The real Green Agenda Part 2

If you haven't read part 1 you can find it here

https://goodf.forumotion.com/t5414-the-real-green-agenda-part-1#36824

Following on from part one we have the allegedly polluting cars, but really how much pollution do they produce, actually very little compared to electric cars as the only survey which looked at total lifecycle emissions in 2012 drew up a list of polluters, the least polluting cars were classic cars as they were generally decades old, used a lot of secondhand and refurbished components and they were actually repairable and didn't use the throw away components if today. Our second least polluter was the traditional 4X4 and not the modern SUV which is little more than a jacked up saloon car, so why? because they had a very long life span, used a lot of secondhand or reconditioned components, and were often designed to be worked on and be repairable almost anywhere; the survey also found that building a large 4X4 consumed 10% more components and used 10% more energy to build than a small city car, but had a lifespan of three times longer than the same city car, so you are building three cars to every one true 4X4, interesting. 4X4's had an interesting end of life as unlike most cars they were often not scrapped, but broken for components as many were in demand due to the durability of their components and their ability to be reeconditioned and used again.
Bottom of the list and the worst polluter in total lifecycle emissions were electric cars; yes electric cars, so why? even small electric cars were extremely heavy for their size, they used carbon steels for their bodies to strengthen them for the additional weight and to counter this additional weight they used many components designed for Transit sized vans, they used rare earths for the motors, large quantities of lithium, carbon and copper for their batteries, and they could (and still can) only recycle three of the batteries major components economically so they were dumping the rest of the battery in third world countries.
Batteries were being constructed in countries such as China with no Health and Safety, where they were disposing of waste products directly into rivers, and this exposure to battery products was reducing the lifes of the people building them to a maximum of 10 years in the industry, therefore a man at 30 years old begins building batteries, he is unlikely to see his 40th birthday and this raises the question of are you prepared to kill people for your electric car. Pollution from these rivers was causing contamination problems as far away as 150 miles from the pollution source as crops were being killed, livestock was being killed, and crops were heavily contaminated by the pollutants from this battery manufacture and this polluted food had been proven to be highly cancerous to those eating it and drinking water from these rivers, along with fish and wildlife nearly extinct due solely to the pollution created from building batteries for electric cars.

Governments were all proclaiming private vehicles were the largest polluters, particularly from traffic congestion, so the obvious question is who is responsible for this congestion? SAR's sent to many authorities showed that many councils had introduced deliberate traffic congestion creation schemes designed to create congestion so the councils themselves were creating this congestion. Interestingly, one report from a recognised reputable source provided data which showed that modern diesel engined cars were actually absorbing dirtier air into their engines than they emitted from their exhausts, so basically these diesel engines were cleaning the air of congested city centres and interestingly this was never mentioned on the news, I wonder why.
Car sales surveys showed that 65% of all cars sold were company cars and the remaining 35% were private cars so does anyone actually believe their claims of private cars being responsible for city centre pollution, the factual evedence shows differently.

However, at the same time many city centres were undergoing huge redevelopments and old industrial buildings and shops were being turned into large appartment complexes and the living density was massively rising as an old industrial site with 50 workers was turned onto a complex of 100 appartments, these all need electricity and gas, water and sewage, and parking for at least one car and councils greed allowed this to go on (and its still going on) and population density figures were often rising from around 40 people per acre to in excess of 250 people per acre. These people need amenities and if they don't have them, a car or public transport to get to them. They build on any land they can get and with more cars in a city centre and much fewer green spaces (most have been built on) who else can be blamed other than councils as they approve planning permission and often sell the green spaces to developers.

Its classic deflection, councils knowingly create the problem and make other scapegoats for their ineptitude and failings.

