In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
raden wrote:
Are all the lights and computers switched off when not in use ?

makes me laugh turning your TV off instead of putting it on standby will
save the planet

... but all these office buildings running lights and PCs 24/7 really
don't impact

Street lighting on all the hours of darkness too. But we understand about
power stations having a minimum demand.

Aah, but then if I left my TV on standby, and my phone charger plugged
in, what more would be required ?

--
geoff

On 2006-10-25 16:30:59 +0100, "dcbwhaley" said:


Strangely, this isn't really the case for nuclear.

As all of the construction and employment happens for people in the UK,
and fuel isn't a cost.

Won't foreign companies be allowed to bid for building nuclear power
stations? And isn't the major recent expertise with building and
operating them French?

So what? If that's where the expertise is, then use it.

It's a very long past the time when the silly UK island mentality of
the past makes any sense.

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 00:23:28 on Wed, 25 Oct
2006, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

I read that one return trip by air to LA


About 6,000 miles each way, so 12,00 miles

Which based on the 777 figures would be a full load of fuel each way -
so about 600L per person round trip.

produces the same CO2 (per passenger) as the average car does in a year.


About 10,000 miles a year.

Yep, simply shows that per passenger mile a modern plane is about the
same as a car (and also the same as a high speed train).

Looking at the amount of fuel used I would expect the plane to be more
efficent... you would need a car capable of doing over 90mpg to equal it.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:20:32 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

Won't foreign companies be allowed to bid for building nuclear power
stations? And isn't the major recent expertise with building and
operating them French?

So what? If that's where the expertise is, then use it.


Absolutely.

It would appear that the technological lead we thought we had in the
late '60s and early '70's came to naught.

It's a very long past the time when the silly UK island mentality of
the past makes any sense.

But didn't the French adopt the US "Washinghouse" (of Three Mile
Island fame) technology, as evidenced by all those reactors al Loon
Plage on the ferry approach to Dunkirk ?

DG

Owain wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:
The fuel cost is fairly small. You get about 150Mwh of electricity for
1Kg of uranium.
A price I found from 2005 was about 30 pounds a kilo.
This as a component of the price is .02 pence per kilowatt-hour.

That's almost so cheap it wouldb't be worth metering ;-)

Well - yes.
The 'too cheap to meter' claim wasn't really about that.
It was more that if your electricity system is 100% nuclear, then
metering is less important, as long as you have enough capacity
that it can cope with the peak demand.
Because it costs not that much more to run a nuclear plant at 90%
capacity than it does to run it at 40%, as the fuel costs are so low.

However.

This only really makes sense in the context where you've undergone a
_massive_ nuclear building program - somewhere around 20-40 times the
current electricity supply (IIRC), and you've switched all the central
heating back to electric, and all industrial plants that can run on it too.

Otherwise, as it's unmetered, everyone puts their heating on it anyway,
and it all falls over, because it can't cope with the load.


http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/de...epartment=True

UK electricity demand is about 400TWh.

Total UK energy demand is 170 ish million tons of oil equiv.
At 40GJ/ton is 4*10^10 * 2*10^8 = 8*10^18J, or a staggering 8 exajoules
(yes, I had to look up the prefix) of energy.
In Wh terms, that's 2000TWh or so.
Or electricity is about 1/5th of total energy use.

As nuclear is about 1/5th of electricity use at the moment, we'd need to
grow it by 25 times to cope with all our energy needs.

Assuming that pretty much anything that uses gas, coal, or oil, and isn't
moving can use electricity as easily.

Neglecting the transport sector, which is about 1/4 or so of total
demand, that'd be 18 times the current amount.


Or 19, as you might as well retire the old stations anyway if you're
building that many.
Hell, call it 20 for a round number

John Rumm wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 00:23:28 on Wed, 25 Oct
2006, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

I read that one return trip by air to LA


About 6,000 miles each way, so 12,00 miles

Which based on the 777 figures would be a full load of fuel each way -
so about 600L per person round trip.

produces the same CO2 (per passenger) as the average car does in a year.


About 10,000 miles a year.

Yep, simply shows that per passenger mile a modern plane is about the
same as a car (and also the same as a high speed train).

