Environmentalism: Lasting Dependablity Vs. Modern Innovation

[Night Train]

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%.

Methane is also a bigger contributor then CO2. It comes mainly from the decomposition of organic waste and the farming of live stock. This is where eating less meat would reduce the methane output of agriculture.

However, it can be said, as is said of the long tail pipe idea of electric cars, that reducing meat consumption could lead to the long fart pipe from the farm yard to the domestic dinner table.

I'm not keen on hydrogen as a fuel at the moment. It takes a lot of energy to make, store and transport it and the platinum in the fuel cell is mined in a very environmentally distructive manner. However, it could be a stop gap measure that is cheaper then nuclear and with less long term problems.

[disco_al]

Personally i don't like the idea of driving round with a potential H bomb behind the back seat. Anyone remember the Hindendurg?

Let alone a string of Hydrogen tanks along busy main commuter routes, just waiting for someone to blow them up in the name of whatever or whoever?? hmmm

[reb78]

Land Rovers already done the nuclear thing havent they? There was an article in LRO a while back. Wasnt the bulkhead so heavy with lead to protect the driver that it could hardly move?

[plasticbadger]

The following 'facts' are repeated from memory, but....

I read a report on the net that looked at energy use of vehicles over the 'average' 10 year lifespan. The first figure they came up with is that in a 10 year lifespan over 75% of the energy a vehicle consumes is in production, the remaining 25% being split between running the vehicle 10,000 miles are year, maintenance etc and recycling it at 10 years old.

The study went on to look at the energy to produce, run and recycle various vehicles in detail. They concluded that due to the heavy metals used in the batteries, electronics and wiring and the inefficent production process of the Toyota Prius Hybrid that it was actually less efficent than a V8 Range Rover.

However, at 10 years old the Prius will probably have stopped working, while the Range Rover will have another 10 to 20 years left in it!

My personal feelings are utter disgust at the Political movements to encourage new vehicle purchasing. It is motivated by nothing more than a desire to benifit the government from tax income and and to try and improved the ecconomy. The Scrappage scheme is a disgrace, it makes me sick to see all the usable cars being carted out of dealers and off to Eastern Europe. If people want or need to buy a new vehicle then great, go and buy an efficient non-hybrid, otherwise just use the one you've got or buy another old one when it's dead - that's the only way we'll save the world from our own consumerism.

The government should introduce schemes to encourage the use of older vehicles - such as bringing back rolling tax exemption, easier ways to scrap and recycle car parts as spare parts, company car tax breaks if you choose to use a secondhand vehicle.

Plus if you want to save fuel drive slower and drive less, don't buy a Hybrid!

Sorry for the strong views, but that's how I feel!

[Bowie69]

Plenty of people drive around in their petrol Land Rovers sitting on 60-70 litres of highly inflammable liquid, knowing what I know about LPG vehicles having worked on a few now, I would rather have a so-called 'bomb' in my boot than a petrol tank any day.

Pressure vessels with correct venting are incredibly safe IMHO.

[mad_pete]

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

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

I wouldn't put it that high by a long way but water vapour has a amplifying effect so small changes caused by CO2 are magnified by the water vapour. That's not the same as CO2 doesn't matter.

[mad_pete]

in a "dust to dust" comparison of modern cars (covering the total life of the car made+driven+re-cycled) the 4.0L jeep wrangler was most eco friendly car.

[q-rover]

I wasn't implying CO2 has no effect, but what comes out of the exhaust of hydrogen

powered cars?

[disco_al]

The Scrappage scheme is a disgrace, it makes me sick to see all the usable cars being carted out of dealers

I agree, i saw a 6 wheel stretch Range Rover Classic on the back of a transporter yesterday, obviously on it's way to be turned into coke cans, looked unusual as it had P38 style headlights.

[mad_pete]

"I wasn't implying CO2 has no effect, but what comes out of the exhaust of hydrogen

powered cars? "

H2O indeed comes out the back but chances are the 2 Hs being burnt were scrapped of an O so it's not like water creation.

[Hybrid_From_Hell]

Was closed, now reopened on request

Nige

[nicks90]

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

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

i think its closer to 80% for WV - but even still i totally agree,

not only that, but one of the biggest scandals that hasnt currently hit the major headlines (because it probably isnt 'buzzy' enough or as easily understood by your average Sun reader) is that most 'climatalogists' DONT take WV into account when running their calculations on world temperature.

Reason?

Because they dont know enough about how WV recycles itself through the planets water system - ie total rainfall, energy transferance into the oceans, alot of WV is in the upper atmospher and can 'bleed' energy off into outerspace.

