[alancalverd]

If we do change to EV (or whatever) people will still spend money on cars.

And for the foreseeable future, EVs will be powered by fossil fuel (via the electricity grid) when the wind doesn't blow. The problem the motor industry faces right now is that cars are just too damn reliable - 150,000  miles for a petrol engine, twice that for a diesel. So you have to persuade people to buy new cars for a different reason. Beware of capitalism in green clothing!

If we don't introduce new standards/ paradigms for vehicles, people will still spend money on cars.

Another part of the problem. Compare the footprint of a modern Mini with the original. Whatever the name of the car, it has got bigger and heavier every year, and the average size of all new cars has increased.

It's worth looking at Riversimple to see how a really novel paradigm (the first "inorganic" road vehicles were battery electric!) produces a smaller. lighter vehicle, but it runs on hydrogen, not  a battery. That's the sensible future for road and rail transport - and possibly for aircraft too.

[paul cotter]

Aircraft? hmm, i'm doubtful. A quick mental calculation tells me about 40Mw would be needed for a current size 737( I could be out on this as it's a mental calculation and the old brain is not as good as it used to be ). "field emission from carbon fibres", that' a new one to me, I must investigate it. And thanks again.

[Bored chemist]

As the population of a country expands then the requirement to feed, house and transport more people increases proportionally..

With regards co2 an efficient mass transit system in all major up areas(which would have come in at under the cost of hs2) , better insulated houses and more locally produced food may reduce co2 emissions.

Yes, But Alan thinks waiting for people to die is the solution

[Bored chemist]

And for the foreseeable future

There is none so blind as him who will not (for)see.

[Bored chemist]

Another part of the problem. Compare the footprint of a modern Mini with the original. Whatever the name of the car, it has got bigger and heavier every year, and the average size of all new cars has increased.

Which is the bigger vote winner a "big car tax" or a "big family tax"?

If you think it's the second, have a look at the pushback that such a policy produced in China.

[alancalverd]

Aircraft? hmm, i'm doubtful. A quick mental calculation tells me about 40Mw would be needed for a current size 737( I could be out on this as it's a mental calculation and the old brain is not as good as it used to be ).

Probably correct, but not a problem. The energy density of hydrogen is pretty much the same as gasoline or jet fuel. Not sure about 737 just yet but smaller twin and 4-engine hydrogen-electroprop aircraft have already flown.

[alancalverd]

Yes, But Alan thinks waiting for people to die is the solution

They die all the time - about 1,000,000 per year in the UK. No intervention needed.

[alancalverd]

Which is the bigger vote winner a "big car tax" or a "big family tax"?

Not sure whether it applies to cars, but vans and trucks are taxed by width in Japan. I'm no keener on taxes than anyone else, but my scheme isn't based on tax. 

[Bored chemist]

Yes, But Alan thinks waiting for people to die is the solution

They die all the time - about 1,000,000 per year in the UK. No intervention needed.

No, but as you say, it takes half a century to fix the problem in the fastest possible case.
We don't have that long.

my scheme isn't based on tax.

Government benefit payments can be treated as negative tax.
Also, the money for them comes from taxes.

[alancalverd]

No, but as you say, it takes half a century to fix the problem in the fastest possible case.
We don't have that long.

The benefits begin immediately and things just keep getting better. "We" is the UK population, and we are in less of a hurry than others.  Some may do likewise, the rest are doomed anyway.

Government benefit payments can be treated as negative tax.
Also, the money for them comes from taxes.

So you have rejected both positive and negative taxes, and accuse me of wanting to do nothing. Perhaps you are advocating an imaginary solution?

The money paid under my scheme is money saved by the reduction in child support (health, education....) expenditure.

[Bored chemist]

So you have rejected both positive and negative taxes

No, I have advocated one.
But not the one you favour.

Which is the bigger vote winner a "big car tax" or a "big family tax"?

The benefits begin immediately and things just keep getting better.