Currently we have four fuel sources for cars we have petrol, diesel, gas, and electric and each has a use and for many older people an electric car would be ideal and a diesel car would be ideal for those working and covering large mileages like myself when I was doing 80,000 business miles per annum, petrol is ideal for those covering inbetween mileages and gas conversions were often undertaken on large petrol cars and large petrol 4X4's, so gas conversions were automatically cheaper and a 4.2L petrol Range Rover converted to gas was polluting less than an average petrol city car.
This wasn't enough and the Government introduced bio element to diesel and it was claimed to be 7% bio element but in reality the bio element was scarce and expensive to produce and testing showed an average of 2.1% was actually bio element and the wording of Government stated "up to 7% bio element" so in reality if it has any bio element in it diesel could be classed as bio element diesel and it was heavily marketed as such. Petrol was also introduced with a bio element and E5 petrol was introduced, this contained up to 5% alcohol dreived from food crops which immediately meant a world short of food was having food crops taken from eating to be turned into bio element alcohol for petrol and this caused a lot of problems for a small number of vehicles. However, things got worse with the planned introduction of E10 petrol which introduced 10% alcohol into petrol; E5 was below the "yield point" which meant petrol behaved like petrol and anything above around 6.5% alcohol means the petrol performs differently, alcohol actually burns quicker than petrol, it degrades and rots aluminium and rubber components such as fuel hoses and it alters the combustion characteristics of the engine by having two explosions at different times in the combustion chamber, it also has a life of around 3 weeks and it is hygroscopic which means it absorbs water. Now we had petrol which altered combustion characteristics, a short tank life, and petrol which absorbs water.
Government claims were that E10 would affect less than 100,000 older cars, RAC testing and figures showed this to be in excess of 750,000 cars and not all old cars, Government also claimed it would not affect new cars, RAC figures showed that two year old cars were affected and this included poor running and starting, fuel filters blocked (and full of water) and the degredation of internal aluminium components causing major repairs of over £1000 for many newer car owners and extremely poor fuel consumption.
Their best claims are brilliant, they claimes
that motorists would lose 1-2% of their economy while the RAC testing showed an average fuel consumption increase of 15% across the board and this is a huge margin, so the motorist would be buying 15% more fuel to cover the same mileage, so much for reducing environmental emissions and the irony isn't lost on me. neither is the fact that over 80% of the fuel price is tax of some sort and 89% of what you pay goes directly to the Government in tax so more fuel usage means more tax in the Governments coffers, no wonder Sunak froze fuel duty as he is getting more to fill the covid depleted coffers.

Next we can move to the vegetarian diets being promoted and the drive to cut meat consumption to cut the number of beasts for food, apparently this cut out the farting of cows which has an impact on the environment so how did they do this, did they appoint a cow fart counter and was he/she classed as a civil servant, I wouldn't like them coming home to me. Actually, like anything else they cannot produce any prima facie evidence to support their claims other than "estimates from" XYZ, so merely undocumented and unproven opinion then, some things never change.

Now we get the real scam, our heating systems and the fact the Government are claiming we all have to go onto heat pumps, do we really, yes, but you can get up to £5000 as a Government grant or is that a taxpayer grant. If we give this some context we see that during covid we were all encouraged to go out every Thursday night and clap for the NHS staff, but why when they are doing there jobs and getting paid when many people were losing their jobs; in my opinion it was just a heap PR stunt and nothing more because they costed a bonus scheme for NHS workers which was valued at £1B and Government said they couldn't afford it. Yet, they can afford to allocate £11.8B in grants for heat pump grants and many people had them installed and over 50% according to official fugures, wish they hadn't as they were rife with problems. I have one of the countries leading heating system designers in my corner as our expert and these are her findings which are based upon real figures.
First we have the sales people who state "this is the sixe of the unit we fit in these houses" and this highlights the first problem, you have to match the pump to the system as gas boilers provide hot water of around 85 deg C to the radiators, heat pumps only provide water at around 45 deg C and this means your house never gets hot, one of her largest munbers of complaints, she highlighted the flow and return rates and working temperature as the problems with a mismatched pump. She claims for a heat pump to be installed to an existing water based system you have to make other upgrades, you have to remove all your existing radiators and have at least 50% bigger radiators, 100% bigger is better.
She also claims the system also depends on the pipe size and the standard copper pipe size was originally 15mm, but if you have three or more radiators running off a 15mm pipe then the pipe isn't large enough to cope with the required flow and you need the larger 22 or 28mm pipe installing, so basically you tear out a perfectly good heating system which works and you are starting again. If you have a newer and modern house they used smaller 10mm copper pipe located behind the dot and dab plasterboard and this also has to be removed so huge amounts of work and mess and expense.
Next is the pump itself, only Mitsubishi and Star heat pumps are reliable and the most common type installed is Samsung as installers get huge bulk discounts on them and they are notoriously troublesome. If the heat pump is installed outside on the ground both the ground itself and the heat pump freezes and while this isn't a major problem it exacerbates another problem, NOISE, they have two fans running continually and if this is attached to an outside wall of a semi detached house the sound ransmits through the wall and keeps you and your neighbours awake and this is a huge problem. Some people she has visited have moved house due to this low frequency humming which is around 50db, ambient daytime noise is around 60-65db and you don't notice the noise but at night this ambient background noise drops to around 30-35db and a system running at around 50db keeps you awake and is immediately noticeable. Ice build up makes them even louder.

