Clubjazz - Honda Jazz & HR-V Forums

Other Hondas & General Topics => Off Topic (Non-Honda) => Topic started by: Kremmen on April 12, 2022, 07:48:19 AM

Title: Here we go again
Post by: Kremmen on April 12, 2022, 07:48:19 AM
A friend couldn't get any petrol yesterday.

All stations in and around Harrow were either shut or had very long queues.

These eco **!!** need sorting, and quick
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: culzean on April 12, 2022, 10:15:34 AM
A friend couldn't get any petrol yesterday.

All stations in and around Harrow were either shut or had very long queues.

These eco **!!** need sorting, and quick

They need to clue themselves up on exactly what comes from crude oil.  Many of the things we take for granted in modern world that have nothing to do with energy or transport... stuff like medicines, the clothes people wear everyday, food preservatives, paint - the list is pretty impressive.  These tunnel vision eco-loonies will have us all back in the stone age living a subsistence existence huddled round some flaming sticks..
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Jocko on April 12, 2022, 01:56:55 PM
huddled round some flaming sticks..
Not very Eco friendly.  :)
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Bazzzer on April 12, 2022, 04:03:31 PM
huddled round some flaming sticks..
Not very Eco friendly.  :)

I thought burning biomass was carbon neutral. Or so they'd have us believe. ::)
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Jocko on April 12, 2022, 07:48:00 PM
CO2
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: culzean on April 13, 2022, 10:40:50 AM
huddled round some flaming sticks..
Not very Eco friendly.  :)

I thought burning biomass was carbon neutral. Or so they'd have us believe. ::)

Don't believe much that greenies say,  they pretty much contradict themselves every time they open their mouths.   Imagine a world with no fossil fuels - all the trees would have long ago disappeared and the land washed away, and we would have scarce and expensive steel ( still melted with charcoal ) and a lot of our disinfectants and medicines would not exist. Trouble is with greenies they seem to have tunnel vision, they accept all the benefits that fossil fuels have bought to modern world and in the same breath they want to get rid of them, without saying what would replace them - except for vague references to 'green energy' - but energy alone would not replace all the other stuff we get from oil and coal.   If we had to rely on bio-fuels for our needs where would we grow food ? 
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Kremmen on April 13, 2022, 10:51:50 AM
I'm frankly amazed by some of them.

A team of doctors and nurses blocked one of Londons bridges earlier this week.

These are intelligent people and my thought is that - are they being 'radicalised' on social media with fake news.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on April 13, 2022, 11:47:37 AM

They need to clue themselves up on exactly what comes from crude oil.  Many of the things we take for granted in modern world that have nothing to do with energy or transport... stuff like medicines, the clothes people wear everyday, food preservatives, paint - the list is pretty impressive.

All the more reason not to burn fossil fuels.


I'm frankly amazed by some of them.

A team of doctors and nurses blocked one of Londons bridges earlier this week.



These are intelligent people and my thought is that - are they being 'radicalised' on social media with fake news.

Perhaps they are intelligent enough to see that the continued (and increasing) burning of fossil fuels is unsustainable.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Lord Voltermore on April 13, 2022, 12:33:54 PM
 They need to target efforts  where they can actually get public support and achieve change.   Insulating Britain is sensible.  Save energy, not find more.  Whats not to like.   But their  protesters   are  alienating any broader  public  support   by their very stupid tactics and alliances to other 'green' protest groups  who's aims , however necessary , are a much  harder sell to society. 

  As with most protest movements the decent ones with a just cause  have been highjacked  by worm tonged  activists ( :P)  whos dont really care about the claimed issue.  They just enjoy protesting, or  disrupting society for political purposes.   
I suspect if any are run over they will still expect society to provide a diesel powered ambulance to take them to a fully staffed hospital,  and benefit from modern medical science. 

Sure climate change would probably end if the world had 7 million humans living green lives in Yurts. Not 7 billion living as we do now.    But advocates tend to assume they will be among the 7 million.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: MartinJG on April 13, 2022, 01:52:30 PM

Utter farce and doubtless being orchestrated by the next 'Bond Baddy' in waiting, Klaus Schwab and members of the  'You will own nothing and be happy' club who seem to pull most of the globalist strings. The west seems to be disappearing up its nether region rather too quickly for comfort.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on April 13, 2022, 02:35:51 PM
They need to target efforts  where they can actually get public support and achieve change.   Insulating Britain is sensible.  Save energy, not find more.  Whats not to like.   
Exactly

   But their  protesters   are  alienating any broader  public  support   by their very stupid tactics and alliances to other 'green' protest groups  who's aims , however necessary , are a much  harder sell to society. 

