Greenpeace at it again ;-)

In news:[email protected],
Moving Vision <[email protected]> blithered:
> 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.

I clearly? do not have a full knowledge nor understanding of this emotive subject,
however as I understand the operation of the two 'engines' there is basically no
difference, they both burn the same fuel and are essentially the same
construction. They are both gas turbines burning kerosene, in the turbo prop the
shaft drives an external propellor, in the bypass turbojet the compressor is
oversize and contibutes to the thrust of the engine by bypassing the combustion
portion. Ergo only detail differences in fundamentally the same system. I am at a
loss therefore to see how there would be substantially if any difference in the
pollution potential or otherwise between them.
--
"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 news:[email protected],
Badger <[email protected]> blithered:
> "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.

Thanks Badger,
I wonder from where the 'facts' the OP was quoting came?


--
"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 news:[email protected],
Moving Vision <[email protected]> blithered:
>>> 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.

They probably do, but your emotive statements avoided that particularly important
observation, prefering to claim turboprop good all else bad!


>
> 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.



--
"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 news:[email protected],
Larry <[email protected]> blithered:
> 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

I'm going to retire from this debate before I get upset about sweeping subjective
conclusions.
Let us try to limit ourselves to comparing apples with apples. Greenpeaces apples
were clearly a different variety than ours.
A '"very"' valid point was made regarding the longevity of LandRover products
rather than concentrating on sensationalising debatable emmisions of an isolated
product of their range!

> "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



--
"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:
>>>> 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.
>
>They probably do, but your emotive statements avoided that particularly
>important
>observation, prefering to claim turboprop good all else bad!


I might have misunderstood the reason for turbo props being 'greener'
than jets, perhaps it's only because of operational altitude that their
relative environmental impact differs, but would that amount to a
decreased impact of 85%? Clearly in such a case the turbo prop would
indeed be much better for the environment.

My emotiveness was in response to the emotiveness of earlier posters
whose assertions imply along the lines that Green Peace are merely a
bunch of nutters who have all sorts of evil personal motives that have
nothing to do with the environment and who have contributed nothing to
the belated U-turns of hypocritical Governments and their narrow minded
and self serving establishment cronies.

--
John Lubran

In news[email protected],
Moving Vision <[email protected]> blithered:
> In article <[email protected]>, GbH
> <[email protected]> writes
>> In news:[email protected],
>> Moving Vision <[email protected]> blithered:
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> They probably do, but your emotive statements avoided that
>> particularly important
>> observation, prefering to claim turboprop good all else bad!
>
>
> I might have misunderstood the reason for turbo props being 'greener'
> than jets, perhaps it's only because of operational altitude that
> their relative environmental impact differs, but would that amount to
> a decreased impact of 85%? Clearly in such a case the turbo prop would
> indeed be much better for the environment.
>
> My emotiveness was in response to the emotiveness of earlier posters
> whose assertions imply along the lines that Green Peace are merely a
> bunch of nutters who have all sorts of evil personal motives that have
> nothing to do with the environment and who have contributed nothing to
> the belated U-turns of hypocritical Governments and their narrow
> minded and self serving establishment cronies.

Aye John,
Sorry if I went off a bit over the top there. I'm a professional MoG and it seems
to go with the territory.
I think we've largely had a reasoned discussion on the subject and I'm of a
similar mind to yourself, how come the TP is seen as so green? Seems to lack logic
somewhere. As to compaison of apples and pears, I suspect if one was to figure in
the total emmisions on say a transatlantic route, your 747 would win hands down
over yer average series lll merely because the lll likely wouldn't make it in this
lifetime, besides its pollution would probably be bits fallen off! As someone
pointed out mairitime propulsion seems initially to be highly polluting.. Now I
lost the thread of my argument.


--
"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!