None of these factors have any concrete math behind them, because we just physically dont know and cant measure it.

therefore they IGNORE its effects and just take the CO2 effects in isolation. This is poor science and leads to potentially horribly innaccurate results.

They have also just discovered that most atmospheric temperature variations are linked to deep sea temperature variations. Deep sea temps have been rising for about 100years, and this was explained by us raising the atmospheres temp and that supposedly raised the sea temps - proof of us causing global warming.... but recently the deep oceans have started to cool again all on their own! So looks like things may chill out again if this is found to be true. Again we dont know enough yet and so the 'climatologists' just ignore it. it could be from underwater ocean vents and volcanos, acidity, algae and other plant life - they just dont know enough.

This is why "global warming' became 'climate change' when they couldnt prove anything and people started ripping holes in their theories due ot massive missing chunks of data and influences. Its a catch all scam for science insitutes to raise much needed self serving funding and for governments to tax the hell out of people and force technical innovation of the west to keep ahead of the far eastern mass manufacturing juggernaut.#

cynical - MOI?????

[Exmoor Beast]

I agree, i saw a 6 wheel stretch Range Rover Classic on the back of a transporter yesterday, obviously on it's way to be turned into coke cans, looked unusual as it had P38 style headlights.

Far more likely to have just broken down surely...

Good thread this, I'm learning a lot, keep going chaps!

Will

[plasticbadger]

The following 'facts' are repeated from memory, but....

I read a report on the net that looked at energy use of vehicles over the 'average' 10 year lifespan. The first figure they came up with is that in a 10 year lifespan over 75% of the energy a vehicle consumes is in production, the remaining 25% being split between running the vehicle 10,000 miles are year, maintenance etc and recycling it at 10 years old.

I was enjoying this thread so much that I thought I'd actually research my comments and post my findings, accurately!

So the original 'dust to dust' study was carried out by a company called CNW Market Research, the results can be found HERE, carefull that's a 3MB PDF, the report actually concludes the cost per mile of the Prius is $3.249 compared to $3.775 for the Range Rover and $2.525 for a V8 Discovery. However because they found the Prius user to cover les miles in use then it worked out more environmentay friendly over all.

The report has been criticised HERE

However, an MIT study into vehicle technologies by 2020 HERE found that petrol and diesel engine hybrids represented the lowest through life cost.

I would like to see a more detailled study to environmental impact / CO2 produced comparison of replacing your SUV sized car every 10 years with the latest technology compared to keeping original vehicle for 30 years. The CNW report indicates that if you keep using your V8 Discovery then every mile your drive makes less of an impact than a Hybrid.

[disco_al]

Far more likely to have just broken down surely...

it was on the top deck of a big transporter, along with a load of other old cars....

[jeremy996]

i think its closer to 80% for WV - but even still i totally agree,

I have an old Environmental Science degree, (1984), when the climate change discussion was the possibility of a New Ice Age. Well that's changed a bit. Computer based climate models back then were even more rubbish than they are now. Trying to understand why there wasn't an Ice Age produced concerns of Global Warming.

Water Vapour has a very complex interation with climate change as although it acts as an insulating blanket, like CO2 and methane, it also adds to the Earth's albedo, (reflective index), so more water vapour, especially higher up, reflects more sunlight back into space, reducing planet warming. Gaia theory, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis), suggests that the earth is, to an extent, self-regulating in the long term; where it gets hairy is how much and over how long!

To expend the energy trapped from the sun over millions of years and burn much of it off in 200 years is GOING to have an impact somewhere; the detail is hardly importent, the principal alone is silly. I only run old cars, I try to buy repairable appliances and I am trying to reduce my energy useage. Climate change is an irrelvance, wasting energy on consumerism and space heating is personal vanity gone crazy and too expensive at so many levels.

[Night Train]

I have an old Environmental Science degree, (1984), when the climate change discussion was the possibility of a New Ice Age. Well that's changed a bit. Computer based climate models back then were even more rubbish than they are now. Trying to understand why there wasn't an Ice Age produced concerns of Global Warming.

I remember that period of climate science.

The idea, IIRC, was that based on the known cyclic variations of both Solar fluctuations and the Earths processional variances it would appear that the Earth was on a cyclic cooling curve and would be tending towards an ice age. However, since that time climate monitoring has shown no such cooling taking place and so a reason was sought for what was keeping the Earth warm when it should be cooling.

That lead to the discovery of a link between increasing CO2 and lack of cooling, hence the CO2 issue.