As you say, they are alienating the general public.
On the other hand they will not achieve anything until they are noticed.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: culzean on April 13, 2022, 02:41:29 PM

They need to clue themselves up on exactly what comes from crude oil.  Many of the things we take for granted in modern world that have nothing to do with energy or transport... stuff like medicines, the clothes people wear everyday, food preservatives, paint - the list is pretty impressive.

All the more reason not to burn fossil fuels.


Errrr.... the bits we burn are not the same as bits we get all the other stuff from,  so we will still need to refine crude to get the stuff we need, but petrol, diesel and kerosene will become 'waste products' if we do not use them.  Looking forward to electric cargo /  passenger planes with a range long enough to cross Atlantic at least, and Oh Mach 3 and 4 fighter planes that run on batteries,  not to mention battery powered 60 ton tanks, battery powered hypersonic missiles etc. etc. etc. .
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on April 13, 2022, 02:59:11 PM

They need to clue themselves up on exactly what comes from crude oil.  Many of the things we take for granted in modern world that have nothing to do with energy or transport... stuff like medicines, the clothes people wear everyday, food preservatives, paint - the list is pretty impressive.

All the more reason not to burn fossil fuels.


Errrr.... the bits we burn are not the same as bits we get all the other stuff from,  so we will still need to refine crude to get the stuff we need, but petrol, diesel and kerosene will become 'waste products' if we do not use them.
Oh yes they are.
Long chain hydrocarbons are relatively easy to split into shorter chain ones (cracking)
or changed into different isomers, cyclics and aromatics (reforming)
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: embee on April 13, 2022, 03:16:54 PM
I suppose it's another of those subjects where rational discussion and pragmatic approaches simply don't register on the simplistic (puerile even) media radar. Let's face it it's only the media which has any real sway these days.
I believe in pragmatism, being realistic, and very often the old 80/20 rule. This doesn't cut through today. Mind you, it has always been thus to a great extent, think suffrage 100+ years ago.

I'm in support of reducing emissions of both toxic and detrimental substances into the environment, it'll bite us all in the bum sooner or later. There is always, however, a realistic threshold where cost/benefit (in the broadest sense) tends to reverse for most things. It's the old adage that perfection should not be the enemy of good.
Zero CO2 doesn't actually make practical sense, it really isn't necessary to reach zero, it becomes a dogma which doesn't benefit anyone. If we can reduce emissions by 80% using 20% of the effort, then that's the way to go. Don't cut our noses off to spite our faces and go all out for the last 20%.
My personal bugbears at the moment are the campaigns against domestic gas boilers and diesel trucks. Not to bore everyone with the sums yet again but they are not the villains they are made out to be, or more precisely the remedies are not what they are made out to be.
Domestic gas boilers pretty much match (or better) an electric heat pump powered by a gas fired power station. Diesel trucks are relatively clean these days, outside urban environments, and are pretty fuel efficient in terms of tonne.miles per gallon (or kg/CO2 emitted), better than a typical car by a factor of  more than 5.
A 1.2 tonne car does say 50mpg = 60 tonne.mpg, a 44 tonne truck does almost 8mpg (*)= 350 tonne.mpg . Changing the car to electric makes some sense, changing the truck to electric doesn't. Concentrate on the lower hanging fruit.

* = https://mwtruckparts.co.uk/what-fuel-economy-mpg-does-a-lorry-get
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: culzean on April 13, 2022, 03:27:53 PM
I suppose it's another of those subjects where rational discussion and pragmatic approaches simply don't register on the simplistic (puerile even) media radar. Let's face it it's only the media which has any real sway these days.
I believe in pragmatism, being realistic, and very often the old 80/20 rule. This doesn't cut through today. Mind you, it has always been thus to a great extent, think suffrage 100+ years ago.

