Environmentalism: Lasting Dependablity Vs. Modern Innovation

[Lando]

I've long been a believer that my old Series Land Rover, although a rugged 4x4 derided by many die-hard ecologists, was a great example of a make do and mend mentality that seems to be dying out. In fact, outside of the Land Rover fraternity (and obviously, the classic car) it seems that this passion for recycling has us throwing out things that aren't even broken! Take the car scrappage scheme for example. If you can drive it to the garage, it ain't dead yet. So, the whole idea of perpetually upgrading for the latest model, even if it has better eco-credentials on paper, seems to me to be far more damaging than just keeping my dependable old Land Rover. Efficiency means consideration of the manufacturing and shipping and all of the other things that get your shiny new motor to the forecourt.

However, one of the Land Rover Facebook groups that I'm a member of, Land Rover Our Planet has pointed me towards the next generation and I've got to tell you, I'm pretty tempted. I started to think about the whole scrappage thing when the scheme was introduced for central heating boilers and that did make sense to me. I've always been a bit sceptical of "hybrids" too, but there's new Landies that look amazing, and they're hybrids! I can't find any pictures to post to let you see but I got this link off the fan page... Deisel Hybrid

I'd be really keen to know what your thoughts are on the forum. Is it better, environmentally speaking, to make do and mend? Or should we follow the government's lead and trade in for something new, but supposedly more efficient? I think, if that's the case and we should be thinking hybrid, then Land Rover looks like they're definitely the way to go.

Cheers folks

[nicks90]

ignoring the facts that 'Global warming' got renamed to 'climate change' when they couldnt prove it was happening - and now they cant prove 'Climate change' either............

but from a totally practical point of view:-

It is stupid to think that the emissions from your old clonker driven however 10k miles a year will equal or exceed the energy costs to build and use a newer vehicle for 10k miles a year.

Think of this energy use......

1) mine the raw materials

2) ship it around the world for processing

3) making aluminium and steel is very energy intensive

4) making the components from the raw processed metals

5) building the vehicle and painting it

6) the electrical and plastic components use lots of oil and rare metals (usually mined from underneath far eastern jungles in malaysia etc)

7) recycle your vehicle

8) repeat the whole lot of the above in 6 years time because its fallen to pieces cos they arent built to last.

the number of miles you drive will not change over that period of ownership, you;ll still be doing 10k miles a year - just in a new vehicle. Therefore the only difference between the 2 scenarios is how much more fuel and pollution your old vehicle will emit compared to the emissions and pollution and energy costs to build and run the newer vehicle.

If there is anyone out there who believes the idea of the newer vehicle is more energy efficient in its total energy lifespan/footprint then they are at best misinformed, at worst bloody stupid.

[matt bristol]

I agree witht he sentiments above, although perhaps not going so far as to call people stupid.

I work in Civil Engineering and it amazes me how much energy is required to prodce things like, cement, bricks, steel and all the other materials we use, let alone transport thema round the world and then fix them in place.

Has anyone else noticed the recent government adverts about climate change don't add up or is it just me? I haven't been so anal as to write it down but I am tempted, from memory we produce 40% of the CO2 emissions of the UK, airtravel produces 40% and driving your car produces the majority of another 40%, so far we (the general public) account for 120% of the CO2 production for the UK. I remember from school that 100% was equal to teh maximum of whatever it is you are measuring, so I'm not sure where the other 20% is. Perhaps we need to travel 5 miels less each week to get back to 100% then industry will have to follow suit.

[Max_torque]

I think the other important thing about old cars is the material they are made from, and how much energy that took and how easy it is to recover that material when recycled. From memory there were only 3 plastic parts on my old SIIa, everything else was either steel or alluminium. modern cars are very very plastic, tricky and expensive / polluting to recycle.

If the Gov was actually serious about Co2 reduction, they would implement tax benefits to employers / employees for "work at home days" at a stroke you could probably have over 50% of the uk working population work from home one day a week, giving an immediate 10% Co2 reduction (not to mention helping traffic flow etc etc)

If the goverment spent money on proper wide area access to highspeed optical broadband internet then many many people wouldnt have to drive at all.

I am also following the goverments advice to drive 5miles less a week, on monday, i got to within 2.5 miles of work, then pulled over in a layby for the day to save the planet...... ;-)

[Ruuman]

Nicks90 is spot on and I also believe correct in calling people stupid too

You only have to watch the programme "how it's made" to realise the amazing amount of energy and raw materials used to make paperclips and pens for 6 billion people, let alone something as complex as an automobile.