Her opinion is that the only effective way for air source heat pumps to work is with underfloor blown air and this is an issue as many had bitumen floors and to install the ducting you have to cut through this sealing bitumen and this renders the house unsound as ground water seeps up and rots the timbers, so huge and expensive structural repairs to look forwards to in the future, is it insured against, not by the installers.

Costs: in her expert opinion replacing a good gas heating system in an average 3 bedroom semi would cost around the £20-25K mark for a reliable and trouble free system, your £5K grant doesn't nearly cover the costs at all, at best they cover 25% and you have to find the additional £15K yourself, and this assumes your house is already well insulated, if not its an additional cost and you simply don't recoup these costs in the lifecycle of the heat pump. Heating costs have risen by up to 45% over the old system is another common complaint and this is due to the cost of the electricity required to drive the system as during cold weather the system compensates by using electricity to provide the heat. In her expert opinion it would often be cheaper to forget the heat pumps and install quality electrically powered storage heaters instead and run on an economy tariff.

Ground source or air source? have you got a garden which can have 2-3 metre deep trenches dug and with sufficient ground to bury sufficient pipes in enough quantity to provide heat, in her opinion its ground source every time for domestic applications, but again this requires additional digging works in your garden and it needs to be large enough to get a mini digger in and have enough room to store the excavated soil while the pipes are buried and this adds an average £7k to your £20K bill. In her expert opinion this is the better and more reliable system for domestic use in most cases, but live in an appartment block on the third floor with no garden and its air source only, its expense, and its numerous problems.

In her opinion the only real use for air source heat pumps is for commercial buildings as they can be mounted on the roof and away from houses, they are then accessible for the regular maintenance works and breakdowns, or they can be mounted in plant rooms for hospitals or industrial premises which can be sound insulated.

How do they work? in reality they do not heat a house and they merely provide a small heat output to maintain heat; this means if you go out and return late and your property is cold you can turn gas heating up and your house is warm in 10-15 minutes with gas central heating and when it reaches its temperature the thermostat turns the heating off until it drops by a few degrees and kicks back in again to maintain your heat. You cannot do this with heat pumps as they work by providing a low heat 24/7 and are merely only topping up heat, you caannot return late in autumn and turn the heat up as it works flat our 24/7 just to maintain heat and to raise heat to a comfortable temperature may take several days. She like many people, turns her heat down at night as she likes it cooler for sleeping in and when she gets up in the morning she turns the heat up, you cannot do this with heat pumps.

What are the common denominators here? you pay pay pay.
Lets ask the question again, we are governed by CONSENT and where did the Government ask for our consent.

Did they ask the working single parent who can only afford a cheap car to get her to work for her consent?
Did they ask you as a couple if they couls spend £27,000 of your money and then give you £5K back as a grant to move to a heat pump and have a worse heating system which doesn't heat your home?
Did they ask you if they could raise your petrol or diesel bill and cost you more to go to work or the shops if you are elderly or disabled? 20% of the UK population is actually registered as disabled.
Did they ask for your consent to raise fuel prices which raise your prices of food and anything travelling by road or boat?
Did they ask for your consent to put you into poverty?


So, lets put this totally into perspective, official figures show the UK produces less than 1% of the worlds emissions and if we reach the Governments target of net zero carbon emissions what effect will it really have, in reality none, now consider that China alone is bringing 100 new coal fired power stations on stream in 2022 and just one of them will negate the entire pollution savings of Europe, so in reality it is merely another huge scam designed to make you spend money or put you into debt and as most people already know, debt is control.