Ignorant wannabe environmentalists

hugh wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Richard Brookman
> <[email protected]> writes
>> Austin Shackles wrote:
>>>
>>> 'course, if they come back with "Actually, I ride a bicycle" then
>>> they've rather got you
>>
>> No they haven't. They have just proved to you that they are a smug
>> tosser who deserves to be upended into the nearest ditch, their
>> beards set on fire (that includes the women) and their sandals
>> smeared with tofu. All their opinions can be safely ignored.
>>
>> Bikes are great, and I've nothing against cyclists as such (I've
>> done a lot of bike miles in my time), but anyone who says "Actually,
>> I ride a bike" wants shooting. ;-)
>>
> Quite so - they shouldn't slag off their partner in public.

LOL

--

Rich

Series 2a
RR 4.6
V8 trialler
dog, wife, kids, whatever

Figure this one out then, if we all drove battery powered electric vehicles
the electrictiy to charge them would still have to be generated somewhere,
most likely inefficiently.

At least the pollution we cause is honest and visible.


--
þT

L'autisme c'est moi

"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"


"Fergus Kendall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Having just filled up my 200tdi 90 at the Tescos filling station I
> started the engine back up to drive off with the usual small puff of
> engine startup smoke. Just before I pulled away some woman in her late
> 50s/60s started shouting at me "the smoke that thing puts out is
> bloody disgusting", I said "it's a direct injection diesel, it's just
> a characteristic of the engine, they all do it", she then started
> screaming abut how irresponsible it was to drive "a car like that,
> it's criminal" I said "look it's only a small puff at startup is it
> smoking now?" Then she went off on another rant so I told her "to go
> f**k herself and drove off" (wouldn't usually use such language to a
> member of the public but she seriously ****ed me off). The fact that
> her brand new nissan micra produced more pollution being manufactured
> than running a 200tdi 90 for 10 years didn't seem to concern her, was
> tempthed to reverse over her and her stupid toy car.
> Is there a Land Rover certified taser weapon I can purchase to teach
> these people a lesson or would it be hazzardous to use such a device
> on a filling station forecourt?
>
> Fergus

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:20:54 +0100, "Larry" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Figure this one out then, if we all drove battery powered electric vehicles
>the electrictiy to charge them would still have to be generated somewhere,
>most likely inefficiently.
>
>At least the pollution we cause is honest and visible.

Large power stations operate at much higher efficiency than petrol
engines...

It is also much more practical to handle the attendant pollution when
it is all in one high-value installation, rather than spread around
the country and particularly localised in city centres and population
centres.

You still have to distribute and then battery the electricity, which I
suspect narrows the efficiency gap somewhat, but the control and
centralisation is probably the biggest argument in favour of it.


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'95 Discovery V8i aka "The Disco" (FOR SALE)
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com

Do not not let these people con you. Batteries have to be recharged at some
time and then they give off serious life threatening gases. I have now
retired so I do not have the report available. I was in charge of a workshop
which maintained battery driven forklifts also small battery driven towing
vehicles. The incidence of cancer among the workers caused an inquiry which
failed to establish the cause. The manufacture of these motive power
batteries is so poluting that the staff have to totally change their clothes
before going home. Also the waste water is not allowed to enter the drainage
system. Do not forget that there would need to be a lot more generating
stations if we went over to electric vehicles and how would these stations
be driven? Environmentalists seldom have the full picture and don't want to
talk to people with the practical experience. Just like politicians!
Robert
>

Tim Hobbs wrote:
>
> Large power stations operate at much higher efficiency than petrol
> engines...

Much ? No thermal power station can be more then roughly 30% efficient.
What is the conversion efficiency of a car engine ?
Steve

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:09:40 +0100, "Roberts"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Do not not let these people con you. Batteries have to be recharged at some
>time and then they give off serious life threatening gases. I have now
>retired so I do not have the report available. I was in charge of a workshop
>which maintained battery driven forklifts also small battery driven towing
>vehicles. The incidence of cancer among the workers caused an inquiry which
>failed to establish the cause.

You, however, seem to have established the cause all by yourself? I
suppose you have eliminated the known carcinogenic effects of used
oil, various solvents which would have been used in such a workshop or
indeed normal statistical phenomena... The workshop was apparently
somewhat unusual in having been run by a fully qualified pathologist.

>The manufacture of these motive power
>batteries is so poluting that the staff have to totally change their clothes
>before going home. Also the waste water is not allowed to enter the drainage
>system.

The clothing regulatoins and control of waste effluent is more often
than not just as stringent in food manufacture, medicine manufacture
etc. It doesn't make the end product itself inherently dangerous to
use or store.

>Do not forget that there would need to be a lot more generating
>stations if we went over to electric vehicles and how would these stations
>be driven?

Probably by fossil fuels, but also quite possibly by other renewable
sources. I look forward to seeing your design for a car with a
built-in hydro-electric power station...

You can go on forever with calculating the overall energy costs. How
much fuel do we burn transporting fuel to petrol stations? The fact
is that reducing car useage simply isn't happening and simply taxing
pollution is only going to put the UK (or indeed European) economy in
the doldrums whilst the Far East and 3rd World stay deregulated and
flood us with cheaper goods. In a wider sense we need to incentivise
people and businesses to reduce pollution, partly by stick but also by
carrot.