>> I might have misunderstood the reason for turbo props being 'greener'
>> than jets, perhaps it's only because of operational altitude that
>> their relative environmental impact differs, but would that amount to
>> a decreased impact of 85%? Clearly in such a case the turbo prop would
>> indeed be much better for the environment.
>>
>> My emotiveness was in response to the emotiveness of earlier posters
>> whose assertions imply along the lines that Green Peace are merely a
>> bunch of nutters who have all sorts of evil personal motives that have
>> nothing to do with the environment and who have contributed nothing to
>> the belated U-turns of hypocritical Governments and their narrow
>> minded and self serving establishment cronies.
>
>Aye John,
>Sorry if I went off a bit over the top there. I'm a professional MoG
>and it seems
>to go with the territory.
>I think we've largely had a reasoned discussion on the subject and I'm of a
>similar mind to yourself, how come the TP is seen as so green? Seems to
>lack logic
>somewhere. As to compaison of apples and pears, I suspect if one was to
>figure in
>the total emmisions on say a transatlantic route, your 747 would win
>hands down
>over yer average series lll merely because the lll likely wouldn't make
>it in this
>lifetime, besides its pollution would probably be bits fallen off! As someone
>pointed out mairitime propulsion seems initially to be highly
>polluting.. Now I
>lost the thread of my argument.
>
>


No worries my friend, though I'm intrigued as to what an MoG is?

Now if that Series lll was pulling a trailer with 300 souls aboard, in
low first of course....................
--
John Lubran

On 2005-05-18, GbH <[email protected]> wrote:

> A '"very"' valid point was made regarding the longevity of LandRover
> products rather than concentrating on sensationalising debatable
> emmisions of an isolated product of their range!

While the longevity of the series and Defender models is without
doubt, what about the others? Much of the reason for the longevity of
series and Defenders comes from the owners wanting to keep them going,
but is the same true of Range Rovers and Discoveries? All the
electronics and trim will fail before the raw mechanicals, at which
point given the kind of user these vehicles attract, they'll just be
scrap. I don't think we'll be seeing many current Range Rovers on the
green lanes in 10 years' time, the chassis and drivetrain may well be
fine but the trim and gadgets will probably condemn them to an early
death.

There will of course always be exceptions, but I doubt that the
proportion of Discovery/Range Rover production still alive in the
future will ever come close to that of the Series, 90/110 and
Defenders.

Not based on any numbers of course, just limited observations.

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

In news:[email protected],
Moving Vision <[email protected]> blithered:
>>> I might have misunderstood the reason for turbo props being
>>> 'greener' than jets, perhaps it's only because of operational
>>> altitude that their relative environmental impact differs, but
>>> would that amount to a decreased impact of 85%? Clearly in such a
>>> case the turbo prop would indeed be much better for the environment.
>>>
>>> My emotiveness was in response to the emotiveness of earlier posters
>>> whose assertions imply along the lines that Green Peace are merely
>>> a bunch of nutters who have all sorts of evil personal motives that
>>> have nothing to do with the environment and who have contributed
>>> nothing to the belated U-turns of hypocritical Governments and
>>> their narrow minded and self serving establishment cronies.
>>
>> Aye John,
>> Sorry if I went off a bit over the top there. I'm a professional MoG
>> and it seems
>> to go with the territory.
>> I think we've largely had a reasoned discussion on the subject and
>> I'm of a similar mind to yourself, how come the TP is seen as so
>> green? Seems to lack logic
>> somewhere. As to compaison of apples and pears, I suspect if one was
>> to figure in
>> the total emmisions on say a transatlantic route, your 747 would win
>> hands down
>> over yer average series lll merely because the lll likely wouldn't
>> make it in this
>> lifetime, besides its pollution would probably be bits fallen off!
>> As someone pointed out mairitime propulsion seems initially to be
>> highly polluting.. Now I
>> lost the thread of my argument.
>>
>>
>
>
> No worries my friend, though I'm intrigued as to what an MoG is?


Miserable old Git!

>
> Now if that Series lll was pulling a trailer with 300 souls aboard, in
> low first of course....................



--
"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 news:[email protected],
Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> blithered:
> On 2005-05-18, GbH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A '"very"' valid point was made regarding the longevity of LandRover
>> products rather than concentrating on sensationalising debatable
>> emmisions of an isolated product of their range!
>
> While the longevity of the series and Defender models is without
> doubt, what about the others? Much of the reason for the longevity of
> series and Defenders comes from the owners wanting to keep them going,
> but is the same true of Range Rovers and Discoveries? All the
> electronics and trim will fail before the raw mechanicals, at which
> point given the kind of user these vehicles attract, they'll just be
> scrap. I don't think we'll be seeing many current Range Rovers on the
> green lanes in 10 years' time, the chassis and drivetrain may well be
> fine but the trim and gadgets will probably condemn them to an early
> death.

