EU 'should ban inefficient cars'

[DieselE]

Bill, you know better than to compare apples to oranges.

Per mile your V8 5 litre is worse.

Sorry but isn't that what you were doing when you quoted pollution on a per capita basis which conveniently overlooks the pollution from China.

 

[Benzowner]

I know it would need a major design of the exhaust system, but is it not possible to install CO & CO2 scrubbers in the system, maybe it would require an additional tank to collect the exhaust gas and then the fumes could be cleaned before emission. There again, there are probably lots of things that can be done but it is all down to cost vs legislation.

 

[Dieselman]

Sorry but isn't that what you were doing when you quoted pollution on a per capita basis which conveniently overlooks the pollution from China.

How does it do that?

It stands to reason that a HUGE country with a vast number of people will emit more pollution than a small one with far less inhabitants.

The only way to measure anything is to use constants.

At least whitenemesis and I should agree here.

 

[Dieselman]

I know it would need a major design of the exhaust system, but is it not possible to install CO & CO2 scrubbers in the system, maybe it would require an additional tank to collect the exhaust gas and then the fumes could be cleaned before emission. There again, there are probably lots of things that can be done but it is all down to cost vs legislation.

It's not a case of Co2 scrubbers. What do you do with all the gas you are generating. Burning fuel creates Co2, no if's no but's. This is why it's a good measure of efficiency.

No one is saying that large engines should be banned as long as thay can achieve an average of over say 35mpg.

In Co2 terms that's:

187g/km for petrol
216g/km for diesel.

The diesels are there already......

 

[DieselE]

If the object is to reduce pollution in the world then surely the effort should be directed at the sources of maximum pollution. Europe may feature on a league table of polluters on a per capita basis but effort here will have no effect without significant efforts from China and India.

That to me is one of the problems. The developed world is currently looking at the developing world and saying slow your development up in the cause of reducing pollution.

IMHO we are already getting the first signs of what happens when politicians jump on a bandwagon, cronic over reaction.

 

[scumbag]

Once, and I mean ONCE while driving, I got the 5.4lrt V8 in the Chariot to do 35mpg. It was over about 60miles and I had to drive like an old women, but it was a nice day and the car had only done 600miles at the time.

Now the average of this car, is quote at 23.5mpg with 288co2.

So with a bit more study, and the abilty for it to close cylinders down, and 1 or 2 other elements, it could easily exceed 35mpg at least in a cruise mode.

It may still be capable of producing in excess of 300bhp and sound as good as it did.

So whats up with that. They could probably make it quieter, lighter, and more aerodynamic, have less rolling resistance without too much trouble already.

They could even give it gears so will not allow it to exceed 150, thus preventing tuners de-limiting it in the first place.

And it if uses less fuel, its cheaper to run over long distances, which may make more people decide to buy one, and visit places that you can't get to at the moment by public transport.

 

[Dieselman]

How many wind farms are there in China? (other than the ones they send to us in kit form that is.


You mean other than some of my colleagues? Or more seriously, the steam engines that dear Mr Dibnah (god rest him) loved so much.

Hmm..last time I travelled by train they weren't using steam locos, maybe where you are they still are which is why your ticket prices are so high..

In fact the example of the steam engine supports the case to move forwards. Steam locos were in general use and run at approx 10% efficiency on the move. These were replaced about 50 years ago by diesel engines running at about 45% efficiency and latterly by diesel electric and electric running at upto 90% efficeincy.
That is progress.

Take the petrol IC engine used by car manufacturers, which still can't manage better than 25% efficency. Surely they should accept it is time to invest and move forwards.

Regarding China and renewable energy sources.
They are the Worlds larges user of solar heating and have a proper policy (law) towards promoting energy generation by renewable means.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/assets/download/China_RE_Law_05.doc

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5491

Hydro power.

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/gorges/

Currently the world leader in hydroelectric power as well.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/27/content_386292.htm

 

[Alfie]

Hmm..last time I travelled by train they weren't using steam locos, maybe where you are they still are which is why your ticket prices are so high..

In fact the example of the steam engine supports the case to move forwards. Steam locos were in general use and run at approx 10% efficiency on the move. These were replaced about 50 years ago by diesel engines running at about 45% efficiency and latterly by diesel electric and electric running at upto 90% efficeincy.
That is progress.

Take the petrol IC engine used by car manufacturers, which still can't manage better than 25% efficency. Surely they should accept it is time to invest and move forwards.

Regarding China and renewable energy sources.
They are the Worlds larges user of solar heating and have a proper policy (law) towards promoting energy generation by renewable means.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/assets/download/China_RE_Law_05.doc

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5491

Hydro power.

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/gorges/

Currently the world leader in hydroelectric power as well.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/27/content_386292.htm

They are also the world leaders in building coal fired power stations.

