Greenpeace at it again ;-)

"Mother" wrote ...
>
>>> Don't s'pose anyone'd consider that Greenpeace may actually have an
>>> ickle bit of a valid point here, eh?
>>
>>No none at all,
>
> And you have empirical evidence to support this assertion?
>
Years of watching them play silly buggers for the cameras instead of getting
down to the serious business of stopping polluters etc through the courts.
The ACA (or whatever they are called now) did it rather successfully for
years and achieved a great deal, indeed they were the most successful
environmental protection organisation ever, and no-one ever heard of them
but then they weren't about self publicity.
Has Greenpeace ever achieved anything other than publicity for itself?
--
Regards
Bob
1974 S111 SWB 2.25 petrol Hardtop (For Sale)
1987 90 2.5 petrol Hardtop

On Mon, 16 May 2005 22:56:26 +0200, aghasee wrote:

> The most energy efficient powered vehicles per tonne per mile, true,
> but still they aren't emissions regulated *and* they do pollute as
> hell. Fuel consumption is expressed in metric tonnes per hour on
> these carriers, you know.

Bit the still shame most other engines as far as thermal efficiency is
concerned. Take a peek at:

http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/

The figures work out to 13.75 tonnes/hr at maximum power for the 14cyl
jobbie.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Richard Brookman wrote:
> so Tom Woods was, like...
>
>>There was a program on tv not long ago that claimed that air traffic
>>produced a large amount of it too (much moe than cars)
>>
>>Does/is tax on aviation fuel go/going up at the same rates as car
>>fuel? (doesnt look like it from the decreasing cost of flights!)
>
>
> Er - I don't think they pay tax on aviation fuel. Bit of a ****er, really.
> And yes, air traffic causes more air pollution than all the cars in the
> world, and of course it's delivered right up there where it can do the most
> damage. But hey, we wouldn't want to lose our cheap air fares to Ibiza, now
> would we?*
>
> Anyone serious about cutting pollution would look at taxing aviation fuel
> first, and only look at the minor contribution made by cars when that had
> been brought under control.
>
> *Speaking as someone who would rather walk any distance than board an
> aircraft
>

In fact, according to SAS leaflet, a jet takes 4l/100km or more per
passenger, when fully loaded. It's about the same as hauling all those
people in V8 landrovers. So there is a strong point to claim all sorts
of fuel and environment taxes, when driving 12-seater tdi at full load.

Kalev

"Kalev Kadak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Richard Brookman wrote:
>> so Tom Woods was, like...
>>
>>>There was a program on tv not long ago that claimed that air traffic
>>>produced a large amount of it too (much moe than cars)
>>>
>>>Does/is tax on aviation fuel go/going up at the same rates as car
>>>fuel? (doesnt look like it from the decreasing cost of flights!)
>>
>>
>> Er - I don't think they pay tax on aviation fuel. Bit of a ****er,
>> really. And yes, air traffic causes more air pollution than all the cars
>> in the world, and of course it's delivered right up there where it can do
>> the most damage. But hey, we wouldn't want to lose our cheap air fares
>> to Ibiza, now would we?*
>>
>> Anyone serious about cutting pollution would look at taxing aviation fuel
>> first, and only look at the minor contribution made by cars when that had
>> been brought under control.
>>
>> *Speaking as someone who would rather walk any distance than board an
>> aircraft
>>
>
> In fact, according to SAS leaflet, a jet takes 4l/100km or more per
> passenger, when fully loaded. It's about the same as hauling all those
> people in V8 landrovers. So there is a strong point to claim all sorts of
> fuel and environment taxes, when driving 12-seater tdi at full load.
>
> Kalev

Please don't forget though that the Gas Turbine engine uses the fuel in a
much more efficient manner in the first place by utilising a far greater
percentage of the heat energy as a propulsive force instead of losses to a
radiator and exhaust, and the higher the altitude the greater its economy.
Badger.

On 2005-05-16, David Sillitoe. <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think the problem is that these Greenpeace people are singling LR
> out amongst many... That's tokenistic and just plain stupid. Sadly
> it also smacks of the politics of envy, something they seen to know
> plenty about.

ISTR that the reason LR was singled out was that one of LR's Range
Rover models is the top of the chart for bad environmental emissions,
so they were targetted because they produce the current worst
polluting vehicle of all commonly sold in the British markets.

