|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
9 May 2001, 23:58 (Ref:90882) | #1 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 1,512
|
The motorist and 'Global Warming'
From Pistonheads.com:
Quote:
What are your thoughts? Do you feel guilty 'enjoying' your car? Do press releases like the one above do us justice, or do they make us look like a bunch of selfish uninformed fools? |
|||
|
10 May 2001, 01:02 (Ref:90891) | #2 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 67
|
Sparky- I remember hearing half a dozen years ago that atmospheric pollution due to transportation amounted to 10% of total pollution. But there is a finer point; the individuals (motorists in this case) are easy prey and are far from having organisations and lobbies like major polluters (industry). And who'd go into the trouble in inspecting and enforcing regulations on house-holds (which are, IIRC, more significant polluters)...
So, the easiest way is to exact heavy toll from motorists. For a government, 'tis a bit like stealing a candy from an infant. Funny that you mention it. Today Pa Wolf went to registration renewal for our Fiat 126p. The exhaust analyser claimed the car had incorrect emission. The reason: factory data claims 2รท3% CO, whereas (due to his points and carburettor adjustmens) our car had 0.9%. Last edited by Wolf; 10 May 2001 at 01:03. |
||
|
10 May 2001, 10:32 (Ref:90952) | #3 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 36
|
The problem with this one Sparky, is that for every piece of 'conclusive' evidence arguing against the reality of global warming, there is another arguing in favour of it. Unfortunately, that's the way of science. It's called 'critical-realism' in philosophy of science circles (guess what lecture I attended last week!!) which basically means that the debate will see-saw backwards and forwards as more and more evidence is accumulated until eventually we get somewhere close to the truth. Trouble is, most people, and an awful lot of scientists, don't appreciate this, so we keep getting this triumphalist 'eureka, yes it does' and 'eureka, no it doesn't' until no-one believes anything the scientists say anymore.
I do think that eventually we will know enough to make a judgement call, but not yet. Meantime, the cars most people drive now are far less polluting than their predecessors, and those who of us who drive older cars for the fun of it, or go racing, are in such a minority as to make negligible difference. So, no, I don't think I feel too guilty. |
||
|
11 May 2001, 02:26 (Ref:91140) | #4 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 963
|
I'm a firm believer on the man made global warming and I'm extremely concerned about the effects that such an event could have.
However, as Wolf mentioned, cars are not the only ones to be held accountable for this. Just think about this. To supply a country with it's electrical needs you need to produce a large ammount of power from hydroelectric plants (only for those countries with large hydric resources), Atomic energy (only for the "privileged few) or thermoelectric plants. And although the biggest energy consumers in the world rely on the first 2 the rest of the world is burning huge ammounts of coal right now. I mean, in the northern part of the country there's the largest open air coal mine in the world (if I'm not mistaken) and I recall reading how much coal the produced and it was something of the order of n*100 thousand tons of coal PER DAY. And that's coal that's burning each day and produced by only one mine. However, that doesn't mean in any way that the resposability of the car owner in all of this can be taken off because he just drives a miserable car which burns 10 gallons per week. One should be aware that there's no such thing as a clean car. Our car, diesel, petrol, 1L, 5L, injected, carburated, etc. does contaminate. Does produce CO, CO2, sulfates, nitric oxides, etc. Having that in mind one should at least keep the car in optimum condition to keep contamination to a minimum. That also means that developments of newer and cleaner technologies (such as Hydrogen) should be pursued. |
||
__________________
In the long run, we're all dead. Keynes |
11 May 2001, 14:25 (Ref:91234) | #5 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 229
|
Sharky you have to get a car powered by electricitie then you can charge the batteries using current produced by the biggest poluters of them all, the coal powered hydro plant.
|
||
|
11 May 2001, 14:46 (Ref:91241) | #6 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 963
|
I don't defend the electric car. In fac, I've always said that electric cars offer absolutely no benefit to the enviroment and have 'cons' like lack of power and autonomy.
And it's not only that cars need an electrcal source (which can come from a coal burning plant) but you have to store all that energy in batteries and when you're doing that you're immediately implying the use of materias such as Nikel, Cadmium, Lithium and Mercury which are among the most dangerous substances in the face of the planet. However, electricity isn't the only other alternative. There's also hydrogen which burns clean but it still has a long way to go on the development. Of course the further development of the combustion engines, in particular of the diesel engine, and hybrid technologies help in taking a step forward on enviromental issues. |
||
__________________
In the long run, we're all dead. Keynes |
11 May 2001, 16:13 (Ref:91276) | #7 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 1,512
|
How about this I spotted today, also from Pistonheads.com:
Quote:
Sharky, I completely agree about the 'displaced' need for the burning of fuels for the recharging of electric vehicles. Just because power plants are doing the burning rather than the individual, and these plants aren't within sight, they're easily disregarded. Hydrogen seems to offer the hope for the future, but as Sharky says (And as we discussed some time ago) the development is a long way off. How does your love of motosport tally with your concerns of the environment? |
|||
|
11 May 2001, 17:18 (Ref:91285) | #8 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 229
|
Ballard Power located in Vancouver has developed a fuel cell that is now working. They have several busses operating with there fuel cell. How it works I don't know.