Looking at the amount of fuel used I would expect the plane to be more
efficent... you would need a car capable of doing over 90mpg to equal it.

A little more than that.

Airliners tend to fly rather more direct courses than cars drive.

John Rumm wrote:

And the issue isn't really the TVs using 60MJ, it's the few year old
TVs using 10W.

Don't think I have ever seen one using that much. Even my 12 year old
29" Sony is under 2W in standby.

One of mine - a 1998 vintage Grundig - takes about 8 W. This set leaves
the main SMPS 'chopper' running all the time, just to power the IR
receiver and micro. The designs which take 2 W or less in standby
usually have separate low-power PSU circuits for the essential standby
functions.

Although there is a trend toward "bigger and better" in AV gear which
offsets some of the efficiency gains.

And then there's digital set-top boxes that don't really have to be left
in standby all the time, but usually are. 7+ million $ky boxes at ~20 W
a piece is a mere 140 MW down the drain. If you assume 16 hours a day
unnecessary usage that translates to around 3 PJ (petajoules) of
electricity per year, or say ~10 PJ of primary energy (= something like
a quarter of a million tonnes of oil equivalent).

--
Andy

Andy Wade wrote:

And then there's digital set-top boxes that don't really have to be left
in standby all the time, but usually are. 7+ million $ky boxes at ~20 W

20 seems a bit excessive.... I spose it keeps the RF/IF/Demod side alive
to receive downloads etc.

a piece is a mere 140 MW down the drain. If you assume 16 hours a day
unnecessary usage that translates to around 3 PJ (petajoules) of
electricity per year, or say ~10 PJ of primary energy (= something like
a quarter of a million tonnes of oil equivalent).

So Rupert Murdoch really may result in the end of civilisation as we
know it... oh hang on a minute, that might happen even without global
warming!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Ian Stirling wrote:

A little more than that.

Airliners tend to fly rather more direct courses than cars drive.

better over water as well ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

raden wrote:
In message , Ian
Stirling writes
John Rumm wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

Anyone want to work out how long a TV has to be left on standby to
equal
one trip to Torremolinos?? :-)

Well, lets have a go...

Google earth recons the distance from Gatwick is 1025 miles...

lets go on a 777, with a passenger capacity of 440 people flying cattle
class. Max range about 6000 miles, max fuel load 120,000 L - so call it
a 1/3rd of a tank there and back. So 40,000 L of fuel, or 90 L (or
about 80kg) per passenger. Lets say we get 42MJ/kg that gives us 3360MJ
of energy.

Err - no.
Your TV on standby consuming 0.8W running 24/7 365 will use about
25MJ...

Unless your TV runs on AVgas, you've got to multiply by the average
efficiency of an oil power station - say 60MJ of oil used.

And the issue isn't really the TVs using 60MJ, it's the few year old
TVs using 10W.
700MJ or so per year.
Or a flight every 4 years, rather than 134. Hardly peanuts.

So the moral of the storey is skip this years flight, you can have your
TV on standby for the next 134 years instead.

Most newer stuff uses less power than most older stuff.
If only for the reason that in many cases, it's gotten cheaper (in large
volumes) to avoid needing an extra part (a heatsink) than to design it
to use under a watt or so on standby.

If you want to ignore the energy involved in making it, that is.

Who's going to do the calcs on the advantage on running say, an old
boiler, against the environmental cost of manufacturing and then running
a new condensing boiler ?

Its easy enough to do a cost benefit analysis anyway.

Apart from the fact that the house around it got taken down, I was
paying about 100 quid a year to keep an old boiler going...7 years of
that and a new booler had paid for itself..

Andy Wade wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

And the issue isn't really the TVs using 60MJ, it's the few year old
TVs using 10W.

Don't think I have ever seen one using that much. Even my 12 year old
29" Sony is under 2W in standby.

One of mine - a 1998 vintage Grundig - takes about 8 W. This set leaves
snip
Although there is a trend toward "bigger and better" in AV gear which
offsets some of the efficiency gains.

And then there's digital set-top boxes that don't really have to be left
in standby all the time, but usually are. 7+ million $ky boxes at ~20 W
a piece is a mere 140 MW down the drain. If you assume 16 hours a day

They have to be on all the time for a very good reason.
If they were not on all the time, then Sky would have to allocate more
bandwidth to the card control channel, that kills peoples cards that
haven't paid their bill.

unnecessary usage that translates to around 3 PJ (petajoules) of
electricity per year, or say ~10 PJ of primary energy (= something like
a quarter of a million tonnes of oil equivalent).

