Assembly in China / End of Lode Lane

On or around Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:30:22 +0100, Mother <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>The real smokescreen is the politically inspired, media hyped notion
>that _our_ so called 'gas guzzlers' are responsible for global
>warming.
>
>Another useless statistic being that I could drive Grumble around the
>circumference of the globe and not pollute the planet anywhere near as
>much as flying to Paris and back for a romantic weekend.
>

You'd have to fit some kind of flotation devices first though.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero" (sieze today, and put
as little trust as you can in tomorrow) Horace (65 - 8 BC) Odes, I.xi.8

On 2006-10-26, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> You'd have to fit some kind of flotation devices first though.

Just pump the tyres up with helium and attach a flymo to the back, and
take his rant directly to the air passengers!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On Thursday, in article
<[email protected]>
[email protected] "Mother" wrote:

> Another useless statistic being that I could drive Grumble around the
> circumference of the globe and not pollute the planet anywhere near as
> much as flying to Paris and back for a romantic weekend.

Airliners are, passenger-mile for passenger-mile, more than competitive
on long flights. London-Paris is dragged down by the time spent stooging
around in the aviation equivalent of urban traffic.

Ships and trains can still beat them.

The aircraft does burn more fuel per mile than a car. It also carries
more people.

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."

On 2006-10-26, "David G. Bell" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The aircraft does burn more fuel per mile than a car. It also carries
> more people.

ISTR a 747's miles per gallon per passenger when full being something
like 70 MPG/P, which drops obviously when it's not full. Smaller
planes are much less efficient, as the larger planes carry
proportionally more passengers than the extra fuel used over smaller
planes.

A car like mine that does 47MPG, if full, does about 180MPG/P, or
90MPG/P if two people are in it which is more likely for most people.
A 101, if carrying two people and a dog, would do probably about 40
MPG/P.

A car however puts the pollution out at ground level, I don't know the
details but the biggest issue with planes is supposed to be that they
pump their pollution out in a location that is much more damaging from
a global warming perspective although I can't recall why. Ages ago
when people started flapping on about this issue, it was the location
of the pollution and the damage it was doing that was the big issue,
not the fuel efficiency of the plane.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

""David G. Bell"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thursday, in article
> <[email protected]>
> [email protected] "Mother" wrote:
>
> > Another useless statistic being that I could drive Grumble around the
> > circumference of the globe and not pollute the planet anywhere near as
> > much as flying to Paris and back for a romantic weekend.
>
> Airliners are, passenger-mile for passenger-mile, more than competitive
> on long flights. London-Paris is dragged down by the time spent stooging
> around in the aviation equivalent of urban traffic.
>
> Ships and trains can still beat them.
>
> The aircraft does burn more fuel per mile than a car. It also carries
> more people.
>
Juggling statistics again. I reckon per person though an aircraft chucks
out a lot more sh1t than a car in burnt and unburnt fuel.

Martin

Oily wrote:

> Juggling statistics again. I reckon per person though an aircraft chucks
> out a lot more sh1t than a car in burnt and unburnt fuel.

How do you make that out, from 70 MPG/P ?

Steve

"beamendsltd" wrote >>
>> > The marketing men & bean counters will doubtless have very good
>> > reasons on paper for saying where it's made doesn't matter (and
>> > they'd probably be right for Freelander), but balance sheets don't
>> > take into account brand image (the real image, not the marketing
>> > mens glossy brochure version) and, let's face it, the Made In
>> > England bit. Just look at the meltdown at Wedgewood after they
>> > moved production overseas, and the consequent complete collapse
>> > of the entire Stoke pottery industry.
>> >
>> I thought it was Royal Doulton that moved to China?
>> Have Wegewood gone as well?
>
> Wedgewood move some/most bare plate production to Korea (might
> have been Malasia), re-importing them for decoration. As my
> mother observed (being something of a Wedgewood fan) "I can get
> cheaper Far Eastern plates in Tesco..."
>
> Royal Doulton have largely vanished, and lost the "Royal"
> it seems.
>

What about our favourite, Royal Crown Derby?

--
Regards
Bob H
17mls W. of London.UK

"steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Oily wrote:
>
> > Juggling statistics again. I reckon per person though an aircraft
chucks
> > out a lot more sh1t than a car in burnt and unburnt fuel.
>
> How do you make that out, from 70 MPG/P ?
>
> Steve

Against the car with four people on board at 180 MPG/P??

Martin

In message <[email protected]>
"Bob Hobden" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "beamendsltd" wrote >>
> >> > The marketing men & bean counters will doubtless have very good
> >> > reasons on paper for saying where it's made doesn't matter (and
> >> > they'd probably be right for Freelander), but balance sheets don't
> >> > take into account brand image (the real image, not the marketing
> >> > mens glossy brochure version) and, let's face it, the Made In
> >> > England bit. Just look at the meltdown at Wedgewood after they
> >> > moved production overseas, and the consequent complete collapse
> >> > of the entire Stoke pottery industry.
> >> >
> >> I thought it was Royal Doulton that moved to China?
> >> Have Wegewood gone as well?
> >
> > Wedgewood move some/most bare plate production to Korea (might
> > have been Malasia), re-importing them for decoration. As my
> > mother observed (being something of a Wedgewood fan) "I can get
> > cheaper Far Eastern plates in Tesco..."
> >
> > Royal Doulton have largely vanished, and lost the "Royal"
> > it seems.
> >
>
> What about our favourite, Royal Crown Derby?
>

No idea, I'm affraid. I'm not a pottery fan, I just see the
flat spaces where the potteries were, and the local paper with
the latest "this'll sort it out" article that never mentions
"hand made in England" which, as far as I can tell, is the only
reason they sold anything for years!