We live in a very strange time at the moment, TV, general print and a large potion of the Internet just provides the very, very basic building blocks of knowledge and then everyone bases their wide ranging opinions on that. Hence why hydrogen fuel cell cars were originally jumped upon as the saviour because "it's like everywhere man" problem solved.. never mind the production, storage and handling issues. The same with lithium batteries "it's just sea water".... er no it isn't.

Don't believe me, just ask anyone what crude oil is used for apart from being burnt in their cars

Back on track I think the most environmentally friendly thing you can do with a vehicle is to salvage/reuse/modify. For example my defender is 20years old now, the chassis easily has another 10years in it except maybe the rear cross member, but the engine isn't going to last that long. When the time comes there should be some nice 300tdi/td5 disco's falling apart by then so I'll just recycle one of those.

While i hate the car scrappage "scam" because it removes a perfectly good vehicle from the road. The boiler scrappage makes a lot more sense as it replaces a small part of the building. Plus you usually get a lot more than 6 years from one. They also have a far better production to consumption ratio.

If you really want a new vehicle, I'd wait a bit longer for the whole new breed of electric cars that are arriving.

[Lando]

Don't you think stupid is a bit strong, particularly with so many mixed messages out there? After all, Land Rovers are built to last, so what's to say that a Land Rover bought today won't still be going strong in 40 or 50 years? That being the case, if the newer vehicle is significantly more efficient, the sooner we make the switch the better, no? As I said previously, I do run and maintain my old Landy in the knowledge that materials, manufacturing and distribution of new vehicles greatly adds to the carbon footprint. That being said, I read that emissions from Land Rover Solihull have been reduced by 30% in the last decade. Also, it should be a source of pride to all Land Rover drivers that of the 4 million+ vehicles built to date, two thirds are still in regular use. How many other manufacturers can boast that kind of "sustainability"? So, will a combination of long-lasting, superior build quality AND modern, extra efficient technologies be the way to go?

I don't want to debate whether or not 'climate change' is real. There are people far better informed than me out there if you're looking for an argument. I'm just interested in opinion on the vehicle question.

Cheers

[Night Train]

Having spent a few years on a MSc course studying the environment I do have concerns for changes in the Earth's climate. However, I also have an 'I don't give a toss anymore' attitude to it. If it is changing for natural reasons then we should just go with it and adapt. If it is changing because of human intervention then we should just suffer the consequences for being stupid, homocentric and selfish.

So, am I no longer an environmentalist? No, I have just learnt that whatever happens, whatever the cause, we need to conserve resources. The energy use to make things, grow things and keep people warm, cool, fit and healthy and the fuels for making our chosen lifestyle work.

The route to be taken should be in adjusting our lifestyle expectations to increase the time that we can have a lifestyle choice.

As environmentalist, Mike Thomson, said: "We are not trying to save the planet, we are trying to save our lifestyles.". That has more truth to it then many, including environmentalists, would feel comfortable admitting.

In view of motoring, both for work and for leisure, there are ways to help improve the efficiency of what we do.

Keeping, maintaining and modifying an old Land Rover is far better then chucking it and buying a new one. Fitting a more efficient engine is a good move, using non fossil fuels from non food crops is another good move. Converting to electric drive is a good preparation for a future of local micro generation of electricity. For now, just driving carefully to 'save money' is a very good start.

(Has anyone figured out getting a V8 to run on 4 cylinders when it doesn't need full the power?)

I don't have a Land Rover anymore. I may get one again sometime but it will be an old one and only when I can be fuel efficient enough overall to justify running it for leisure. In the meantime I have a 60mpg winch equiped estate car and an electric car project.

As an aside, the scrappage scheme was noting to do with recyling or environmental concerns. It was solely a means to 'kick start' the economy and raise tax revenue for the exchequer.

If it was environmental then it should have been a scheme to renew failing engines, in exisiting vehicles, for more efficient ones. That would be more like the boiler scheme.

[redneck]

I worked at a well known motor manufacturer in swindon a few years ago.

Being as they were/are one of the most enviromentally aware manufacturers (allegedly), I was rather surprised to see some charts around the place stating that every car off the line produced 85kg of landfill, they were at the time producing 500-600 cars a day 5 days a week and were about to triple their output????????? As already stated the cost, enviromental and energy, to produce a new car takes many years to recoup when talking a few mpg better than an older car.

Obviously this type of thinking will not sell new cars or meet the aspirational needs of society.

But it does keep a ready supply of parts for my old beater

[FridgeFreezer]

Bought some bog roll the other day, the packet claimed each sheet was responsible for 2g of CO2 - several times more than its own weight!