A million tons of oil here, a million tons of oil there, and pretty soon
you're spending all your money on oil...
(a million tons of oil costs some 300 million. Of which we need to
export 300 million of stuff, to stay standing still.)

John Rumm wrote:

Andy Wade wrote:
[...] 7+ million $ky boxes at ~20 W

20 seems a bit excessive.... I spose it keeps the RF/IF/Demod side alive
to receive downloads etc.

It's about right though, only the newer designs are doing much better.
In most cases the only change in standby mode is that the video o/p's
are disabled, along with any front panel display. Famously there was
one box which took more power in standby than when on - this had no
display other than a red LED which came on in standby...

--
Andy

The fuel cost is fairly small. You get about 150Mwh of electricity for
1Kg of uranium.
A price I found from 2005 was about 30 pounds a kilo.
This as a component of the price is .02 pence per kilowatt-hour.

Now add in the cost of reprocessing the spent fuels and storing the
long half-life waste for several centuries. Oh, sorry, I forgot. That
wil be somebody else's problem.

Owain wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:
The fuel cost is fairly small. You get about 150Mwh of electricity for
1Kg of uranium.
A price I found from 2005 was about 30 pounds a kilo.
This as a component of the price is .02 pence per kilowatt-hour.

That's almost so cheap it wouldb't be worth metering ;-)

You are showing your age :-). I bet you remeber Zeta too.

dcbwhaley wrote:


The fuel cost is fairly small. You get about 150Mwh of electricity for
1Kg of uranium.
A price I found from 2005 was about 30 pounds a kilo.
This as a component of the price is .02 pence per kilowatt-hour.

Now add in the cost of reprocessing the spent fuels and storing the
long half-life waste for several centuries. Oh, sorry, I forgot. That
wil be somebody else's problem.

Well - personally, I would be quite happy to have it literally in my
back yard - in deep underground storage.

IMO, anyone in the future who digs down to underground stored nuclear fuels
deserves all they get.

Even adding in the cost of reprocessing, the fuel is not a large
component of the cost.
And to raise the earlier point, if it's reprocessed in the UK, all of
the money goes to builders, techs, ... that work in the UK.

"dcbwhaley" wrote in message
oups.com...

Owain wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:
The fuel cost is fairly small. You get about 150Mwh of electricity for
1Kg of uranium.
A price I found from 2005 was about 30 pounds a kilo.
This as a component of the price is .02 pence per kilowatt-hour.

That's almost so cheap it wouldb't be worth metering ;-)

You are showing your age :-). I bet you remeber Zeta too.

waves I do! Nobody else seems to though :-(

Mary

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
dcbwhaley wrote:


The fuel cost is fairly small. You get about 150Mwh of electricity for
1Kg of uranium.
A price I found from 2005 was about 30 pounds a kilo.
This as a component of the price is .02 pence per kilowatt-hour.

Now add in the cost of reprocessing the spent fuels and storing the
long half-life waste for several centuries. Oh, sorry, I forgot. That
wil be somebody else's problem.

Well - personally, I would be quite happy to have it literally in my
back yard - in deep underground storage.

So would I.

Mary

In article ,
Ian Stirling wrote:
Looking at the amount of fuel used I would expect the plane to be more
efficent... you would need a car capable of doing over 90mpg to equal
it.

A little more than that.

Airliners tend to fly rather more direct courses than cars drive.

They also tend to fly less than full on scheduled services. If you're
going to apply the figures for full aircraft do it with cars too. So at
least quadruple their MPG.

Air transport lovers always to quote the most economical aircraft
passenger miles for their purposes - something like a full 747 on long
haul. So I think it only fair to quote a diesel MPV with 8 seats all full
cruising on a motorway - say the equivalent of 320 mpg. ;-)

--
*We waste time, so you don't have to *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Apart from the fact that the house around it got taken down, I was
paying about 100 quid a year to keep an old boiler going...7 years of
that and a new booler had paid for itself..