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

Oily wrote:
>> How do you make that out, from 70 MPG/P ?
>>
>> Steve
>
> Against the car with four people on board at 180 MPG/P??
>
> Martin
>
>
Now what is the average MPG/P for a car ? Its very, very rare that they
travel full. Aircraft on the other hand always try to travel full.

I would guess that most cars average around the 40-50 MPG/P and aircraft
around the same level, or slightly better.

Steve

On or around Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:30:57 +0100, steve
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Now what is the average MPG/P for a car ? Its very, very rare that they
>travel full. Aircraft on the other hand always try to travel full.

try being the operative word. They also operate to fairly strictly defined
schedules.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Remember that to change your mind and follow him who sets you right
is to be none the less free than you were before."
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180), from Meditations, VIII.16

On 2006-10-27, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> try being the operative word. They also operate to fairly strictly defined
> schedules.

According to the airlines themselves, on average they do about 65MPG/P
and run at 70% utilisation, so crank those figures down by about 10%
;-)

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

"beamendsltd" wrote after"Bob Hobden"
>> What about our favourite, Royal Crown Derby?
>>
>
> No idea, I'm affraid. I'm not a pottery fan, I just see the
> flat spaces where the potteries were, and the local paper with
> the latest "this'll sort it out" article that never mentions
> "hand made in England" which, as far as I can tell, is the only
> reason they sold anything for years!
>
Seems to be still where it always was thank goodness, that's since it moved
from Chelsea 250 years ago.

http://www.royal-crown-derby.co.uk/

at least they are still doing factory tours there.
In this country Doulton has gone from highly collectable stuff to zero with
the move abroad and I understand old "Made in England" china of theirs is
still in demand, mind you, I don't know if that is the same abroad.
--
Regards
Bob H

"Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2006-10-27, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > try being the operative word. They also operate to fairly strictly
defined
> > schedules.
>
> According to the airlines themselves, on average they do about 65MPG/P
> and run at 70% utilisation, so crank those figures down by about 10%
> ;-)
>
>
They are probably trying to justify and mask their wastage of fossil fuels
as they apparently dump loads when they come in to land, they certainly seem
to use a lot when taking off. When we are eventually forced off the road
unless we use hybrid or electric 4x4s, I hope they make them use N.O.S C5
motors behind the props or ground them forever.

Martin

Oily wrote:

> They are probably trying to justify and mask their wastage of fossil fuels
> as they apparently dump loads when they come in to land,

If they did, wouldn't the approaches to, say, Heathrow be rather slippery ?

Jet fuel is particularly not noted for its volatility, so if they did it
, we'd have known by now.

AFAIK fuel dumping is an emergency measure only.

Steve

"Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> According to the airlines themselves, on average they do about 65MPG/P
> and run at 70% utilisation, so crank those figures down by about 10%
> ;-)

If those figures are true then a plane carrying say 150 people is doing the
same MPG as a small diesel car with 3-4 people, which sort of backs their
claims that air travel is nothing like as polluting as car travel, mile for
mile.
Greg

Loosely on the same subject, those who claim buses are the future of
transport don't know the figures. At a recent meeting I attended with the
Council's head of transport about a new park and ride scheme they're
starting in Scarborough, he had to admit that the modern buses they were
going to use do a whole 4MPG, yes I did say four!. Considering a modern
small Diesel car does about 15 times that, the buses need to be carrying an
average of about 50 people just to break even on the pollution produced. In
reality they aren't going to achieve that so one of the main reasons for the
scheme, reducing pollution, just doesn't hold water.

Greg

Greg wrote:
> Loosely on the same subject, those who claim buses are the future of
> transport don't know the figures. At a recent meeting I attended with the
> Council's head of transport about a new park and ride scheme they're
> starting in Scarborough, he had to admit that the modern buses they were
> going to use do a whole 4MPG, yes I did say four!.

Time for them to change bus manufacturers. I track fleet fuel usage for
one of my clients - even his trucks running at 44 tonnes with 600PS
engines are returning better than 5.4MPG, and that's in NZ where we have
a lot of hills.



--
EMB

On 2006-10-27, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:

> If those figures are true then a plane carrying say 150 people is
> doing the same MPG as a small diesel car with 3-4 people, which sort
> of backs their claims that air travel is nothing like as polluting
> as car travel, mile for mile.

The big issue with air travel is supposed to be what they pump out and
where they pump it, not how much the MPG figure is. I don't know the
details though, I just remember that the fuss was not about MPG but
they are supposed to be much more damaging for other reasons.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On or around Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:19:25 +1300, EMB <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>Greg wrote:
>> Loosely on the same subject, those who claim buses are the future of
>> transport don't know the figures. At a recent meeting I attended with the
>> Council's head of transport about a new park and ride scheme they're
>> starting in Scarborough, he had to admit that the modern buses they were
>> going to use do a whole 4MPG, yes I did say four!.
>
>Time for them to change bus manufacturers. I track fleet fuel usage for
>one of my clients - even his trucks running at 44 tonnes with 600PS
>engines are returning better than 5.4MPG, and that's in NZ where we have
>a lot of hills.

buses do stop-start urban mileage though, and spend a lot of time idling
going nowhere. But 4mpg sounds a bit crap, even so.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Remember that to change your mind and follow him who sets you right
is to be none the less free than you were before."
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180), from Meditations, VIII.16