It is of course an exercise in line-drawing, there are plenty of yank
muscle cars out there or custom cars with hulking great big engines
in that would be worse, also car importers dealing with american SUVs
would also have worse cars, but these cars don't feature in the charts
produced in the regular media so don't have the attention grabbing
value. Greenpeace invading a car importer's showroom wouldn't make
anything more than the local news, and people driving more
conventional 4x4s in the British market wouldn't get tarred with the
same brush.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert

>> The suggestion that shipping creates one third of world air pollution
>> comes from the same idiot sources that think any kind of concern for
>> man made carbon emissions is some kind of pinko liberal plot to
>> destroy society. These red necked morons make the inbreds, as
>> portrayed in the film Deliverance, seem intelligent. Per tonne mile,
>> diesel ships are actually the most energy efficient powered vehicles.
>
>The most energy efficient powered vehicles per tonne per mile, true, but
>still they aren't emissions regulated *and* they do pollute as hell.
>Fuel consumption is expressed in metric tonnes per hour on these
>carriers, you know.

On a pro rata scale, they don't pollute as much as small motor vehicles
do and certainly don't "create one third of world air pollution" or
anything remotely like it.
>
>> The Rainbow Warrior is actually one of the cleanest powered vessels in
>> the world. Not only is she equipped with sophisticated anti pollution
>> and oil recycling systems and one of the most thermally efficient
>> engines in the world, she is also equipped with a two masted sailing
>> rig. Most of the time on ocean voyages she proceeds under sail. Not to
>
>Major bull****. See comment above.

Sorry? I don't follow this logic, even within the context of the
forgoing.
>
>> be confused with the crass hot air of male bovine manure.
>>
>> One of the ironic things about Land rovers is that they are greener
>> than most other cars. I understand that it would take most cars about
>> 30 years of motoring to equal the carbon emissions produced during
>> its own manufacture. Since the average life span of the average
>> private car is allegedly only eleven years and that of the average
>> Land Rover is more than twice as long, the Land Rover should be at
>> the top of the green 'brigades' list of favourite vehicles.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> Furthermore, in terms of global impact, diesels are nearly twice as
>> 'earth friendly' as petrols.
>
>Again major bull****. Diesels just pollute in other areas, not less.

Whilst it is a fact that diesels emit more heavy particles in the
immediate locality of the engine, though increasingly less so with the
latest designs, as far as 'earth friendly' measurements are concerned
it's more about carbon emissions and this respect diesels are
significantly cleaner.
--
John Lubran

Bull**** Baffles Brains
(Stolen from Austins 'Little Book of Complete Bollocks')

Lots of ironic dualities here. The commercial jet liner is actually very
economical in pure financial terms, per person mile. This though has
nothing to do with the environment. High altitude jets are widely
accepted to be the most environmentally damaging transports of all time.
As Richard points out they are emitting carbon pollution just where they
can do the most damage. I think they should convert to advanced turbo
props. It'll make air travel about twice as expensive but would reduce
pollution by a huge degree. I've heard by as much as 85%.
--
John Lubran

I

>>
>>>> Don't s'pose anyone'd consider that Greenpeace may actually have an
>>>> ickle bit of a valid point here, eh?
>>>
>>>No none at all,
>>
>> And you have empirical evidence to support this assertion?
>>
>Years of watching them play silly buggers for the cameras instead of getting
>down to the serious business of stopping polluters etc through the courts.
>The ACA (or whatever they are called now) did it rather successfully for
>years and achieved a great deal, indeed they were the most successful
>environmental protection organisation ever, and no-one ever heard of them
>but then they weren't about self publicity.
>Has Greenpeace ever achieved anything other than publicity for itself?


The Canadian guy who started Green peace died recently. When he started
the movement almost no one accept for a few concerned scientists and
lots of hippies thought there was any environmental problem. Certainly
the folks living in the South Pacific thought that French nuclear
testing in their neck of the woods was undesirable. The Aussies and the
Kiwis certainly respect Green Peace more than any other organisation for
doing something about that. Whilst the incognisant sneering rhetoric of
local red necks might attain high levels of consideration amongst their
own crass peers it's interesting to note how the assertions of such so
called hippy environmentalists as Green Peace and the Centre for
Alternative Technology have suddenly been commandeered by the
establishment.

Yes Green Peace, though faulty in some respects, just like all human
organisations, have been a major factor in the tortuous process of
waking the world up to the environmental dangers we are facing.

--
John Lubran

>>
> The Rainbow Warrior is actually one of the cleanest powered vessels in
> the world. Not only is she equipped with sophisticated anti pollution
> and oil recycling systems and one of the most thermally efficient
> engines in the world, she is also equipped with a two masted sailing
> rig. Most of the time on ocean voyages she proceeds under sail. Not to
> be confused with the crass hot air of male bovine manure.

Really? What does it use for anti-fouling paint then?

TonyB

On Tue, 17 May 2005 10:56:32 +0100, Moving Vision
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Yes Green Peace, though faulty in some respects, just like all human
>organisations, have been a major factor in the tortuous process of
>waking the world up to the environmental dangers we are facing.

Yup - WHS...