I'm in support of reducing emissions of both toxic and detrimental substances into the environment, it'll bite us all in the bum sooner or later. There is always, however, a realistic threshold where cost/benefit (in the broadest sense) tends to reverse for most things. It's the old adage that perfection should not be the enemy of good.
Zero CO2 doesn't actually make practical sense, it really isn't necessary to reach zero, it becomes a dogma which doesn't benefit anyone. If we can reduce emissions by 80% using 20% of the effort, then that's the way to go. Don't cut our noses off to spite our faces and go all out for the last 20%.
My personal bugbears at the moment are the campaigns against domestic gas boilers and diesel trucks. Not to bore everyone with the sums yet again but they are not the villains they are made out to be, or more precisely the remedies are not what they are made out to be.
Domestic gas boilers pretty much match (or better) an electric heat pump powered by a gas fired power station. Diesel trucks are relatively clean these days, outside urban environments, and are pretty fuel efficient in terms of tonne.miles per gallon (or kg/CO2 emitted), better than a typical car by a factor of  more than 5.
A 1.2 tonne car does say 50mpg = 60 tonne.mpg, a 44 tonne truck does almost 8mpg (*)= 350 tonne.mpg . Changing the car to electric makes some sense, changing the truck to electric doesn't. Concentrate on the lower hanging fruit.

* = https://mwtruckparts.co.uk/what-fuel-economy-mpg-does-a-lorry-get

Lorries are much harder to electrify as well, the 12 tonne + battery just detracts from the payload that can be carried,  a normal diesel powertrain is about 1200Kg and over 200 gallons of fuel about 1000kg, unlike a battery the fuel tank gets lighter as fuel is used. Range of diesel lorry can be easily over 1200 miles ( up to 2000 miles with twin 150 gallon tanks ), range of electric lorry 400 ? ( if there are no hills ). Time and current required to charge a 12 tonne battery  :o

There is no doubt that burning fossil fuels has affected the planet, but I think if we had needed to get all our energy needs from wood that the planet would be a desert now, a bit like Mars, devoid of trees and also devoid of all the other stuff that makes human existance comfortable and  in no small way independent of natures whims ( which is not the case with solar and wind by the way ) - and take humans from a subsistence existence to being able to have reliable food supply, medicines, disinfectants, fertilisers etc. etc.

At the moment we seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater... I am glad that Boris has at last realised that we cannot use unreliable fans on sticks and solar panels ( useless this far north ) to power a decent lifestyle / economy.

Tesco is using 37 tonne DAF electric HGV with range of 100 miles using 350kw/h battery which weighs in at 700kg. 

https://www.commercialfleet.org/news/truck-news/2022/01/04/tesco-deploys-uk-s-first-electric-articulated-hgvs
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on April 13, 2022, 04:55:50 PM


Lorries are much harder to electrify as well, the 12 tonne + battery just detracts from the payload that can be carried,  a normal diesel powertrain is about 1200Kg and over 200 gallons of fuel about 1000kg, unlike a battery the fuel tank gets lighter as fuel is used. Range of diesel lorry can be easily over 1200 miles ( up to 2000 miles with twin 150 gallon tanks ), range of electric lorry 400 ? ( if there are no hills ). Time and current required to charge a 12 tonne battery  :o

Tesco is using 37 tonne DAF electric HGV with range of 100 miles using 350kw/h battery which weighs in at 700kg. 

https://www.commercialfleet.org/news/truck-news/2022/01/04/tesco-deploys-uk-s-first-electric-articulated-hgvs
Perhaps the future of road freight transport lies in hydrogen power (as long as the politicians don't try to persuade us to use hydrogen made from hydrocarbons)
https://www.fch.europa.eu/news/new-study-hydrogen-trucks-released

Or why not transfer much of the long distance freight to railways?
According to the Freight Network study 2017 (pdf)

"Rail freight produces 76% less carbon dioxide per tonne
of cargo relative to road haulage and each
freight train removes up to 76 lorries from the
roads
• Efficiency - on average, a gallon of fuel is able
to move a tonne of goods 246 miles on the
railway but only 88 miles by road"
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: embee on April 13, 2022, 08:06:12 PM

• Efficiency - on average, a gallon of fuel is able
to move a tonne of goods 246 miles on the
railway but only 88 miles by road"

Don't agree. That says a 44 tonne truck does 2mpg. Don't think so, not even if you are talking US gallons.
 OK so a 44 tonner only carries 30 tonnes of payload, so in truth at 8mpg that's actually only 240 tonne.mpg.