I think it is inaccurate to simply blame climateologists and enviromentalists for the inconsistancies. It is a difficult area of study and research that can only be as good as the available scientific knowledge and understanding. The same inconsistancies are also evident in economic planning hence 'The value of your savings plan can go down as well as up.'.

I do think that people like to strongly represent their point of view and will latch onto any evidence, no matter how weak, that may support it. Scientist and politicians are no different sometimes when we would really rather they were.

I am a lapsed climate change supporter as I accept that the climate is changing but I do not believe that we truely know what the causes are and their effects. However, I still believe in resource depletion as that is a common sense given fact that one doesn't need science to understand.

This brings us back to Land Rovers and their longevity vs their fuel economy.

[hattymender]

I'm not claiming any expertise but a friend made an interesting comment:

The climate got warmer since the 50's, noticeably so in the late 80's. Exactly the same period that the west cleaned up it's factory emissions (clean air act and all that). It's currently stabilised. Which coincides with expanding economies pushing a lot into the atmosphere.

His theory is that the crud we were pushing out actually caused cooling.

Either way, man made or not what is for sure is that oil won't last forever and we should be thinking of alternatives.

I for one will welcome the first steam powered Land Rover!

[landmannnn]

A bit of maths:

Each gallon of petrol produces 10.4kg of CO2, diesel 12.2kg

A car probably costs 15 tonnes of CO2.(including raw materials)

At 30 mpg it will take about 44,000 miles to produce as much CO2 driving as it does to make a petrol car.

On the other hand, if your old series does 18 mpg and you change it for a new ninety at 25 mpg the CO2 breakeven point is about 75,000 miles.

So yes, change your series for a new lr and in about 8 years you will be saving CO2.

Alternatively

Disco 4 diesel brand new - co2 = 244g/km

disco 300 (94-98)- co2 248g/km

You would need to travel 2.3 million miles to breakeven.

So no, don't chop in your old disco for a new one.

[Night Train]

The altenative is to change the engine in the old Series for a later and more efficient engine.

[angusb]

The altenative is to change the engine in the old Series for a later and more efficient engine.

spot on. Change any broken part for a newer better one rather than throwing the whole thing away and buying a new one.

[A Twig]

Honda do a system where it only runs of 4 cylinders unless power is required, at which point the remaining cylinders get going, I think it was on a 6 cylinder Honda accord that my brother in law had 5 years or so ago...

Yep, here we are, i-Vtec - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Cylinder_Management

More detail here: http://www.canadiandriver.com/2004/10/14/auto-tech-hondas-variable-cylinder-management.htm

There is no excuse for all series owners not to get a 6 litre V8 now, bwahahaha.....

Chrysler’s version, dubbed the Multi-Displacement System (MDS), allows the 5.7-liter HEMI V-8 in the 2005 Chrysler 300C, Dodge Magnum RT, Dodge Ram, and Jeep Grand Cherokee to produce 340 horsepower and 390 lbs-ft of torque while still getting up to 17 mpg city/25 mpg highway fuel economy. Chrysler has an even more potent 6.1-liter V-8 HEMI on the way with MDS, rated at 425 horsepower and 420 lbs-ft of torque to power the 2005 Chrysler 300C SRT8. This car will have performance that surpasses musclecar-era Mopars with performance targets of 0-60 mph times in the low five-second range, blowing through the quarter-mile in just over 13 seconds. Chrysler says MDS reduces fuel use by about 20 percent.

[landroversforever]

the chrysler V8 in the 300c i think it is, only runs on 4 cylinders until more are needed

[gazelle]

A car probably costs 15 tonnes of CO2.(including raw materials)

I need someone clever to do the maths, but it has been worked out in the book I linked to earlier in this thread (Chapter 15, Pg 90)

A new car’s embodied energy is 76 000 kWh – so if

you get one every 15 years, that’s an average energy cost of 14 kWh per day.

Cheers

Martin

[T1G UP]

we need electricity, i don't care how much energy it takes to build a wind turbine/water powered thingy. I'd rather have a million of them if the lternative is another 23 nuclear power stations dotted around.

LR's are great but we have moved on. Thaey can build an engine out of ceramics that will last for many more miles than a conventional engine,

they can build a vehicle that will last a long time...s/s ali etc.

BUT whats the incentive.....MONEY! so no incentive execpt to make money. Billions will be spend on power stations within the next 20 years out of concrete and plutonium.

Give me a ind turbine anyday...and if theres no wind. then i'll light a candle