I'm in the opposite position with my ancient Potterton Kingfisher. It's
had two thermocouples and one re-build with new seals and gaskets etc in
30 years - all DIY.

--
*You sound reasonable......time to up my medication

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

They also tend to fly less than full on scheduled services. If
you're going to apply the figures for full aircraft do it with
cars too. So at least quadruple their MPG.

A pal used to do the Atlantic regularly, with BA.
On a few occasions the plane flew to the US with
less than 6 passengers aboard. He said that as far
as Atlantic flights were concerned if a flight was
scheduled then it had to fly.

--
Tony Williams.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:08:20 +0100 Dave Plowman (News) wrote :
They also tend to fly less than full on scheduled services.

"In September 2006, [BA] passenger capacity, measured in Available
Seat Kilometers, was 2.5 percent above September 2005. Traffic,
measured in Revenue Passenger Kilometers, was higher by 1.5
percent. This resulted in a passenger load factor down 0.8 points
versus last year, to 78.8 percent."
http://www.primezone.com/newsroom/news.html?d=106291

This year I've been to Denver and Melbourne and in each case the
plane was all but full. The average car occupancy is 1.x people
where x is, I suspect, a fairly small number.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

dcbwhaley wrote:
The fuel cost is fairly small. You get about 150Mwh of electricity for
1Kg of uranium.
A price I found from 2005 was about 30 pounds a kilo.
This as a component of the price is .02 pence per kilowatt-hour.

Now add in the cost of reprocessing the spent fuels and storing the
long half-life waste for several centuries. Oh, sorry, I forgot. That
wil be somebody else's problem.

It may be cheaper just to dump the spent fuel rods in a store, and bury
the low level waste.

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
dcbwhaley wrote:
The fuel cost is fairly small. You get about 150Mwh of electricity for
1Kg of uranium.
A price I found from 2005 was about 30 pounds a kilo.
This as a component of the price is .02 pence per kilowatt-hour.
Now add in the cost of reprocessing the spent fuels and storing the
long half-life waste for several centuries. Oh, sorry, I forgot. That
wil be somebody else's problem.
Well - personally, I would be quite happy to have it literally in my
back yard - in deep underground storage.


Me 2

So would I.

Mary

It may be cheaper just to dump the spent fuel rods in a store, and bury
the low level waste.

The stored high level waste has to be cooled which uses energy for a
very long time.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:02:30 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Now add in the cost of reprocessing the spent fuels and storing the
long half-life waste for several centuries. Oh, sorry, I forgot. That
wil be somebody else's problem.

It may be cheaper just to dump the spent fuel rods in a store, and bury
the low level waste.

Above ground dry storage of spent fuel rods on-site is what groups
like FoE advocate. It avoids generating the large quantities of
radioactive liquid that reprocessing involves. It is also more
likely that future generations will be aware of our legacy, unlike
the out of sight out of mind approach the nuclear "industry" wants.

What the Westminster lot announced yesterday was the out of sight
out of mind approach. This included offering bribes to the area(s)
concerned, so as well as the cost of building and operating the
place taxpayers will have to pay for the bribes as well
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1584212006 So much for
the "cheap" electricity we have been told about for decades.

I also see that one of the hidden subsidies for the new "commercial"
nuclear power station in Finland is still being investigated by the
EU http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e15d01d8-63c...0779e2340.html






--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:34:38 +0100 Tony Williams wrote :
A pal used to do the Atlantic regularly, with BA.
On a few occasions the plane flew to the US with
less than 6 passengers aboard. He said that as far
as Atlantic flights were concerned if a flight was
scheduled then it had to fly.

Generally yes because there will probably be a lot more people waiting
for the return leg. And a crew who have had their mandatory rest period.

If this isn't going to be the case some airlines will find a 'technical
problem' which requires them to put the passengers on someone else's
flight - cheaper than flying an almost empty plane out and back.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

"Tony Williams" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

They also tend to fly less than full on scheduled services. If
you're going to apply the figures for full aircraft do it with
cars too. So at least quadruple their MPG.

A pal used to do the Atlantic regularly, with BA.
On a few occasions the plane flew to the US with
less than 6 passengers aboard. He said that as far
as Atlantic flights were concerned if a flight was
scheduled then it had to fly.