Most of the cost of anything, from raw materials upwards, is spent on the energy used to convert it to something useful. If you have a poke round the raw materials and hence energy that go into making a Prius and its batteries you may find driving a 20 year old V8 Range Rover looking quite eco-friendly.

I'm waiting for someone to tot up the energy used in the manufacture of wind turbines or solar cells versus the energy they actually produce over their entire lifetime. I'm not convinced they break even, maybe they never will.

[Night Train]

I'm waiting for someone to tot up the energy used in the manufacture of wind turbines or solar cells versus the energy they actually produce over their entire lifetime. I'm not convinced they break even, maybe they never will.

Sometimes it isn't so much what you get from the turbine as what isn't required from a fossil fuel station.

One of the issues is that a renewable generator will use almost no fossil energy during it's life whereas a coal fired power station will be using coal in huge quantities for its lifetime.

If we are able to source our energy fom the Sun in the form of photons, heat and wind then it means that the remaining fossil resource can be used for more important things then just burning it.

I'd rather see oil, for example, used for the production of chemicals and plastics, that can't be made any other way, then for running vehicle engines inefficiently.

[Hybrid_From_Hell]

And another here

I am of the opinion that "Environmentalists" are even less reliable or to

be taken any more seriously than our wonderfull politicans - and I have a crassly

low opinion of that lot to type it here

Nige

[gazelle]

I'm waiting for someone to tot up the energy used in the manufacture of wind turbines or solar cells versus the energy they actually produce over their entire lifetime. I'm not convinced they break even, maybe they never will.

Don't think it does covers the energy balance, but interesting read all the same : Withouthotair.com

[q-rover]

The chinese car sales in November hit an all time high of 1million

vehicles sold in 1 month, the sales are expected to keep growing.

Let's be realistic here, and all admit that 'environmentalism' and

'climate change' has more to do with making money and taxation, than it

has to do with saving the planet.

It's not up to politicians making treaties and having signing ceromonies,

if people REALLY wanted to do something then they would change their life-

style and adopt a much less consumeristic lifestyle. That's what is 'killing

the planet', not driving a 4.6 V8 RR 10.000Km/ year.

[matt bristol]

I'm waiting for someone to tot up the energy used in the manufacture of wind turbines or solar cells versus the energy they actually produce over their entire lifetime. I'm not convinced they break even, maybe they never will.

3 months ( I can't remember where I found that out otherwise I would refer you too it here) thats including all the CO2 of production and installation etc, based on I assume working at max capacity/output.

As was previously mentioned though these do not address the issue of energy consumption which is causing the 'problem'

[FridgeFreezer]

Matt - that seems very quick. I could believe it if they were only counting the energy used in the factory that assembles the stuff, but if you add in the process of getting all the raw materials together (EG mining silicon, manufacturing composite materials, metal, wire, etc.) I really can't believe it's as low as that.

[LR90]

Received a pdf today with Printed on 100% recycled material in the footer. Figure that out.

To replace my 90 with an 'equivalent' new 4x4 is I'm convinced more damaging than the ongoing costs of keeping the old one running. However I have to admit I'm quite taken with the near disposablity of the newer low cost & fuel efficient cars. I use one to help cap the 90's mileage and running costs but it is a million miles from being a 90 replacement.

[Rich_P]

I too struggle to believe what Matt has mentioned about the wind turbines and solar panels. If someone could give some reference(s) to this I would appreciate it, as we cover matters like this in my current course.

I think I saw someone mention about power generation being moved to local authorities, or at least the suggestion of it. There are government intentions of doing this. It is claimed that they are trying to push this for environmental reasons to reduce the energy requirements throughout the country. What I reckon is the case, is that the government is merely trying to shift the blame from themselves onto local authorities for when energy problems do occur. I do not know what the current state of the national grid is, but I recall a program some years back claiming the grid would struggle to sustain the current rate of growth for the next 10 years. Couple this with the political minefield about power stations, is it any wonder that politicians may want to move responsibility down the ladder?

As for the original question in the topic, isn't the big question where the energy comes from? If we could defy the laws of physics and create energy, our problems would be solved.

Aren't turbines supposed to be quite energy efficient? I know steam turbines can be up to 80% efficient, so what about fuel based turbines? After all, Rover developed a turbine-powered vehicle didn't they? Does anyone know how a modern design of a car with a turbine would do compared to one of these hybrid designs?

[Night Train]

I too struggle to believe what Matt has mentioned about the wind turbines and solar panels. If someone could give some reference(s) to this I would appreciate it, as we cover matters like this in my current course.

