Fri 14 Jul 2017 11:52PM

We've agreed to ban petrol and diesel. But what do we replace them with? And how?

SD Suzie Dawson Public Seen by 129

We have agreed to create a policy to follow France in banning petrol and diesel.
Now the question is: what do we replace them with, what are the particulars of our policy, and how do we phase out the use of fossil fuels?



Tane Harre Sat 15 Jul 2017 2:00AM

Actually France only says ban petrol and diesel cars which makes the whole thing a lot easier. There are certain types of vehicle where diesel especially might still be needed (eg; trucks, heavy machinery, shipping...).

Possibly not, but there isn't current tech to cover those areas whereas there is current tech to remove fossil fuels from personal vehicles except maybe by natural gas powered engines.

Assuming that. We replace them with electricity.

IMO this would require
* Upgrading the grid.
* Mass uptake of solar.
* Manapouri to feed the grid.
* Natural gas turbine stations (unused hopefully) for energy supply security.

Helpful stuff would be
* Improved electric public transport.
* Improved electric heavy rail links.


Suzie Dawson Sat 15 Jul 2017 2:22AM

you are a walking encyclopaedia @taneharre and I love it :)


Fred Look Sun 16 Jul 2017 12:41AM

funnily enough the impact on the grid could be the exact opposite,

it would become largely redundant!
this because the storage capacity required for all these vehicles could be harnessed to provide peak smoothing and allow for distributed generation
with sufficient battery capacity (a prerequisite for transport) solar and wind is viable and grid capacity only needs to be average power ie several orders of magnitude less than current peak


Colin Smith Sat 15 Jul 2017 10:59PM

Information from Ecotricity NZ on the manufacture of Lithium Ion Batteries.


David Sutton Sun 16 Jul 2017 10:12AM

What do we replace petrol and diesel with?

Imagine if a power source existed that was abundant, efficient, clean, safe, had a small carbon footprint, didn't create toxic wastes with horrible military uses, and worked day and night in all seasons. Such a technology could make a vast number of changes to how we live, and our planet could finally start to recover from the devastation humanity has inflicted on it. The desert could be greened through desalination. Potable water could be provided for people who do not have it now. Billions could have washing machines for the first time--imagine the human productivity and environmental benefits unleashed by that alone. Recycling of all sorts would become viable--think less large scale mining. Liquid fuels could be synthesized from the carbon dioxide dissolved in the sea, which would in effect be petrol without a fossil carbon footprint. So banning petrol would be unnecessary.

Suppose you were to learn that such a power technology was already developed and proven in the last century, but was abandoned for political reasons.

I invite readers to put aside their taboos around the N-word and to inform themselves about Thorium-fuelled Molten Salt Reactors. Here is a good starting point: http://thoriumremix.com/2016/ . Warning: the video linked there is 6.5 hours long. It is worth every minute. (If you jump over to YouTube, you will find it has a table of contents with links to the major sections. Also try speeding it up if you are short of time.)

If this technology is for real, and was widely developed, the main thing that politics would have to achieve would be to keep it under the control of we-the-people and not corporates. Ponder that.


Colin England Sun 16 Jul 2017 10:36PM

If this technology is for real

It's not:

Myths and Misconceptions about Thorium nuclear fuel
Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option
Quoting that Guardian article:

But even were its commercial viability established, given 2010's soaring greenhouse gas levels, thorium is one magic bullet that is years off target. Those who support renewables say they will have come so far in cost and efficiency terms by the time the technology is perfected and upscaled that thorium reactors will already be uneconomic. Indeed, if renewables had a fraction of nuclear's current subsidies they could already be light years ahead.

Basically, renewables are it.


David Sutton Sun 16 Jul 2017 10:56PM

Hi Colin, it's easy to cast an idea aside without much thought based on a quick search. I'd really appreciate some comments about the link I posted. The Guardian, not so much. I challenge you to give it an hour of your time without preconception.


Colin England Sun 16 Jul 2017 11:04PM

I've looked into it for several years and it all comes down to: It's possible but not yet.

We have renewables now and they don't have all the problems of nuclear power and their economics make out better.

You seem to be the one dismissing the evidence without thought.


David Sutton Sun 16 Jul 2017 11:09PM

At least we can agree it is for real then, and it's just down to timing.


Colin England Sun 16 Jul 2017 11:23PM

We can agree that it's possible. If it's economically viable is another question and from what I've read it's isn't when compared to renewables.

Load More