Yes, in January 2000 we came back to Leeds from Brussels on a brand new
plane with no other passengers. We were given the full attention of the
crew, Millennium chocolates galore, if only the flight had been longer we'd
have been sick!

Mary

--
Tony Williams.

On 26 Oct 2006 06:08:32 -0700 someone who may be "dcbwhaley"
wrote this:-

The stored high level waste has to be cooled which uses energy for a
very long time.

That depends on the form it is in.

If one is mad enough to reprocess spent fuel then this produces
relatively large quantities of highly radioactive nitric acid. This
is stored in the infamous tanks at Windscale where not only is it a
great target for those wishing to cause wide scale contamination but
it also needs energy intensive cooling in order to stop it boiling
in the tank [1]. That means forced cooling of the tanks, with all
the problems this entails.

However, turn the stuff into glass blocks and it can be cooled by
natural convection, which is far better. Unfortunately the glass
block lines have never operated at anything like design capacity and
show no signs of doing so in the near future.

These problems are why reprocessing should be stopped at once.


[1] to consequences of it boiling in the tank would be similar to
the Tomsk-7 explosion.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:55:03 +0100 someone who may be David Hansen
wrote this:-

However, turn the stuff into glass blocks and it can be cooled by
natural convection, which is far better.

I forgot to add. http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/35_wnmm.pdf is a
summary of the different sorts of waste.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:18:40 UTC, "dcbwhaley" wrote:


Owain wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:
The fuel cost is fairly small. You get about 150Mwh of electricity for
1Kg of uranium.
A price I found from 2005 was about 30 pounds a kilo.
This as a component of the price is .02 pence per kilowatt-hour.

That's almost so cheap it wouldb't be worth metering ;-)

You are showing your age :-). I bet you remeber Zeta too.

I remember reading an article. Practical Mechanics or Wireless World, I
believe..

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

On 26 Oct 2006 18:05:58 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:18:40 UTC, "dcbwhaley" wrote:


Owain wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:
The fuel cost is fairly small. You get about 150Mwh of electricity for
1Kg of uranium.
A price I found from 2005 was about 30 pounds a kilo.
This as a component of the price is .02 pence per kilowatt-hour.

That's almost so cheap it wouldb't be worth metering ;-)

You are showing your age :-). I bet you remeber Zeta too.

I remember reading an article. Practical Mechanics or Wireless World, I
believe..

One of the ZETA team went to the same school (Wyther Park, Leeds) as I
did, it was dutifully announced to us in assembly.

The project was totally off-beam, it turned out they hadn't been
measuring what they thought they'd been measuring (Some resonance or
other or events being counted muliple times, details are sparce), and
what they claimed had been happening, hadn't been happening. :-(

Oh, and they didn't announce that in assembly either. :-(

Oddly enough the Science Museum website claims :

"The first successful experiments were carried out in August 1957"

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-l...ion/famous.asp

Best sell my lecky meter on EBAY then and get in before the rush. ;-)

I have to say the British Establishment really takes the biscuit. It
takes some brass neck to imply in 2001 in the midst of an energy
shortage, that that the ZETA fusion project was successful in 1957.

DG

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:18:40 UTC, "dcbwhaley" wrote:


Owain wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:
The fuel cost is fairly small. You get about 150Mwh of electricity for
1Kg of uranium.
A price I found from 2005 was about 30 pounds a kilo.
This as a component of the price is .02 pence per kilowatt-hour.

That's almost so cheap it wouldb't be worth metering ;-)

You are showing your age :-). I bet you remeber Zeta too.

I remember reading an article. Practical Mechanics or Wireless World, I
believe..

I believe I still have some copies of both practical mechanics and
wireless world upstairs


--
geoff

On 2006-10-26 22:09:30 +0100, Owain said:

John Rumm wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:
A little more than that.
Airliners tend to fly rather more direct courses than cars drive.
better over water as well ;-)

And the road network uses lots of energy for street lighting, and other
secondary consumers such as hospitals, insurance offices, police, and
all the other apparatus that supports car use in Britain, but which
isn't directly paid for by the motorist and isn't counted in the cost
or energy per mile.

Airliners also have quite high support requirements: airports, air
traffic control, etc.

