Any YIMBYs on here? Keir Starmer is.......

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, saveasteading said:

Fires need oxygen 

Lithium batteries are not pure lithium in its metallic form.  Then there is the graphite, manganese, cobalt or phosphorus anode.

Typical chemistries are:

 

LiCoO₂

LiFePO₄

LiMn₂O₄

Li₂MnO₃

(LiNiMnCoO₂

 

It is the last molecule that is important as it has oxygen attached.

Oxygen is a tart of an element and will easy swap to the hottest element available, so it may not need free oxygen in the air to sustain a fire.

1 hour ago, saveasteading said:

So on balance good? 

Yes, how many cars have we seen explode?  I have probably driven 1.5 million miles, been a passenger for probably half a million more.

Never seen a car explode, though have seen a few burnt out ones.

 

I can't remember which car it was in the USA that had a habit of exploding when rear ended, think the motor industry started taking secondary safety seriously then.

[saveasteading]

24 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

have seen a few burnt out ones.

I was in one. Ford escort, first company car. On M1. Something central under rhe bonnet. The mechanics told me it would have been easier for them to have  let it burn.

[saveasteading]

26 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Oxygen is a tart of an element

Chemistry at school was less well explained.

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Chemistry at school was less well explained.

I am rather self taught in chemistry.  I have to reduce it all to the physics, then it starts to make sense.

The biggest problem is there are 118 elements, and about 20 words to describe how they attach to each other.

Then it is a memory test, and makes no sense to me at all.

My last school chemistry teacher was a Born Again Christian, a complete twat of a bloke who put me off the subject for 40 years, even though I used chemicals every days at work for 30+ years.

[ProDave]

Re EV's and fires.  They do NOT need external oxygen to burn, so conventional firefighting to starve the fire of oxygen will not work.  There are plenty of EV fires on you tube including one I saw recently of an EV fire that started on a boat launch slipway (they do NOT like being immersed in salt water) and ended up with the EV completely under water and still burning.

[dpmiller]

^ agreed. However spread of fire from an adjacent vehicle would be a different thing completely. EV batteries are darned-near hermetically sealed, generally have a heavy steel cladding, and most likely are full of cooling water. So getting an intact pack to light up will take a shedload of energy...

[billt]

17 hours ago, ProDave said:

Re EV's and fires.  They do NOT need external oxygen to burn, so conventional firefighting to starve the fire of oxygen will not work.  There are plenty of EV fires on you tube including one I saw recently of an EV fire that started on a boat launch slipway (they do NOT like being immersed in salt water) and ended up with the EV completely under water and still burning.

 

Yes, there are lots of panic mongering videos on you tube, that doesn't mean that there is a particularly significant problem with electric cars. There's a much bigger problem with electric bikes, which can be easily modified in an unsafe way, used with unsafe chargers and stored inside a building.

 

Whether lithium batteries self ignite and continue to burn with their stored oxygen depends on the particular chemistry. Many lithium cells will support combustion once a fire has started, but these days a lot of cars (including Tesla, VW and particularly the Chinese) are moving over to lithium iron phosphate which don't self ignite or support fire.

 

Difficulty of putting out a fire in one car isn't relevant to the issue of fires in car parks. Once the fire has spread to other vehicles it will be very difficult to extinguish whatever the power source of the original car. (I don't believe that any of the catastrophic multi-storey car park fires were started with an EV.

[SteamyTea]

There was a Tesla X that had been rear ended by a Passat diesel on the A30.

Neither were that on fire.

Added 2 hours to my journey though.

[George]

On 11/10/2023 at 17:22, SteamyTea said:

From this years June Survey (this is an important agricultural snapshot)

 

We could build on that unused 50 million m²

Crops

• The total area of arable crops saw a 1.3% decrease between 2022 and 2023, falling to just under 3.7 million hectares.
• Cereals account for the majority (70%) of the total arable crop area, covering just under 2.6 million hectares in 2023.
• The area of wheat decreased by 5.3% to 1.58 million hectares, whilst barley increased by 2.2% to 799 thousand hectares.
• The area of oilseed crops increased by 3.4% to 369 thousand hectares in 2023. Oilseed rape accounts for 93% of this area and rose by 6.1% to 342 thousand hectares in 2023.
• Potatoes decreased by 12%, falling to 82 thousand hectares in 2023.