In news:[email protected],
Moving Vision <[email protected]> blithered:
> Lots of ironic dualities here. The commercial jet liner is actually
> very economical in pure financial terms, per person mile. This though
> has nothing to do with the environment. High altitude jets are widely
> accepted to be the most environmentally damaging transports of all
> time. As Richard points out they are emitting carbon pollution just
> where they can do the most damage. I think they should convert to
> advanced turbo props. It'll make air travel about twice as expensive
> but would reduce pollution by a huge degree. I've heard by as much as
> 85%.

Evidence, please.
How does a Turboprop differ from a high bypass Turbojet engine?

--
"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it."

If at first you don't succeed,
maybe skydiving's not for you!

In article <[email protected]>, GbH
<[email protected]> writes
>In news:[email protected],
>Moving Vision <[email protected]> blithered:
>> Lots of ironic dualities here. The commercial jet liner is actually
>> very economical in pure financial terms, per person mile. This though
>> has nothing to do with the environment. High altitude jets are widely
>> accepted to be the most environmentally damaging transports of all
>> time. As Richard points out they are emitting carbon pollution just
>> where they can do the most damage. I think they should convert to
>> advanced turbo props. It'll make air travel about twice as expensive
>> but would reduce pollution by a huge degree. I've heard by as much as
>> 85%.
>
>Evidence, please.
>How does a Turboprop differ from a high bypass Turbojet engine?
>


I'll leave it to someone else to trawl the Internet for appropriate
links but as far as I understand from technical friends the problem with
jet engines is that the burnt kerosine exhaust emits many times the
carbon as the exhaust from the fundamentally different nature of a turbo
prop. Perhaps someone with definitive, as opposed to merely wishful,
knowledge of this would be kind enough to confirm the facts.
--
John Lubran

In article <[email protected]>, TonyB
<[email protected]> writes
>>>
>> The Rainbow Warrior is actually one of the cleanest powered vessels in
>> the world. Not only is she equipped with sophisticated anti pollution
>> and oil recycling systems and one of the most thermally efficient
>> engines in the world, she is also equipped with a two masted sailing
>> rig. Most of the time on ocean voyages she proceeds under sail. Not to
>> be confused with the crass hot air of male bovine manure.
>
>Really? What does it use for anti-fouling paint then?
>
>TonyB
>
>


Good question. Can anyone provide an answer? If I had to bet though I'd
put my money on them using something alternative to the usual mere
expedience of the bean counters
--
John Lubran

"Moving Vision" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, GbH
> <[email protected]> writes
>>In news:[email protected],
>>Moving Vision <[email protected]> blithered:
>>> Lots of ironic dualities here. The commercial jet liner is actually
>>> very economical in pure financial terms, per person mile. This though
>>> has nothing to do with the environment. High altitude jets are widely
>>> accepted to be the most environmentally damaging transports of all
>>> time. As Richard points out they are emitting carbon pollution just
>>> where they can do the most damage. I think they should convert to
>>> advanced turbo props. It'll make air travel about twice as expensive
>>> but would reduce pollution by a huge degree. I've heard by as much as
>>> 85%.
>>
>>Evidence, please.
>>How does a Turboprop differ from a high bypass Turbojet engine?
>>
>
>
> I'll leave it to someone else to trawl the Internet for appropriate links
> but as far as I understand from technical friends the problem with jet
> engines is that the burnt kerosine exhaust emits many times the carbon as
> the exhaust from the fundamentally different nature of a turbo prop.
> Perhaps someone with definitive, as opposed to merely wishful, knowledge
> of this would be kind enough to confirm the facts.
> --
> John Lubran

Ok, speaking as an aircraft propulsion engineer (and putting on flame-proof
mac!) the difference between a modern high bypass engine (such as the latest
version of the venerable RB211) and a turboprop, is virtually none. The only
difference is when actually at max power, which is only used during the
initial stages of the take-off run, the engines being immediately throttled
back for legal noise abatement laws. A modern high bypass ratio engine will
use more fuel than a turbo-prop for a given percentage of its respective
maximum thrust, when cruising at altitude, but it flies faster at that same
power setting, so the fuel used per nautical mile isn't all that different
as to make a significant environmental impact. FWIW, "jet" engines (whether
bypass or prop, I am talking about the HP core engine now) are actually very
efficient with low emissions until you get to the last few %rpm.

What is a more significant environmental issue, even more so than all the
world's cars, lorries, planes and ships, is the destruction of the natural
carbon-sinks (rainforests) that would have otherwise absorbed the excess CO2
that we produce!!
badger.

Don't forget the power stations,

I watched a dirty diesel chugging along the railway line and then figured
mile for mile an electric probably pollutes more considering the losses in
transmission of electricity but that the pollution is displaced somewhere
else and the public does not notice.

But hell it is the cows farting methane that are as causing as much
pollution as anything else and methane is worse than CO2


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes



"Tom Woods" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 16:25:58 +0200, "aghasee"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> There was a program on tv not long ago that claimed that air traffic
> produced a large amount of it too (much moe than cars)
>
> Does/is tax on aviation fuel go/going up at the same rates as car
> fuel? (doesnt look like it from the decreasing cost of flights!)