Mind you, if progress in the countryside continues at the current rate, green
lanes will be a figment of the past!

>
> There will of course always be exceptions, but I doubt that the
> proportion of Discovery/Range Rover production still alive in the
> future will ever come close to that of the Series, 90/110 and
> Defenders.
>
> Not based on any numbers of course, just limited observations.



--
"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!

"Moving Vision" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]

Go home, arsehole, you don't even have a clue what yer talkin' about.

Mother wrote:

>
> And you have empirical evidence to support this assertion?

What was the name of that Shell Platform that was going to kill everyone
with the massive release of toxic nasties as it was being broken up ?

Except it didn't have the nasties on board, or at least not in the huge
unmanageable quantities indicated, despite Greenpeaces assertions.

Steve

On Fri, 20 May 2005 18:19:56 +0100, steve Taylor
<[email protected]> wrote:

>What was the name of that Shell Platform that was going to kill everyone
>with the massive release of toxic nasties as it was being broken up ?
>
>Except it didn't have the nasties on board, or at least not in the huge
> unmanageable quantities indicated, despite Greenpeaces assertions.

And? They were going on the figures published by, erm... Shell.

Mother wrote:

> And? They were going on the figures published by, erm... Shell.
>
No, AFAIR, they made a big public raid on the platform, and then used
their own specialists to make the measurements - can't trust the oil
company's figures.

Steve

On Fri, 20 May 2005 21:58:13 +0100, steve Taylor
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> And? They were going on the figures published by, erm... Shell.
>>
>No, AFAIR, they made a big public raid on the platform, and then used
>their own specialists to make the measurements - can't trust the oil
>company's figures.

Correct, but the raid was based upon the (higher) figures publicly
made available by Shell. Greenpeace actually demonstrated that Shell
didn't know, and had incorrectly guessed the measurements. Now, had
Shell underestimated...

In article <[email protected]>, aghasee
<[email protected]> writes
>"Moving Vision" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
>news:[email protected]
>
>Go home, arsehole, you don't even have a clue what yer talkin' about.
>
>


Red necked cretins always reveal themselves by bringing the level of
their debate down to merely rhetorical abuse. I'm very much at home and
I'm not hiding behind anonymous pseudonyms. Who're you then?
--
John Lubran

"Moving Vision" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>, aghasee
> <[email protected]> writes
>> "Moving Vision" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>> Go home, arsehole, you don't even have a clue what yer talkin' about.
>>
>>
>
>
> Red necked cretins always reveal themselves by bringing the level of
> their debate down to merely rhetorical abuse. I'm very much at home

You were the one that started the rhetorical abuse, my friend.

> and I'm not hiding behind anonymous pseudonyms. Who're you then?

Not...

> John Lubran

In any way.

And who might you be?

>>>
>>> Go home, arsehole, you don't even have a clue what yer talkin' about.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Red necked cretins always reveal themselves by bringing the level of
>> their debate down to merely rhetorical abuse. I'm very much at home
>
>You were the one that started the rhetorical abuse, my friend.
>
>> and I'm not hiding behind anonymous pseudonyms. Who're you then?
>
>Not...
>
>> John Lubran
>
>In any way.
>
>And who might you be?
>
>

You ask the self evidently obvious whilst ducking the same question.
Clearly Mr 'aghasee' my name is 'John Lubran'. I can be found easily.
Unlike your own disguise, it's not a pseudonym.

--
John Lubran

Greenpeace generally are not green and not peacefull.

They are probably one of the organisations that cause the most polution.
Why do I say this? Well they are against the cleanest and safest fuel, so
we are reducing the use of this fuel and not increasing it.

It's nuclear fuel. Very clean on the enviroment and the number of folk
killed in the industry is the lowest.

I would call myself a green person, I use solar energy, but don't want to be
classed in with the 'greens'.

Alan