 

[glojo]

Well, if we could obtain some truthful, meaningful statistics of actual reserves held from oil companies I think we would find we are well on the way to using up the resource.
As it is they overstate their reserves to bolster company value.

The price of oil has risen for a reason and the trend shows no sign of reversing.

All I know is that there are huge numbers of capped off wells in the North Sea that are not being used. There are large areas of the North Sea that still remains unexplored, there are large oil resources on and off the African Continent which are not being explored because of the extremely violent,volatile, unstable regimes in the relevant countries. There are large reserves in Alaska, Russia is now flexing its economical muscle and is using its own oil resources, then we start to discuss the South Atlantic.... Who knows what resources are down there?? Once deep sea drilling\exploration becomes an economical option then we will see even more oil becoming available.

Having said that I fully accept that we are all using more and more fossil fuel. I have no idea how many cars there are in China, or how many there will be in two years time, but I will assume the great majority will not be gas guzzling V8's

I tend to look at our politicians as telling me to turn off a tap that is dripping, but in the same breath they are encouraging the rest of the World to increase the flow from their taps.

Rain forests have been described as the lungs of the world!! For years there has been supposed legislation on the felling of trees and the sale of its wood made illegal. The reality is that the involved governments have banned any investigations into this activity and either not allow any investigative reporting or deport any reporters they catch attempting to document this event. If we are serious about preserving rain forests then why not arrest the ships that carry the illegal cargo? Once they are in international waters then simply arrest them, the trade will very quickly cease without the funds that make it profitable

China
Rant mode
Chinese rivers are not contaminated; the waters are usually poisonous. Factories, sewage, household rubbish... it all gets dumped into their water. I read somewhere that large areas of northern China lack this basic commodity and they now intend building huge canals in an attempt to irrigate the land. Great idea and they are buying up huge amounts of the worlds cement in these building programs, but the snag is these canals will be moving what they call water, but what scientists have called toxic waste. They will be irrigating their land with poison which will kill any plant life that has managed to grow, but that is nothing compared to their factories that do not have any filtration to absorb poisonous or obnoxious gasses from being released into the atmosphere. These factories are not banned from discharging their waste into the nearest river , soak-away or sewer. They dump their domestic waste into rivers, they allow their sewers to flow into rivers and what is the population of this nation? what effects will it have on global warming and most important....... If Great Britain was removed from the face of the earth would the ozone layer notice the difference? Our contribution is a grain of sand being removed from a teaspoon full of sand (perhaps not that much)

Unless we help developing nations to cut down on their pollution problems then we might just as well face the gale force winds, undo our zippers and 'pray' into the wind.

end of rant

Regards
John

 

[Dieselman]

Europe may feature on a league table of polluters on a per capita basis but effort here will have no effect without significant efforts from China and India.

Europe doesn't only feature in a league table, it's right up there beaten only by USA and Austrailia.

And guess what the developing nations answer has been when told to curb their emissions.
"When the already developed world that already has the wealth and ability to do this shows us they will change, then so will we."

With the attitude that it's all someone elses issue then nothing will happen. Actually that's wrong, there will be tight legislation which will hurt financially as that is all most people care about.

Personally I don't understand peoples lack of willingness for technology to improve and develop. It seems like natural progression to me.

 

[glojo]

If folks think I am being unfair on China or exaggarating then looky here:

But the families here are actually lucky, and certainly better off than the Chinese government's estimate of 360 million people who lack access to safe drinking water.

By the time it reaches the Jialing, when the main river level is high, the Qingshuixi's outlet is a bubbling, putrid pool of defecation and chemicals

Please don't tell me what car I may or may not drive

John

 

[Dieselman]

China
Rant mode
Chinese rivers are not contaminated; the waters are usually poisonous. Factories, sewage, household rubbish... it all gets dumped into their water. I read somewhere that large areas of northern China lack this basic commodity and they now intend building huge canals in an attempt to irrigate the land. Great idea and they are buying up huge amounts of the worlds cement in these building programs, but the snag is these canals will be moving what they call water, but what scientists have called toxic waste.

Hmm. That's a different issue but nothing we haven't done in the past. I believe the Chinese authorities are aware and attempting to deal with this issue but that wouldn't make a good story, would it?

As far as the irrigation it is true that the rivers in parts of China have been drying up so the land can't be used for crops. This is what the irrigation canals are for. The Gobi desert is advancing at something like 7km per year due to dehydration of the land, believed to be due to climate change.

Without crops there won't be enough land to feed the people then what will happen..?? Water wars..as is predicted for hotter clime countries.?

 

[glojo]

Hmm. That's a different issue but nothing we haven't done in the past. I believe the Chinese authorities are aware and attempting to deal with this issue but that wouldn't make a good story, would it?