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'95 Discovery V8i aka "The Disco" (FOR SALE)
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com

Roberts wrote:
> Do not not let these people con you. Batteries have to be recharged at some
> time and then they give off serious life threatening gases.

Hydrogen ? only if you smoke too near it...

Steve

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:20:59 GMT, terry <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Steve Taylor wrote:
>> Tim Hobbs wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Large power stations operate at much higher efficiency than petrol
>>> engines...
>>
>>
>> Much ? No thermal power station can be more then roughly 30% efficient.
>> What is the conversion efficiency of a car engine ?
>> Steve
>Typical diesel ~30-35%
>petrol ~20-25%
>
>rest is heat given up to everything other than useful driving power
>
>Terry

ISTR reading that large modern power stations achieve over 40%
efficiency. I'll try to find out where I read it...


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'95 Discovery V8i aka "The Disco" (FOR SALE)
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com

>
>ISTR reading that large modern power stations achieve over 40%
>efficiency. I'll try to find out where I read it...

I was wrong. Combined Cycle stations in Japan are running at 54% and
the next is expected to run at 60%.

They aren't alone.
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/ballylumford/

Thermal stations do seem to be running in the mid to high thirties
percent. That's still better than a car engine (even a well
maintained one, which not all are). Not sure what the emissions are
like, but I'd bet on the power station there as well.




--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'95 Discovery V8i aka "The Disco" (FOR SALE)
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com

Tim Hobbs wrote:

> Thermal stations do seem to be running in the mid to high thirties
> percent. That's still better than a car engine (even a well
> maintained one, which not all are). Not sure what the emissions are
> like, but I'd bet on the power station there as well.

It all depends on what you mean by efficiency. If a power station JUSt
generates electricity - like almost of ours,the maximum efficiency is
around 35%. If the power station supplies energy in thermal and
electrical, then you go up to these 60-80% levels. Of course, if you
increase the temperature differential in your process, you get better
efficiency. Thats why a jet engine gets more efficient as it goes up.

Steve

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:11:03 +0100, Steve Taylor
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tim Hobbs wrote:
>
>> Thermal stations do seem to be running in the mid to high thirties
>> percent. That's still better than a car engine (even a well
>> maintained one, which not all are). Not sure what the emissions are
>> like, but I'd bet on the power station there as well.
>
>It all depends on what you mean by efficiency. If a power station JUSt
>generates electricity - like almost of ours,the maximum efficiency is
>around 35%. If the power station supplies energy in thermal and
>electrical, then you go up to these 60-80% levels. Of course, if you
>increase the temperature differential in your process, you get better
>efficiency. Thats why a jet engine gets more efficient as it goes up.
>
>Steve

Agreed. There are few options for CHP on a car.

Then again one chemical plant I am familiar with (and I'm sure they
are not unique) has their own CHP station on-site and regularly export
power to the grid. They could use that power to run their company
cars and vans - it would work fairly well as drivers could recharge
their cars at work during the day and the vans could recharge at
night.


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'95 Discovery V8i aka "The Disco" (FOR SALE)
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:11:03 +0100, Steve Taylor
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tim Hobbs wrote:
>
>> Thermal stations do seem to be running in the mid to high thirties
>> percent. That's still better than a car engine (even a well
>> maintained one, which not all are). Not sure what the emissions are
>> like, but I'd bet on the power station there as well.
>
>It all depends on what you mean by efficiency. If a power station JUSt
>generates electricity - like almost of ours,the maximum efficiency is
>around 35%. If the power station supplies energy in thermal and
>electrical, then you go up to these 60-80% levels. Of course, if you
>increase the temperature differential in your process, you get better
>efficiency. Thats why a jet engine gets more efficient as it goes up.
>
>Steve

We tend to use two or three 8 megawatt gas turbines (Solar Mars) for
electricity, depending upon demand, but each has a waste heat recovery
unit for the exhaust gases to partly flow through. The control system
balances the demand for energy required and efficiency.
Must look to see waht the calculated figure is...

Dan

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:28:49 GMT, Alex <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Don't worry about it, I think Martyn has a bee in his bonnet about gay
>guys.....

Missed that comment. I hope I don't appear to be that way inclined.
FWIW, I don't care about anyones sexual orientation so long as they're
happy and don't hurt anyone (without consent, obviously)


--
Some Land Roveresque (101 biased), links available
from: http://links.solis.co.uk/Geek/X4_Land_Rover/
I also have a little Land Rover site biased toward
my beloved 101 "Grumble", at: http://www.101fc.net


Reading this in 'alt.fan.landrover'? Did you know
there's a group FAQ: http://www.aflfaq.dyndns.info

"Steve Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snip>
> Thats why a jet engine gets more efficient as it goes up.
>
Hmmmm... not quite that simple. Jets become more efficient due to the lower
mass of available oxygen at altitude requiring a lower mass of fuel to
maintain a constant "mixture ratio". The output thrust is (very) basically
the ratio between airflow velocity at compressor entry to airflow velocity
at jet pipe nozzle outlet. This is clouded by modern high bypass-ratio
turbines, but the basic theory is the same,- Take a mass of air, add a fuel
to it and burn the mixture to create a velocity increase.
That is why piston prop engines are more efficient at lower altitudes, at
higher altitudes there is 1. less airmass to accelerate rearwards (creating
thrust), necessitating the prop working harder, which it can't because 2.
there is a lower available oxygen mass entering the engine in which to burn
fuel.

Badger.