Efficiency in terms of tonne.mpg improves with scale, the bigger the transport the better. Trains are indeed good, cargo ships are even better if speeds are kept down.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Jocko on April 13, 2022, 09:32:20 PM
I think if we had needed to get all our energy needs from wood that the planet would be a desert now, a bit like Mars, devoid of trees and also devoid of all the other stuff that makes human existance comfortable
That would not have been the case at all. Mankind would not have grown at the rate it did and the trees burnt would have been replaced by more trees. Life expectancy might only be 45 years for an elderly male farmer (less for a farm labourer) but the trees and the world would have continued relatively unscathed.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on April 13, 2022, 10:57:15 PM

• Efficiency - on average, a gallon of fuel is able
to move a tonne of goods 246 miles on the
railway but only 88 miles by road"

Don't agree. That says a 44 tonne truck does 2mpg. Don't think so, not even if you are talking US gallons.
 
No it doesn't.
You are assuming that  the mpg. is proportional to the mass of the vehicle which is not the case.

I don't know how they arrived at their figure because as you have correctly worked out if the lorry carries 30 Tonnes and does 8mpg that would be equivalent to each Tonne being carried 240 miles.
Perhaps it takes into account the fact that the lorry is not carrying a full load all the time.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: embee on April 13, 2022, 11:19:21 PM
I'm not assuming anything.

The measure is simply the product of tonnes times miles divided by gallons (if those are the units chosen). They quote it as a distance for one tonne and one gallon, but the equation applies however you allocate it. They say 88 tonne.miles per gallon for road transport. I'd suggest for larger trucks it is a lot better than that.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on April 14, 2022, 07:34:08 AM
I'm not assuming anything.

The measure is simply the product of tonnes times miles divided by gallons (if those are the units chosen). They quote it as a distance for one tonne and one gallon, but the equation applies however you allocate it. They say 88 tonne.miles per gallon for road transport. I'd suggest for larger trucks it is a lot better than that.
But the force exerted by the load is downwards, ie at right angles to the direction of travel , not in the direction of travel.
The greater the load the greater will be the resistive forces on the lorry but they will not be in direct proportion.

Edit Apologies I found a reference to such a measure in an American link
https://www.imiproducts.com/blog/calculate-fuel-efficiency-gains/#:~:text=The%20best%20way%20to%20analyze%20trucking%20efficiency%20is,ton%20of%20freight%20per%20gallon%20of%20diesel%20fuel.

I presume a similar calculation can be applied here since it would be independent of units.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: embee on April 14, 2022, 10:56:33 AM
That's OK.

"Tonne miles per gallon" is just a generic measure for the fuel efficiency of moving a vehicle (or anything come to that) from A to B. Broadly speaking the bigger and heavier the better the tonne.miles/gallon. You can go into all the engineering and physics, drag vs rolling resistance etc, but it's largely irrelevant if all you want to do is compare different ways of moving stuff about.
If you start to break it down into payload and gross mass then it gets more involved, but the measure can still be used as a comparator. If you want to go to one end of a spectrum you can say that a single driver in a car going to the supermarket for a bottle of milk is about as bad as you get if you only consider the milk as the payload. The measure is usually applied with full payloads since this is the most efficient, and empty truck is fairly wasteful.
It's useful to compare bulk carrying of freight, big trucks are better than small trucks, trains are better still and ships about the best current bulk transportation. Planes aren't good, but they're quick.

It's just another "metric", useful for some purposes but not all. For domestic cars I used to estimate using 50 tonne.miles per gallon as a very simple rule of thumb, but that's a bit out of date, it's probably nearer 60 tmpg these days. It's been steadily improving over the years. Hybrids etc have changed things substantially (energy recovery systems and so on).
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: culzean on April 14, 2022, 12:14:14 PM
I think if we had needed to get all our energy needs from wood that the planet would be a desert now, a bit like Mars, devoid of trees and also devoid of all the other stuff that makes human existance comfortable
That would not have been the case at all. Mankind would not have grown at the rate it did and the trees burnt would have been replaced by more trees. Life expectancy might only be 45 years for an elderly male farmer (less for a farm labourer) but the trees and the world would have continued relatively unscathed.

Have you seen what is left of the trees in most of Africa and South America ( and UK come to that matter, probably the country with less tree cover in Europe, maybe even the world ) ?  <10,000 years ago Egypt and North Africa used to be a fertile wooded area with lots of water,  the area is now called the Sahara Desert....  so unless global warming has been happening for about 10,000 years and people want to blame that as well, something else happened.  Brazil may be like the Sahara soon.... except for this - look at about 15 minutes where Haiti and Dominican Republic are mentioned,  Haiti uses renewables ( wood ) and has hardly any trees so it shows as brown ( semi-desert ) on satellite pictures, Dominican Republic on the other half of Island is green plenty of trees and uses fossil fuels.

Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: culzean on April 14, 2022, 12:45:39 PM
Why renewables cannot save the planet...

Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on April 14, 2022, 12:53:13 PM
Here we go again indeed.
Who keeps sending you this sh1t.
How can you get greener than the Amazon rain forest?
Of course excess carbon dioxide helps plants to grow up to a point
Sorry if this is a bit ad hominem but

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/11/25/ridl-n25.html

"But since his misadventure in banking, which cost British taxpayers 37 billion pounds and led to tens of thousands of foreclosures, the 5th Viscount Ridley was not content to retreat to his estate, home to the largest open-pit mine in Britain."

"Perhaps with similar sentiments, the Viscount returned to public life, elected by his aristocratic peers to the House of Lords in 2013, and has rebooted his career as a “science writer” to deny the existence of climate change, argue the genetic basis of race, and promote ideas associated with Social Darwinism."
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: culzean on April 14, 2022, 01:00:36 PM
Here we go again indeed.
Who keeps sending you this sh1t.
How can you get greener than the Amazon rain forest?
Of course excess carbon dioxide helps plants to grow up to a point
Sorry if this is a bit ad hominem but

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/11/25/ridl-n25.html

"But since his misadventure in banking, which cost British taxpayers 37 billion pounds and led to tens of thousands of foreclosures, the 5th Viscount Ridley was not content to retreat to his estate, home to the largest open-pit mine in Britain."

"Perhaps with similar sentiments, the Viscount returned to public life, elected by his aristocratic peers to the House of Lords in 2013, and has rebooted his career as a “science writer” to deny the existence of climate change, argue the genetic basis of race, and promote ideas associated with Social Darwinism."

So he is lying about the satellite images ? Lying about the Sahel ?
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on April 14, 2022, 02:47:40 PM

So he is lying about the satellite images ? Lying about the Sahel ?
It is the result of land management practices and shows what can be done to mitigate the effects of climate change.

https://reliefweb.int/report/burkina-faso/regreening-sahel-quiet-agroecological-evolution

"Sahelian farmers, driven to desperation by the great droughts of the early 1970s and the 1980s, have ingeniously modified traditional agroforestry, water and soil management practices to restore the fertility of their land. In Niger, farmers have developed innovative ways to regenerate and multiply valuable trees whose roots already lay under their land. This ‘farmer-managed natural regeneration’ (FMNR) was first pioneered by outside actors but was spread rapidly by farmers once they observed its success. Changes to forestry laws and reforms of government structures that enable greater decentralization and local control of natural resources have also been significant enablers of change. "

https://www.bothends.org/en/Whats-new/Publicaties/Regreening-the-Sahel/

Edit added second link
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: culzean on April 14, 2022, 06:54:16 PM
Oh, Land management is responsible, that would explain why even deep in rainforests and away from areas where humans manage the land,  vegetation is getting greener and growing faster...  Extra CO2 enables plants to use much less water to grow, which enables them to grow in areas with less water.... amazing stuff CO2, and perfectly natural.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on April 14, 2022, 07:52:14 PM
Oh, Land management is responsible, that would explain why even deep in rainforests and away from areas where humans manage the land,  vegetation is getting greener and growing faster...  Extra CO2 enables plants to use much less water to grow, which enables them to grow in areas with less water.... amazing stuff CO2, and perfectly natural.
That's very interesting.
In order to grow plants need to combine carbon dioxide with water to form carbohydrates
6 CO2 + 6 H2O → C6H12O6 + 6 O
I can't see how extra carbon dioxide would enable this reaction to occur with less water if the equation is to remain balanced.   ::)

You cannae break the laws of stoichiometry Captain   :o    ::)

Edit applied subscripts and added Scotty type comment
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on April 15, 2022, 11:48:46 AM

• Efficiency - on average, a gallon of fuel is able
to move a tonne of goods 246 miles on the
railway but only 88 miles by road"

Don't agree. That says a 44 tonne truck does 2mpg. Don't think so, not even if you are talking US gallons.
 OK so a 44 tonner only carries 30 tonnes of payload, so in truth at 8mpg that's actually only 240 tonne.mpg.

