Never say never 
They would have to change to the British Many Isles, the United Kingdom would be really stretching it a bit.
1 Like
Has any heard of the calculations/speculations moving that amount of water from the poles would do to earths orbit?
Yep, think you a right but not for domestic vehicles and probably not for lorries either, very large specialist machines maybe. Legislation will simply stop domestic ICE transport.
Only around 35% of total refinery production is for fuel.
Presumably synthetic lubes could replace dinosaur juice? No more valesine, just imagine.
Very little I would imagine since it would not alter the total mass of the Earth.
It might, I suppose, alter the precession or tiny wobble as the Earth spins as the mass would have a very slight change in distribution.
1 Like
We could use bacon grease instead. 
1 Like
Opening the Panama canal shifted the earth a lttle so they said on a documentary.
Never heard of that one, as an aside, one of my favourite photos of the canal, the USS Iowa was a very tight fit and the reason they were built that size.
1 Like
I guess a part in a gazillion change could be calculated, adding or subtracting a microsecond a year from the time it takes to orbit the sun, or a nanosecond or several from the length of a day - but I suspect it won’t make a significant change in my lifetime.
The Earth is not a constant weight anyway - some 55,000 tonnes on average is lost to space each year, since the canal opened about 10% of the weight of the water contained within it. However, as I said, the orbital mechanics is largely determined by the total mass which isn’t changed by either the Panama canal or the icecaps melting.
Global warming on a massive scale is anticipated in geologic time - the sun’s core is not massive enough for the radiation of photons to overcome gradual gravitational collapse as helium (produced from the sun’s nuclear reactions) sinks to the centre, so the core is gradually expanding and the sun’s luminosity with it. In 1 billion years the luminosity will be 10% higher than it is now, the surface temperature of the Earth will exceed about 47°C and we will be at the tipping point where the oceans evaporate - whatever mankind does (well, maybe by then we’ll have built a solar shield).
EV’s and Brexit might be fixed by then as well , I’m joking 
1 Like
EV’s yes.
Brexit? No chance 
2 Likes
EV’s in Germany are an example of how this could be the next dieselgate type environmental disaster. It takes 30,000 miles for an EV powered by the level of mixed renewable and fossil fuel production of electricity found in the UK to break even on it’s environmental impact ( as a result of production) versus an ICE vehicle. In Germany, the majority of electricity is generated using brown coal, which is extremely dirty and a very poor quality compared to anthracite. The environmental payback of an EV in Germany will never happen in the life of the car- it’s better for the environment to drive a ICE vehicle.
That is a very big statement, infrastructure projects and especially in the EU are driving the change to decarbonise. 30,000 miles or 3-4 years out of an average life span of 150,000 miles these days. With the exception of the tory government green power is way cheaper than other forms and battery storage is key and improving. Yes some way to go but what is your solution, Just keep burning stuff?
Its also not just about decarbonisation, particulates from ICE engines are bad for us.
I suspect that anyone living in close proximity to a busy road will disagree with that statement. There is a direct relationship between bad air quality & increased cases of asthma, as well as many other maladies.
Even if climate change & air quality weren’t an issue, isn’t it nice to have quieter traffic?
Not for the hard of hearing its not .
All that happens, is a greater amount of pollutants are produced but displaced to the area the power is generated. So air quality in towns improves but overall air quality continues to get worse
1 Like
That is so historic an argument, hard to believe its still going around. Yes we did very bad things years ago but we have the oportuninty and the need to change and thats what is happening. To continue to pursue bad ideas is pathetic. Your argument settled on 30,000 miles, so we ignore the other 120,000 of motoring beyond that except thats an ICE range, EV’s currently still doing 500,000 miles.
I can see its pointless to continue this discusion
No point in insulating your home and reducing energy. No point to doing anything.
1 Like
More efficient burning of stuff would be better in the short term. Battery cars are significantly heavier than ICE cars, so heavier wear on brakes and tyres generates considerably more micro particles at junctions etc, which gets breathed in and causes respiratory problems. Just forcing people to ditch their means of transport and buy electric cars, without the charging infrastructure and no suitable alternative public transport network isn’t the answer. Solar and wind generation of electricity is no good for a society that demands electricity 24/7 whatever the weather, so until a consistent source of electricity, through Nuclear, can replace that currently generated by fossil fuels, electric cars will not be a viable or affordable alternative for the majority of people.
1 Like