As a motor racing enthusiast we can do like CART and race using alcohol (ethanol) fuel. For private use it has several disadvantages. It gives lower miles per gallon, if it burns flames are not visible, it can also eat up some seals(gaskets). Is ethanol not the fuel of joyce in Bracil or Argentina. I'm not sure about this but one of these countries uses alcohole fuel. Last edited by Hans.ca; 11 May 2001 at 17:19. |
||
|
11 May 2001, 17:32 (Ref:91291) | #9 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 963
|
Alcohol fuel was used in Brazil some years ago. From what I understand it was used mostly for economical reasons. First of all, they wanted to give the agricultural (specially the sugar indistry) a boost and second of all they didn't want to depend much on other countries for their fuels. However, it didn't turn out to be a very succesful measure. In fact, I think that the program was dropped and every car in brazil now runs with petrol again (though I'm not sure). Anyway, from what I understand, the biggest problem with alcohol is it's cost. I think I read somewhere that Methanol (like the one used in CART) costs 14 dollars per gallon (prio to any taxes that could apply). However, I guess you could consider a government policy in which takes gathered from petrol would act as a mean to slash down methanol prices and therefore encourage people to switch to that fuel.
I think I once heard a statistic some years ago that said that only about 2-5% of the contamination production in F1 is the resposability of the cars during race-qualifying-etc. The other 95-98% is mainly due to the transportation (trucks, planes, etc) and another part to the making of the car itself. But regarding your question Sparky, that's not a very easy question to answer. Certainlly an F1 car is not exactly an "eviromentaly friendly" machine......but, I guess you could say that they're just 22 cars compared to millions around the world and that it really doesn't add up to much....but....I don't know, I'll have to think it over. |
||
__________________
In the long run, we're all dead. Keynes |
11 May 2001, 18:05 (Ref:91303) | #10 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 1998
Posts: 2,762
|
I have mixed feelings concerning alternative fuels and renewable fulel systems. Something needs to happen however.
One of the problems I see with using ethanol on a wide basis is that it will place a massive strain on the ethanol production companies. It takes a lot of corn or other vegetable product to produce a substantial amount of ethanol. The US farming communities are operating at a surplus and we ship a lot of grain product to other parts of the world, but we cannot produce enough corn or wheat to supply even our road vehicles with enough ethanol. Also, ethanol does not burn with near the energy of gasoline and thus takes more to do the same job and is less efficient. The same goes for most other alcohol based fuels, they do have have enough volatility. If vegetable stocks are supplemented with cellulose products (wood, paper, etc.) then how long until trees are being harvested strictly for the use in making fuel. Already too many trees are being harvested in the name of paper products. In a lot of rural America natural gas is used for trucks and farm equipment but it also generates its own set of problems with cold weather. The fuel will condense a lot of water and freeze up carburettor and injection systems and it too has less volatile energy than gasoline, but it gets used because it is fairly cheap in the central states of America. I think that we need a couple of things for another fuel to oust pertoleum as the mainstay. We need a good and cheap fuel cell system, and we need a high temperature superconductor to improve efficiency in electrical components. These two things together can make electrical storage and transmission happen with minimal loss and lower frictional losses in mechanical components. |
||
__________________
Never forget #99 |
23 May 2001, 01:43 (Ref:95396) | #11 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 479
|
Well, the new BMW doesn't produce CO2 anymore, it only needs H and the result is just water.
Sure we car users are guilty. Global warming is not only but also our fault. Just a pity that Bush doesn't think CO2 is unhealthy...maybe he should just breathe it for a while ...hehe |
||
__________________
"An eye for an eye only makes the world blind." by Mahatma Gandhi |
23 May 2001, 02:17 (Ref:95401) | #12 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,221
|
When it's all said and done, I think you'll find that the manufacture of tyres is a big contributor to pollution... and so are the remains when the little bit of tread wears away.
|
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why not go global?? | kmchow | Touring Car Racing | 4 | 26 Sep 2003 01:27 |
[FIA GT] FIA GT To go Global? | SALEEN S7R | Sportscar & GT Racing | 12 | 5 Sep 2003 06:46 |
warming up lap | vaughan jones | Racers Forum | 22 | 14 Jul 2003 00:57 |
Global-F1 | Tom Fuller | Cool Sites | 15 | 7 Jul 2002 14:04 |