navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address - following recent spam/hack attempts on the forum, all security is set to "high", and "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: No need for an EV. Problem solved with Carbon Neutral Fuel  (Read 1033 times)
phoooby
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« on: October 28, 2019, 07:55:38 PM »

Heard the tail end of a radio advert for this so looked it up on the net when I got home. My word, and people complain about "green energy" suppliers. This takes it to a new level. Encourages more inaction for a few more years so we can all keep going about business as usual in out ICE cars.

https://www.goplus.shell.com/en-gb/promotion/1801?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=textad&utm_campaign=SHELL_RETAIL_UK_LOYALTY_LOYALTY_OTH_Search_Google_Brand_BMM_NBS_Core

Why make any meaningful changes to your lifestyle which might involve some effort or compromise when you can just pay to pollute.
Logged

10.2kw Solar Edge PV. Tesla PW2, Myenergi Zappi and Eddi
Nissan Leaf 24 (gone)
Tesla Model S
Nissan env-200
88k ev miles and rising
6kw WBS
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5108



« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2019, 08:01:43 AM »

Can I play Devil's Advocate here.

First, I agree with you, we need to call out delaying tactics that suggest the status quo is fine, as many of these are designed to prevent or delay real change, such as 'clean coal', or FF based CCS, even nuclear if it's done instead of RE, or to delay RE.

But, if we assume that the shift to BEV's won't be delayed by this action (by Shell) - and I admit that's a dodgy assumption, but prices and supply constraint are the main problems today - then at least a scheme like this has some benefits.

But (another but) my first thought was, if one does it, then let's make all of them do it, and that should result in an increase in cost (even if they try to absorb it). Any increase in cost will have a small impact on consumption, reducing it a bit, but more importantly helping to increase the economic argument for a BEV.

Please don't think I'm supporting FF's, Shell, or ICEV's, just speculating if something like this could fund some off-set, and help the shift away from ICEV's?

Ohhh, last thought, a compulsory off-set would work on a national basis, making it easier to deploy, than international policies, though I appreciate that in/on border areas you might see some cross shopping if the price difference was significant.
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
RIT
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2063


« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2019, 10:17:49 AM »

The UK has 30m odd ICE cars on the road that are not going anywhere until they are scrapped which will mean 10+ years worth of usage for each one. So any process that makes them more Carbon 'neutral' is a step in the right direction.

As for Shell's offering, it all reads as great marketing and spin, but I'm not sure it will deliver much as it will only cover fuel purchased by an op-ed in fleet card, at Shell stations, for the next year.
Logged

2.4kW PV system, output can be seen at  - https://pvoutput.org/list.jsp?userid=49083

Why bother? - well, there is no planet B
Bodidly
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1527



« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2019, 01:05:14 PM »

It doesn't seem the worst idea in the world.

I use a pickup for work. We are many years from having an electric option so being able to offset is better than nothing. Think I would rather do this off my own back than trust Shell to do it for me though  Smiley
Logged
Philip R
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1502


« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2019, 01:24:58 AM »

I have doubts about the whole idea of carbon offsetting, especially by people like Elton John when he uses his private plane, he should use an economical car instead to travel to the South of France or wherever he hangs out.
If Shell start such a scheme, then I have less of a problem because they are an energy company and they pollute and make no lies about it. So anything they do however small , hopefully is a step in the right direction.
Philip R
Logged
gravyminer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 443



« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2019, 10:41:01 AM »

While the idea is a bit of greenwash PR,  I am in favour of oil companies paying for trees to be planted anywhere and everywhere.
I dont know how they calculate the offset, probably over the projected lifetime of the tree but its a good start.

I recently read Chris Martensons assessment of our prospects for moving away from hydrocarbons and its not pretty -

https://www.peakprosperity.com/getting-real-about-green-energy/

I have followed Chris' progress from high finance to self sufficiency/community building,  for many years and he has a wealth of useful information that he shares freely.
Logged

gravyminer
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!