• The remaining arable crops covered 670 thousand hectares. Field beans and maize together account for almost two thirds of this area. Fields beans rose by 1.2% while maize saw a larger increase of 7.5% between 2022 and 2023.

• The area of horticultural crops covers 117 thousand hectares of land, a decrease of 6.3% compared to 2022.

Those uncropped areas have largely been put into environmental schemes. It undermines the point of those slightly if they get built on.

 

[saveasteading]

I've just realised it's simple.

Build more ring roads. Infill with housing, including compulsory purchase of inferior industrial estates*. Town takes most of the uplift profit.

Neighbourhood facilities included.

Reduce shop rates in the town to encourage a resurgence.

Lots of buses.

Existing tired towns become thriving hubs again.

Better than new towns?

Sorted.

 

* and in the tradition of streets being named after the countryside they destroyed, we can have "scrapyard mews", "sidings  street" etc

 

[SteamyTea]

2 hours ago, George said:

Those uncropped areas have largely been put into environmental schemes

Some may have, but that is generally only replacing the older existing schemes.

 

1 hour ago, saveasteading said:

I've just realised it's simple.

Build more ring roads. Infill with housing

Similar to my idea of putting solar panels next to major roads.

 

Near Taunton, next to the M5, they are building houses.

I assume for deaf people.

They should have very low heating bills as all the EVs will be catching alight.

[Galileo]

I've the sneaky suspicion that unlike the French who disposed of their lot with a few shaving nicks, Lord Barrington the 14th who owns half of Northretlandshire is probably why we're all crammed up into small spaces that they thoughtfully donated to us. I can think of many places I've lived were swathes of land is not farmed due to it's poor quality but some toff in a hat* owns it all so it stays as a "nature haven" in case the council accidentally allow development.

 

*Nothing against them in general, went out with one for years!

[joe90]

I have always said there should be help/incentives to get developers/people to build on brownfield sites.

[SteamyTea]

8 minutes ago, joe90 said:

I have always said there should be help/incentives to get developers/people to build on brownfield sites.

Would that not just push the price of the site up.

 

We all know that the only way to make housing cheaper, and probably better, is to relax the planning rules.

Why pretend otherwise.

Edited October 14, 2023 by SteamyTea

[joe90]

Just now, SteamyTea said:

Would that not just push the price of the site up.

Maybe but most brownfield sites are already in towns so a win win and better than agricultural areas., from what I know (and prove me wrong if you know better) the cost of clearing up a brownfield (polluted?) site deters builders.

[SteamyTea]

10 minutes ago, joe90 said:

Maybe but most brownfield sites are already in towns so a win win and better than agricultural areas

Why better than agricultural areas, you prefer to live in agricultural areas.

11 minutes ago, joe90 said:

from what I know (and prove me wrong if you know better) the cost of clearing up a brownfield (polluted?) site deters builders

Could well be the case, so why not get the person who polluted it to pay, or at least the insurance company, or the people that did not enforce the relevant legislation i.e. the EA or LA.

[saveasteading]

9 minutes ago, joe90 said:

the cost of clearing up a brownfield (polluted?) site deters builders.

Builders? Not really except the developers like an easy ride and country location. If contaminated then the ground is an issue, but most brownfield isn't.

 

If an area us dirty then  it can be designed around. Mostly it is about whether a child might get a mouthful of nasty earth or we eat vegerables from it. But it is an overstated problem. If  either 1. it was a warehouse and car park, so is clean, or 2. If dirty you cover it with concrete or tarmac again, eg the new shopping centre or surgery.

 

[saveasteading]

Sites that are almost certainly contaminated:

Car breakers, gas works, livestock handling area (abattoirs, railway sidings). Of course landfill.

 

And with apologies to the Black Country......Smethwick anywhere.

