CO2 fifty thousand times as fast as it can be laid back down as oil bearing strata.

 

[flango]

One point that perhaps should be mentioned.

Shortage of oil is not the problem, there is enough oil to coat the earth with a foot of slurry. If we had a million years of the stuff we would still need to moderate our consumption. The problem is freeing CO2 fifty thousand times as fast as it can be laid back down as oil bearing strata.

Whats the problem with freeing the CO2? CO2 does not contribute to Global warming or climate change despite what the random scientsists and politicians say. I have never seen any data sets that support this theory but I have seen data sets from Antartic Ice cores that show increases in Global temperature preceed an Increase in Co2 levels not the other way around.

Lets not confuse oil consumption and running out of oil with all this Global warming b*llocks

 

[wemorgan]

Whats the problem with freeing the CO2? CO2 does not contribute to Global warming or climate change despite what the random scientsists and politicians say.

That arguement works in both directions

Whats the problem with freeing the CO2? CO2 does contribute to Global warming and climate change despite what the random forum members and politicians say

 

[tagnut]

CO2 does not contribute to Global warming or climate change

Err.....actually it does. CO2 in the atmosphere allows light energy from the sun through but absorbs some of the heat energy being dissipated from the Earth preventing it's escape in to space. A greater percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere will trap more of this heat and so increase global temperatures.

This is exactly the same way a greenhouse works hence the term greenhouse gas. Incidentally CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, methane, nitrous oxide and flourocarbons work in exactly the same way to varying degrees but CO2 is three times more prevalent than the others put together.

Greenhouse gases are essential as without them global temperatures would be over 30 degrees cooler but the more of them we have in the atmosphere the greater the effect on climate.

Although it is a mammoth task, I am somewhat surprised that scientists haven't yet come up with a method for capturing or expelling CO2 from the atmosphere rather than just trying to get everyone to stop creating it. With the current and forecast population of the Earth this just doesn't seem at all realistic to me.

 

[grober]

There is an existing highly efficient process capable of removing C02 from the atmosphere on a global scale -- its called photosynthesis. Photosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
6 CO2 + 6 H2O + photons[uv light] → 2(CH2O)n + 2n O2
carbon dioxide + water + light energy → carbohydrate + oxygen

Ironically its the very process which gave us the fossil fuels we burn in the first place.

Take all that carbohydrate [plant and animal tissue tissue] and remove the oxygen during the process of diagenesis as organic sediments are transformed into rock by heat and pressure.

CH2O - O2 = (CH2)n Hydrocarbons !!!


The problem lies with the fact that this process took place over millions of years and reversing the process which is essentially releasing the sun's chemically stored photosynthetic energy by burning these hydrocarbons to give H2O and CO2 is taking place over mere hundreds of years.

So its essentially a imbalance in rates of chemical reaction problem not helped by the depletion of vast areas of forests which can help reverse atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

 

[Scott_F]

25p a litre extra X 50 litres = £12.50

is not exactly conspicuous consumption.

x 52 weeks = £650 a year wasted that you could do a lot with.

 

[Scott_F]

Exactly, I do not care about carbon this and global that.

And even if it were to run out sooner, I would still want to use it up before other countries develop and want a slice of the action.

You'd want to use up the World's fossil reserves as quickly as possible in case developing nations, who have used relatively little of them, wanted a share too ??

That's the most amazing statement I've heard in a long time.

 

[martin_a]

That's the most amazing statement I've heard in a long time.

There are a number of them in this thread. Its to be expected.

Science has admitted the results of global warming etc were presented badly hence BBC iPlayer - Horizon: 2010-2011: Science Under Attack

m.

 

[DITTRICH]

Unsurprisingly, alot of Russians (my in laws), especially the ones in siberia, are in favour of global warming, largely because it gets very very cold in the winter at times. Admittedly, 2010 was a little too warm for comfort but they coped well enough. I personally do not lose any sleep over my carbon footprint which may well be larger than some. Driving is one of the things I enjoy and 6,000 miles each summer (35mpg c230k, 40mpg e300d) in europe is about right in my book. I do sometimes think about getting a more efficient diesel estate but am put off by ever complicated technology and yearn for simplicity.

 

[NormanC]

I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the possible safety benefits of larger engines.

I like to have a certain level of acceleration available just in case and I never feel really happy with the lower power that smaller engines give.

I know my Mexico is, by today's standards, low powered but it was a different matter when I bought it in 1972!!

 

[wemorgan]

I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the possible safety benefits of larger engines.

The counter argument to that is that more cylinders means a smaller crumple zone and therefore likely to have a higher deceleration pulse in the event of a crash. But if you're happy with a large engine car helping you avoid an accident, then fair enough

 

[AMG63Black]

err so I should feel guilty about putting the s/c on my black series?

 

[Howard]

Yes , go and whip yourself !

 

[gina2201]

I don't quite get why hit the big engined cars hardest. What if I drive it weekends only? What about those that drive an older less efficient car many more miles a week? Makes no sense to me...

 

[bpsorrel]

Unsurprisingly, alot of Russians (my in laws), especially the ones in siberia, are in favour of global warming, largely because it gets very very cold in the winter at times. Admittedly, 2010 was a little too warm for comfort but they coped well enough. I personally do not lose any sleep over my carbon footprint which may well be larger than some. Driving is one of the things I enjoy and 6,000 miles each summer (35mpg c230k, 40mpg e300d) in europe is about right in my book. I do sometimes think about getting a more efficient diesel estate but am put off by ever complicated technology and yearn for simplicity.

Are you likely to be driving around Russia this summer? If so, and you feel like a drive to Vladimir, let me know! We could meet for a drink!