Efficiency in terms of tonne.mpg improves with scale, the bigger the transport the better. Trains are indeed good, cargo ships are even better if speeds are kept down.
To Embee
Thanks for all the info on Tonne miles per gallon. I think I've just about got my head round the ramifications now.
I don't know why I'm going out of my way to defend a throwaway figure from a government paper or prolong an argument with someone who knows more about the subject than myself but the figure quoted is an average figure and you've used it to calculate a figure for an optimum situation. ( A 44tonne truck with a 30tonne payload ).
The 44tonne truck is not going to be always carrying 30tonnes so the tonne miles per gallon will be less.
(although the mpg will  be greater)
A lot of freight will be carried less efficiently in smaller vehicles.

I had never thought about the mpg of lorries before. It's frightening to think that they are only getting about 8mpg.
Although it should be obvious that they are going to be using a lot of fuel.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: ColinS on April 15, 2022, 02:22:57 PM
I had never thought about the mpg of lorries before. It's frightening to think that they are only getting about 8mpg.
Although it should be obvious that they are going to be using a lot of fuel.
We get a few Chieftain tanks around here.  I think they do between 8 and 12 gpm :o
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: embee on April 15, 2022, 06:47:18 PM
..... the figure quoted is an average figure and you've used it to calculate a figure for an optimum situation. ( A 44tonne truck with a 30tonne payload ).
...
That's probably the case. But it seems a little misleading if they are including small vans, medium vans (Transit size) small and large trucks in order to come up with a comparator for trains. Trains can't deliver to high street retailers or domestic houses. It would be perfectly fair to compare a freight train to a large truck used for cross country transport of goods in bulk since they are more or less in competition.
I'm all for genuine comparisons but not when they compare apples and pears to suggest something which isn't really fair.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on April 15, 2022, 07:31:59 PM
It was a government report after all.

(lights blue touch paper and stands back)
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: hemming on April 15, 2022, 07:53:20 PM
It was a government report after all.

(lights blue touch paper and stands back)

We heard the roar from here.....
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: John Ratsey on April 15, 2022, 08:44:31 PM
I wonder what improvement in mpg lorries would get if restricted to 50mph on all roads including motorways.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: culzean on April 16, 2022, 09:31:23 AM
I wonder what improvement in mpg lorries would get if restricted to 50mph on all roads including motorways.

They are at the moment on M6, M56 M62 and M1, AI and A1M ( the roads we used on our trip up to Yorkshire last week ).  Trouble is all the traffic was limited to same speed by roadworks and average speed cameras  :-X Also it seems on many other motorways the same.

Our road network is a real mess, is seems link the proverbial 'painting the Forth bridge' with roadworks, contra-flows lane closures etc. etc.

Mind you it did wonders for MPG on Civic 1.8,  at one time indicated over 49mpg average,  came down a bit over Pennines though, but still over 47 for whole trip of 750 miles ( visited Bamburgh Castle and came back via Matlock )...
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: culzean on April 16, 2022, 09:50:41 AM
I had never thought about the mpg of lorries before. It's frightening to think that they are only getting about 8mpg.
Although it should be obvious that they are going to be using a lot of fuel.
We get a few Chieftain tanks around here.  I think they do between 8 and 12 gpm :o

My brother used to drive Chieftains, they have about 200 imp gals onboard, IIRC he said road range of about 120 miles ( which is not bad for a 60 ton vehicle )... The 2 stroke diesel Leyland engine of about 700hp ( which runs at about 2000 revs to give a road speed of about 30mph), was designed to burn pretty much any fuel from bunker oil to vegetable oil - which is a damned good thing in a war zone... obviously off-road in steep terrain mpg takes a hit...
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: ColinS on April 16, 2022, 10:46:57 AM
I had never thought about the mpg of lorries before. It's frightening to think that they are only getting about 8mpg.
Although it should be obvious that they are going to be using a lot of fuel.
We get a few Chieftain tanks around here.  I think they do between 8 and 12 gpm :o

My brother used to drive Chieftains, they have about 200 imp gals onboard, IIRC he said road range of about 120 miles ( which is not bad for a 60 ton vehicle )... The 2 stroke diesel Leyland engine of about 700hp ( which runs at about 2000 revs to give a road speed of about 30mph), was designed to burn pretty much any fuel from bunker oil to vegetable oil - which is a damned good thing in a war zone... obviously off-road in steep terrain mpg takes a hit...