I once did a drain survey, to tender for replacing a drain (theclay pipes and manholes of which had eroded). My tape immediately  lost all its markings and yellow paint when dipped in the running liquid.... which outflew by tipping into a redundant mine shaft.

 

I don't blame the local authorities really. Some of these sites and businesses had interesting owners.

 

[George]

13 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Why better than agricultural areas, you prefer to live in agricultural areas.

Urban brownfield is a more sustainable option - I've seen too many developments which have been built on the far side of a town away from the centre with shops, schools and services. It just builds car dependency into the design. 

[SteamyTea]

2 hours ago, George said:

Urban brownfield is a more sustainable option

For whom?

2 hours ago, George said:

I've seen too many developments which have been built on the far side of a town

I have not said about building developments.  I think this is the problem, we build ghettos, we just called them towns and cities.

2 hours ago, George said:

away from the centre with shops, schools and services

It has never been a problem in the past, it is a problem we have created by restrictions, rather than inovation.

2 hours ago, George said:

It just builds car dependency into the design

What is wrong with personal transport, it does not have to be 2 tonne 4 wheel drive vehicles.

Yesterday, I left work and Amazon Prime had a convoy of delivery vehicles going to the rural depot.

Or to put it another way, the fleet of eclectic vans was full of locally employed drivers who contribute to the area.

[saveasteading]

Brownfield housing sites that i've observed seem to take forever to develop. 

I assume it's the old story of the developer controlling availability and the market.

There often seem to be stated challenges , such as contamination, that I think are as above...reasons to delay, even avoid, building. Of course there are the local targets to meet, so by not building on brownfield, applications on greenfield are required to be approved.

 

There is probably political pressure I don't know anything about. Eg if brownfield is encouraged then green isn't, and the big landowners have to wait. The Country Landowners Association could tell us, but won't.

[Bozza]

The solution to this problem could be that the govt makes it compulsory for local councils to identify a set % of their geographic area for new build homes.  Within a limited deadline.  It can be different parcels of land both small and large, and unsurprisingly i’d advocate provision for self builders and indeed low cost housing..  Legislate so that such compulsory requirements prevent local objections.  Local councillors should be allowed to decide where the builds will take place from a selected shortlist.  Incentivise and support businesses who can provide high quality homes that can be built in factories, SIPS systems etc that minimise the need for trades on site .  If a major developer buys land make it compulsory that builds are complete within a set deadline.

 

There would have to be real innovation and financial incentives and penalties in the process.  They speak about building infrastructure as the way out if the economic mess.  New and efficient high quality homes is the solution.  

 

[SteamyTea]

4 minutes ago, Bozza said:

The solution to this problem could be that the govt makes it compulsory for local councils to identify a set % of their geographic area for new build homes

Why not legislate so that local residents (i.e. council tax payers in that area) are allowed to purchase the land at market value.

So if they object to a local development, regardless of scale, they have the right to buy the land.

By putting a price that locals are willing to pay to keep it as is, sends a big message to everyone.

[George]

3 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

For whom?

I have not said about building developments.  I think this is the problem, we build ghettos, we just called them towns and cities.

It has never been a problem in the past, it is a problem we have created by restrictions, rather than inovation.

What is wrong with personal transport, it does not have to be 2 tonne 4 wheel drive vehicles.

Yesterday, I left work and Amazon Prime had a convoy of delivery vehicles going to the rural depot.

Or to put it another way, the fleet of eclectic vans was full of locally employed drivers who contribute to the area.

More sustainable by having homes near to existing services and places of work. More dispersed building needs more resources to create water pumping stations, sewage treatment, schools, public transport routes, roads etc etc etc. It uses less resources to make existing urban areas denser, and a route to do that is to prioritise urban brownfield.

 

There is a massive issue with personal transport if it is a car - three great issues with modern society are obesity, air pollution and congestion. All of which are caused by an overreliance on car transportation. 

[SteamyTea]

13 minutes ago, George said:

three great issues with modern society are obesity, air pollution and congestion.

I would say there are only two issues.

Inequality and barriers to entry.