I think your right they are attempting to do something and the detail is in the wording. The only decent documentaries I have seen on this issue have been on Al Jazeera, a TV channel condemned by our politicians as being anti west in their reporting, but if we want to know how this huge country is suffering with one of its worst winters then nip onto this 'anti western' source

Al Jazeera has really highlighted the pollution issues and filmed dust carts tipping their waste directly into rivers, they have filmed large factories which discharge their waste into rivers and this was don e last year...... 2007 so yes I accept the Chinese are attempting to do something but my personal belief is that if they are genuinely serious about helping to prevent global warming then they shoulkd be pro-active and doing something and not just 'being aware'.

The rivers I have highlighted are the exact same rivers that will eventually be supplying the areas you are discussing By the time it reaches the Jialing, when the main river level is high, the Qingshuixi's outlet is a bubbling, putrid pool of defecation and chemicals.

Are we seriously suggesting this filth will improve the land it is being diverted to? And yes Chinese scientists were interviewed on Al Jazeera (with their minders) and they stated they are aware of this issues. That was in 2007

It is not my place to either criticise or advise a foreign power on their policiies but I object strongly to anyone telling me what car I may or may not drive and is my car more polluting than an old fashioned two stroke engine half the size which is so common in many Asian countries?

John

 

[ibrar]

hmmm

 

[Dieselman]

if they are genuinely serious about helping to prevent global warming then they shoulkd be pro-active and doing something and not just 'being aware'.

But polluting their rivers doesn't affect Global Warming it's a local pollutant, which we still do plenty of both wittingly and unwittingly.

Your comment about cutting down rainforest is pertinent but acid rain and sulpher pollution also kill large numbers of trees around Europe.

I feel we shouldn't ignore our activities and attempt to blame others when we are at least part of the problem.

 

[glojo]

But polluting their rivers doesn't affect Global Warming it's a local pollutant, which we still do plenty of both wittingly and unwittingly..

I understand what your saying but this pollution is certainly not local and it spreads by sea to other countries and yes I hear you shouting 'It will not effect the ozone layer' but the gunge comes out the pipes and the unfiltered exhausts from ovens\kilns, furnaces, boilers from the exact same un-policed factories does directly effect the ozone layer BIG TIME, far bigger than our small country. One Chinese city will cause more damage than our tiny little island.

Of course we all have responsibilities but these responsibilities must be proportionate and not punitive. Improve the fuel consumption to bhp ratio by all means but this silly attitude of righteousness sucks.

Carbon footprint.
I flew to a pop concert last week so I will now make a sacrifice and cancel my holiday tomorrow when I was thinking about flying to Hawaii. How rediculous. Carbon footprints........ nope not going there

Ho, ho, ho chi minn (they were the days)

regards
John

 

[whitenemesis]

"Carbon Footprint" "Carbon Neutral" "Green" all awful marketing jive. We are now being manipulated through guilt to purchase A or to use B.

I am 100% behind mankind being more efficient in its generation of power, reducing waste. CO2 is not going to kill us or our planet (well not for the next 25,000years or so) What we see around us now is just our planet recovering (at an increasing rate) from the last ice-age, which in itself was a result of a previous "high" level of "greenhouse gases" (Oh! I hate that terminology). It's the natural cycle of events, interupted by the occasional ELE!

What we do to our world will have negligable effects long-term and really only effects our comfort short-term. Yes, we will have to adjust our way of life, move the focus of our settlements away from coasts.

"Global warming" is a tool of the politicians

 

[jamesmc]

Carbon footprint, Global warming, CO2 emissions??
I wonder what the next catch phrase will be?

One Volcano going up can put all the recent puny human efforts at planet climate control to shame in a few hours and yet that is a natural act of nature.

I too am in the camp that considers all this nothing but a tool that the politicians and corporations can use to suit their own agenda.
It's scaremongering at it's best and whats more many people are being taken in by it.

A recent advert on UK SKY TV goes along the lines of...

'Buy our concentrated fabric softener because by using smaller bottles you are reducing the number of deliveries thus taking trucks off the roads and helping the environment.'

What?? Nothing to do with the company concerned wanting to save money on deliveries and making more money to then?

Nobody is going to 'save the planet' with all this hype. The planet will always be here.
We may not though, and I doubt if it will be through anything as mundane as Global warming that causes our extinction.

 

[glojo]

Yes, we will have to adjust our way of life, move the focus of our settlements away from coasts.

Freezing over and hell come to mind before I move away from the coast. It aint gonna happen.

Unless the wife says so, then it will

Regards
John

 

[grober]

I am not connected with any government agency. My research is not climatology. I am privy to papers and discussion in the field. My contracts preclude me from publishing.
I recognise I argue from a position of weakness.... but not ignorance.

I have withdrawn this post in respect of another forum members privacy.