Well it was meant as a tongue-in-cheek comment but I should have realised that an "expert" would correct me.  The Chieftain has long since been replaced but we still get tanks roaring around these parts.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: culzean on April 16, 2022, 04:28:07 PM
I had never thought about the mpg of lorries before. It's frightening to think that they are only getting about 8mpg.
Although it should be obvious that they are going to be using a lot of fuel.
We get a few Chieftain tanks around here.  I think they do between 8 and 12 gpm :o

My brother used to drive Chieftains, they have about 200 imp gals onboard, IIRC he said road range of about 120 miles ( which is not bad for a 60 ton vehicle )... The 2 stroke diesel Leyland engine of about 700hp ( which runs at about 2000 revs to give a road speed of about 30mph), was designed to burn pretty much any fuel from bunker oil to vegetable oil - which is a damned good thing in a war zone... obviously off-road in steep terrain mpg takes a hit...

Well it was meant as a tongue-in-cheek comment but I should have realised that an "expert" would correct me.  The Chieftain has long since been replaced but we still get tanks roaring around these parts.

Facts are not universally popular - but I kinda like them  :-X
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on April 16, 2022, 05:40:04 PM
“Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false.” ~ Bertrand Russell
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: culzean on April 16, 2022, 06:21:32 PM
“Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false.” ~ Bertrand Russell

LOL  ;D
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on April 16, 2022, 07:19:21 PM
Or another one.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: ColinS on April 16, 2022, 07:28:46 PM
Very true Jim.  The modern problem is that people Google something and repeat those results in forums as if they were facts known to themselves as an expert.

Nobody can be an expert in everything and not everything found on the Internet is true.  I will only take note of things that are qualified with a source that I can verify.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: embee on April 17, 2022, 10:31:15 AM
..... not everything found on the Internet is true.  ....
Now you tell me!  :o

... on second thoughts, is that statement true or false?

A bit like "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Problems problems .............. I had a long session yesterday, brain hurts .......
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: culzean on April 17, 2022, 10:43:13 AM
A lot of things promoted by 'experts' are not very good either,  Like 'all fat is bad for you' ( based on a really flawed medical experiment in the 1960's that has been cherished and rigorously implements by medics ever since ) and 'we need to give 5 to 11 years olds the covid vaccine'.... ( thanks goodness the parents seem to have more sense and the take up has been refreshingly very poor ).
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on April 18, 2022, 09:29:22 AM
A lot of things promoted by 'experts' are not very good either,  Like 'all fat is bad for you' ( based on a really flawed medical experiment in the 1960's that has been cherished and rigorously implements by medics ever since ) and 'we need to give 5 to 11 years olds the covid vaccine'.... ( thanks goodness the parents seem to have more sense and the take up has been refreshingly very poor ).
I don't think the medical position on fats has changed very much despite the attempts of the Daily Express and other press to sensationalise it.
https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/support/healthy-living/healthy-eating/fats-explained

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1597288/dementia-high-levels-of-unsaturated-fat-butter-palm-oil-increases-risk


Re the vaccination of children.
This was discussed at length in
https://clubjazz.org/forum/index.php?topic=14074.msg117145#msg117145

Anyway I thought this topic was about fossil fuels and the rights of groups like Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion to protest about the overuse of them.


Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: culzean on April 18, 2022, 11:38:23 AM
The 'experts' also say 'renewables good, electric cars good, fossil fuels bad' - but there is very strong evidence it is nowhere near that simple..... 'ex' = used to be,  'spurt' = a drip under pressure.  These demonstrators are no more than 'rent a mob' - best thing to do is if they are seen at demos to report them to DHSS and stop their benefits..
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on April 18, 2022, 11:54:00 AM
The 'experts' also say 'renewables good, electric cars good, fossil fuels bad' - but there is very strong evidence it is nowhere near that simple..... 'ex' = used to be,  'spurt' = a drip under pressure.  These demonstrators are no more than 'rent a mob' - best thing to do is if they are seen at demos to report them to DHSS and stop their benefits..

On the contrary the real experts can provide a balanced view of things due to the years of work they have put in, unlike the so-called experts dragged up by newspapers and politicians to provide sensational headlines or back a biased point of view.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on May 11, 2022, 03:26:39 PM
Quote from  UN secretary general, Antonio Guterres :-

“The world is in a race against time,” said Guterres. “It is time to end fossil fuel subsidies and stop the expansion of oil and gas exploration.”

Reflecting on the war in Ukraine, he said: “Countries could become so consumed by the immediate fossil fuel supply gap that they neglect or knee-cap policies to cut fossil fuel use. This is madness. Addiction to fossil fuels is mutually assured destruction.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2022/may/11/fossil-fuel-carbon-bombs-climate-breakdown-oil-gas

Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Kremmen on May 11, 2022, 05:15:06 PM
I wonder if there is some balancing act possible here.