In the end it is not the efficiency that matters but the absolute amount of
****e put out as 100 energy efficient vehicles doing ten times more mileage
than one very dirty one cause a bigger problem.

Would I really cause less of a problem if I drove a smart car or whatever, I
doubt it, with the increases in economy I would no doubt use it a lot more.
Once again it is that time of the month when I look at my overdraft and
think it is the bus for the rest of this week


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes




"Moving Vision" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Lots of ironic dualities here. The commercial jet liner is actually very
> economical in pure financial terms, per person mile. This though has
> nothing to do with the environment. High altitude jets are widely
> accepted to be the most environmentally damaging transports of all time.
> As Richard points out they are emitting carbon pollution just where they
> can do the most damage. I think they should convert to advanced turbo
> props. It'll make air travel about twice as expensive but would reduce
> pollution by a huge degree. I've heard by as much as 85%.
> --
> John Lubran

Not when they take it out on landies, they have lost the plot. Now if they
targetted Subaru's, Suzuki's and that apology for what used to be a jeep I
might agree


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes




"Mother" <"@ {m} @"@101fc.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 10:04:48 +0100, "/\\/ / & E"
> <nigel.ince****[email protected]> wrote:
>
?
>
> Don't s'pose anyone'd consider that Greenpeace may actually have an
> ickle bit of a valid point here, eh?
>

Used to be one of that kind of nutter but hey that was back in the seventies
when my landie would have been brand new and shiny.

--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes


"Hirsty's" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Used to come into contact with this type of nutter at Uni years ago. Good
> whilst it's the cred thing to do; wait until one of them or their family
> need the results ( eg drugs from research or rescue by said vehicle ) that
> certainly sorts out the Saturday warriors from the real concerned end of
the
> population.
>
> Used to know the guy who is now head of the police complaints authority; I
> wonder what Sunday tabloids pay these days ? )
>
>

On Tue, 17 May 2005 21:41:52 +0100, "Larry" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Not when they take it out on landies, they have lost the plot. Now if they
>targetted Subaru's, Suzuki's and that apology for what used to be a jeep I
>might agree

They made the Range Rover the focus of their action as it is rated as
top of the polution charts. I can't really see too much of a problem
with that.

>>
>> I'll leave it to someone else to trawl the Internet for appropriate links
>> but as far as I understand from technical friends the problem with jet
>> engines is that the burnt kerosine exhaust emits many times the carbon as
>> the exhaust from the fundamentally different nature of a turbo prop.
>> Perhaps someone with definitive, as opposed to merely wishful, knowledge
>> of this would be kind enough to confirm the facts.
>> --
>> John Lubran
>
>Ok, speaking as an aircraft propulsion engineer (and putting on flame-proof
>mac!) the difference between a modern high bypass engine (such as the latest
>version of the venerable RB211) and a turboprop, is virtually none. The only
>difference is when actually at max power, which is only used during the
>initial stages of the take-off run, the engines being immediately throttled
>back for legal noise abatement laws. A modern high bypass ratio engine will
>use more fuel than a turbo-prop for a given percentage of its respective
>maximum thrust, when cruising at altitude, but it flies faster at that same
>power setting, so the fuel used per nautical mile isn't all that different
>as to make a significant environmental impact. FWIW, "jet" engines (whether
>bypass or prop, I am talking about the HP core engine now) are actually very
>efficient with low emissions until you get to the last few %rpm.
>
>What is a more significant environmental issue, even more so than all the
>world's cars, lorries, planes and ships, is the destruction of the natural
>carbon-sinks (rainforests) that would have otherwise absorbed the excess CO2
>that we produce!!
>badger.


The diversity of land Rover fans is marvellous. Thanks Badger for your
qualified contribution. If both engine types burn the same type of fuel
and apparently emit the same amount of exhaust per mile your assessment
indicates that there's no difference in environmental impact. I will
have to get back to my technical friends about this. One other
consideration might be cruising altitude. Do the jets normally fly
significantly higher than turbo props? That would make a difference.

With regard to the carbon sinks, we've noticed that the trees around
here are growing much faster than they were ten years ago. Scientists
monitoring the speeding up of growth in the Amazon have calculated that
there's a limit to how much forests can absorb before the limit of soil
support is reached resulting in the rapid creation of a vast tinderbox
and the subsequent release of all that locked carbon. It only takes a
few degrees more to release the vast methane deposits currently held as
liquid beneath the Arctic ocean. If that lot enters the atmosphere, and
it could do so almost instantaneously, we'll all be getting the truth
from the highest authority of all. Maybe it's destined anyway. As Dave
Allen used to say, may your God go with you.
--
John Lubran