Very slowly.

[acsinuk (OP)]

The problem with hydrogen gas is it cannot be compressed into liquid form and aircraft cannot carry huge tanks of compressed gas. Forming hydrogen from electrolysis as aircraft fuel is totally inefficient and what would you do with the carbon left over inside the plane??  I agree that city EV's should be mini or micro size vehicles which can be charged at home.

Getting back to root cause of this post;. Having identified that the global warming problem really is caused by global population increase we need to make a positive plan to correct the situation by assisting expanding countries to reduce their population growths.
The UN should be in the lead but not sure when they will respond with a plan.   

[paul cotter]

The reality with all these propositions is that they require concerted global action. I say that this has never happened and never will happen. Human nature is such that even if such a plan was proposed some nations will feel disadvantaged and refuse to agree, whatever is proposed. Also it would require responsible leadership in all countries, just look at current world leaders! I don't want to depress anyone with my cynicism but I think it is important to be truthful and realistic.

[alancalverd]

The problem with hydrogen gas is it cannot be compressed into liquid form

Pity NASA and ROSCOSMOS don't know that.

and aircraft cannot carry huge tanks of compressed gas.

pity Piper don't know that https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210401-the-worlds-first-commercial-hydrogen-plane

Forming hydrogen from electrolysis as aircraft fuel is totally inefficient

not a problem if you have surplus wind-generated electricity and no other way to store  the energy in a useable form

and what would you do with the carbon left over inside the plane??

Please explain! 2H₂ + O₂ → 2H₂O + heat,  with no carbon involved, IIRC.

[alancalverd]

The reality with all these propositions is that they require concerted global action.

Only if you want to solve a global problem.

As I  see it, whatever we do will not prevent much of the world becoming very unpleasant and inimical to human life in the next 100 years, and remaining so for about 1000 years.

What can be done, however, is to make human life pleasant and indefinitely sustainable in a few places like the British Isles, and I can see no reason not to do so.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: acsinuk on Today at 10:26:39
The problem with hydrogen gas is it cannot be compressed into liquid form
Pity NASA and ROSCOSMOS don't know that.

I'm pretty sure that NASA knows what the critical temperature of hydrogen is.
So they don't even try to compress hydrogen to make it a liquid; they cool it.

Only if you want to solve a global problem.

Like a rise in sea levels or changes in climate or even too much CO2 in the air.

Do you have a plan  a "Big, beautiful wall" to keep the atmosphere out??

I heard about some guy who said he would do that...

[alancalverd]

Why do you want to keep the atmosphere out of the British Isles?

I don't foresee global CO2 reaching a toxic concentration (around 3%) the next billion years or so. The animals that remove vegetation will all have died from heat exhaustion long before that happens.

[alancalverd]

they cool it.

An efficient way of compressing some gases into a smaller, denser volume..

If the hydrogen feed to the process is provided at comparatively low pressure, the first step of the process is pre-compression.

The ignorance of the Royal Society of Chemistry must be an embarrassment  to you.

[paul cotter]

Electrolysis can be reasonably efficient and if one has a source of energy it can be practical. However the problems with hydrogen are (1) metal embrittlement, (2) loss through diffusion and (3) low volumetric efficiency. I have seen some daft ideas using sodium borohydride or some borane as a hydrogen carrier-way too expensive to compete. Ammonia is the best bet, imho.

[Petrochemicals]

Aircraft? hmm, i'm doubtful. A quick mental calculation tells me about 40Mw would be needed for a current size 737( I could be out on this as it's a mental calculation and the old brain is not as good as it used to be ).

Probably correct, but not a problem. The energy density of hydrogen is pretty much the same as gasoline or jet fuel. Not sure about 737 just yet but smaller twin and 4-engine hydrogen-electroprop aircraft have already flown.

Depends on what you mean, by volume hydrogen is not great, by weight it's fantastic, ideal for aircraft, but the reason they use diesel is because it doesn't go pop easily.