With recent events 'we' temporarily need to source oil and gas from elsewhere so whilst more is sourced locally less is bought from you know who.

The end result is no or little more being burned.

Just my simplistic view/guess.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on May 12, 2022, 10:51:46 AM
I wonder if there is some balancing act possible here.

With recent events 'we' temporarily need to source oil and gas from elsewhere so whilst more is sourced locally less is bought from you know who.


Absolutely, but unfortunately the short term greed of the big oil companies and politicians outweighs the longer term welfare of the planet.

https://www.worldatlas.com/news/oil-and-gas-expansion-over-next-5-years-a-carbon-bomb-waiting-to-explode.html

“If your house is on fire you don’t add more fuel. Expanding the production of oil and gas at this moment in history is like the fire department showing up with gas rather than water to save a planet on fire. No one is saying turn off the taps overnight. We still use oil and gas today, but we must act now to stop the planned expansion by the oil and gas industry that could lock us into an unsafe climate.” 

Edit added link and quote.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on August 02, 2022, 04:44:38 PM
Much more important than Tory infighting :-


"Oil and gas profits in the most recent quarter were astounding. Exxon Mobil made $18bn in profits in the past three months. Shell and Chevron each made nearly $12bn. Those are all record numbers. More major companies will announce their figures this week, and they are all expected to be bountiful. The war in Ukraine, which has devastated a region of the world and displaced millions, has helped energy companies by driving oil and gas prices higher."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/02/oil-industry-record-profits-climate-crisis

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/02/bp-profits-oil-prices-ukraine-war-energy-prices-cost-of-living-crisis

Edit added comment and second link
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Kremmen on August 02, 2022, 05:05:16 PM
It's difficult to know what these companies should do, or be forced to do, to ease the burden to Joe Public

Those profits are obscene under the circumstances.

The other thing that I saw reported is that we are sitting on trillions of tons of oil and gas that would tide us over as self sufficient until other lower carbon energy sources come onboard.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on August 02, 2022, 06:00:46 PM

The other thing that I saw reported is that we are sitting on trillions of tons of oil and gas that would tide us over as self sufficient until other lower carbon energy sources come onboard.
We should only use as much as we need but big money is involved.
The oil companies will push to extract as much as possible.
They will donate to political parties in order to be allowed to do so.
The political parties will accept the donations in order to stay in power.
The political parties and the big oil companies make a pretence of green policies but it is in their mutual interest to extract even more oil and gas.
and so it goes on
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Jocko on August 02, 2022, 10:17:19 PM
There is an excellent three-part documentary on the Player. "Big Oil v The World". Worth a look.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on August 02, 2022, 10:43:04 PM
Cartoon by Martin Rowson
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on August 06, 2022, 12:16:06 PM

The other thing that I saw reported is that we are sitting on trillions of tons of oil and gas that would tide us over as self sufficient until other lower carbon energy sources come onboard.
We should only use as much as we need but big money is involved.
The oil companies will push to extract as much as possible.
They will donate to political parties in order to be allowed to do so.
The political parties will accept the donations in order to stay in power.
The political parties and the big oil companies make a pretence of green policies but it is in their mutual interest to extract even more oil and gas.
and so it goes on

“BP are presenting themselves as offering green solutions that are good for the UK, but these investments are dwarfed by how much money they’re funnelling into fossil fuels,” said Parr. “They’re doing this while making record profits and as millions of UK households are being pushed into fuel poverty.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/06/bp-social-media-influence-ads-labour-windfall-tax
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Kremmen on August 06, 2022, 02:46:14 PM
2022 combined oil and gas profits will easily breach £200 bn

UK has 28m households

That's nearly £7k each household
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on August 06, 2022, 10:39:39 PM
There is an excellent three-part documentary on the Player. "Big Oil v The World". Worth a look.

Worth a look indeed.
I had only watched a bit of the first part but caught up with the rest over the last couple of days.
Really sickening how the greed of man and wilful denial can result in so much so much damage to the planet.
What is worrying (understatement) is that the links between the big polluters, the political right and their  media enablers are unlikely to be broken any time soon.
At least 40years have been wasted.
Time is running out.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JimSh on August 25, 2022, 11:00:49 AM
The Conservatives and right wing media are still trying to blame the increases in energy prices on green levies.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/25/fact-check-is-net-zero-really-to-blame-for-soaring-energy-bills-green-levies-renewables

Edit added "right wing media"