I think I saw someone mention about power generation being moved to local authorities, or at least the suggestion of it. There are government intentions of doing this. It is claimed that they are trying to push this for environmental reasons to reduce the energy requirements throughout the country. What I reckon is the case, is that the government is merely trying to shift the blame from themselves onto local authorities for when energy problems do occur. I do not know what the current state of the national grid is, but I recall a program some years back claiming the grid would struggle to sustain the current rate of growth for the next 10 years. Couple this with the political minefield about power stations, is it any wonder that politicians may want to move responsibility down the ladder?

As for the original question in the topic, isn't the big question where the energy comes from? If we could defy the laws of physics and create energy, our problems would be solved.

Aren't turbines supposed to be quite energy efficient? I know steam turbines can be up to 80% efficient, so what about fuel based turbines? After all, Rover developed a turbine-powered vehicle didn't they? Does anyone know how a modern design of a car with a turbine would do compared to one of these hybrid designs?

A lot of existing electricity generation is used to keep the grid running. All those losses have to be fed from the power stations and energy has to be sent long distances to keep the extremities within regulated limits of supply voltage.

Local generation would reduce these losses but people don't generally like living near power stations of any description.

What mustn't be forgotten (or not misunderstood) is that all our energy is Solar. Fossil fuels are just banks of stored Solar power that has taken tens of millions of years to develop and only a few hundred years for us to use up. Using non fossil fuels will mean using energy at the rate that we can collect it. There is plenty to collect but we are just not good at wanting to collect it when there seems to be so much in the bank.

An analogy would be if you had £1m in the bank with no interest and a job earning £15k pa. You decide to give away your pay cheque each month and live the life of a hollywood celeb just on your savings. The savings will run out and then your life style will need to change when you are back to your £15k pa. It won't even cover the cost of the staff or the council tax on the mansion, etc.

Rover did have a turbine car, it was in effect a small jet engine. Jet engines are not efficient. A steam turbine is efficient but only when you measure the efficiency of turning the steam into mechanical energy. The making of the steam often isn't efficient at all, especially in a car sized unit.

[Exmoor Beast]

sooner or later there will be a hydrogen infastructure in place and all the greenies will be buying Hydrogen cars. I'll wait for someone to crash one, whip the powerplant out, plonk it in my still running 110 and see what they object to then, no doubt there will be something...

Will

[q-rover]

But watervapour is a bigger 'greenhouse gas' than CO2.

I believe WV accounts for 98% of the greenhouse effect,

yet CO2 is only a minor percentage of the remaining 2%.

[reb78]

(Has anyone figured out getting a V8 to run on 4 cylinders when it doesn't need full the power?)

Chrysler for one. The 300C V8 does this.

[bobtail4x4]

I thought most V8s dropped to 4 pots when they saw a puddle?

[Roverdrive]

Damn

Beat me to it.

[mickeyw]

ignoring the facts that 'Global warming' got renamed to 'climate change' when they couldnt prove it was happening - and now they cant prove 'Climate change' either............

but from a totally practical point of view:-

It is stupid to think that the emissions from your old clonker driven however 10k miles a year will equal or exceed the energy costs to build and use a newer vehicle for 10k miles a year.

Think of this energy use......

1) mine the raw materials

2) ship it around the world for processing

3) making aluminium and steel is very energy intensive

4) making the components from the raw processed metals

5) building the vehicle and painting it

6) the electrical and plastic components use lots of oil and rare metals (usually mined from underneath far eastern jungles in malaysia etc)

7) recycle your vehicle

8) repeat the whole lot of the above in 6 years time because its fallen to pieces cos they arent built to last.

the number of miles you drive will not change over that period of ownership, you;ll still be doing 10k miles a year - just in a new vehicle. Therefore the only difference between the 2 scenarios is how much more fuel and pollution your old vehicle will emit compared to the emissions and pollution and energy costs to build and run the newer vehicle.

If there is anyone out there who believes the idea of the newer vehicle is more energy efficient in its total energy lifespan/footprint then they are at best misinformed, at worst bloody stupid.

This is just what I wanted to say ^^^^, but Nick has put it much better than I could.

[mad_pete]

"I'm waiting for someone to tot up the energy used in the manufacture of wind turbines or solar cells versus the energy they actually produce over their entire lifetime. I'm not convinced they break even, maybe they never will."

Then why would wind farms buy one ? Cost of turbine = materials + construction + energy. Money gained from turbine by selling the energy it creates.

If the turbine took more energy to produce (not including materials and construction) than it was ever going to produce I think the wind farm owners would notice pretty quickly.

Google as much as you can trust that has it at 3 - 9 months:

"The energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is equal to the new energy produced by the plant within a few months of operation"