Trains are probably best, as a lot of railway stations are pretty basic.

You're telling me.


There's a secondary environmental benefit too in that railway lines are
often corridors for wildlife.

So are the trains.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6089042.stm






Owain

In article ,
Owain wrote:
There's a secondary environmental benefit too in that railway lines are
often corridors for wildlife.

Bloody foxes in London.

--
*Don't use no double negatives *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Mary Fisher wrote:

Just because something only contributes a small amount doesn't mean it's not
important.

But that's the whole point - no-one but no-one is asking the key
question. It's like watching Jon Snow incisively demanding to know the
wrong answer.

In not one single case on the global-warming, TV-standby-bashing,
efficient-boiler, smaller car, better insulation debate is anyone
asking what the calculated benefits will be with regard to the alleged
problem - that is, what will be the predicted benefit of turning off
our TVs? How much global warming will be prevented, measured in deg C?

This question is *never* posed.

One suspects that this whole hobgoblin is merely a device to tax
people. What is the point of putting up the RFL of a Chelsea tractor?
It will be used just as much; produce just as much CO2; the
environment sees no benefit.

In any case, the effect of particles from the sun on the Earth's
magnetic field is thought to be a far greater contributor to global
warming, but the government can't levy a tax on the sun.

--

Frank

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:37:55 +0100 Frank Lee Speke-King wrote :
What is the point of putting up the RFL of a Chelsea tractor?
It will be used just as much; produce just as much CO2; the
environment sees no benefit.

The argument is that it changes people's buying decisions, also
what car makers produce. Certainly as far as company cars are
concerned the evidence seems to be that CO2 is a significant
factor in choosing what to buy - thus all the diesel BMWs and
Audis.

What makes less sense is my Borough's much publicised decision to
charge for residents parking permits according to CO2. This is
really nothing more than a tax on not having a driveway.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

Owain wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:
A little more than that.
Airliners tend to fly rather more direct courses than cars drive.
better over water as well ;-)

And the road network uses lots of energy for street lighting, and other
secondary consumers such as hospitals, insurance offices, police, and
all the other apparatus that supports car use in Britain, but which
isn't directly paid for by the motorist and isn't counted in the cost or
energy per mile.

Airliners also have quite high support requirements: airports, air
traffic control, etc.

Trains are probably best, as a lot of railway stations are pretty basic.
There's a secondary environmental benefit too in that railway lines are
often corridors for wildlife.


So are motorways.

But your points are extremely valid.

Railways are the most efficient land based transport there is.

Roads get *huge* subsidies to keep them operational and built - railways
do not.

For more examples of typical government disjuncted (opposite of joined
up) thinkin see the new Richnond big car parking tax. Is it a taxe on
energy used? No. Its a tax obcapital ownership. Electric carts are
free..Why? because they pollute slightly *more* that's why. Electrical
generation efficiencies make them end up using JUST as much carbon
fuel.And getting rid of spent lead acid and nickel chemistry bartteries
is almost as mucj of a nightmare as nuclear fuel.



Owain

Frank Lee Speke-King wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:

Just because something only contributes a small amount doesn't mean it's not
important.

But that's the whole point - no-one but no-one is asking the key
question. It's like watching Jon Snow incisively demanding to know the
wrong answer.

In not one single case on the global-warming, TV-standby-bashing,
efficient-boiler, smaller car, better insulation debate is anyone
asking what the calculated benefits will be with regard to the alleged
problem - that is, what will be the predicted benefit of turning off
our TVs? How much global warming will be prevented, measured in deg C?

This question is *never* posed.

That is because the current social climate is 'all science is bunk, God
knows best, and qualitative thinking is easier than quantitative'


One suspects that this whole hobgoblin is merely a device to tax
people. What is the point of putting up the RFL of a Chelsea tractor?
It will be used just as much; produce just as much CO2; the
environment sees no benefit.


Precisely.

In any case, the effect of particles from the sun on the Earth's
magnetic field is thought to be a far greater contributor to global
warming, but the government can't levy a tax on the sun.


I am sure they will find a way..

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:46:09 +0100, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:37:55 +0100 Frank Lee Speke-King wrote :
What is the point of putting up the RFL of a Chelsea tractor?
It will be used just as much; produce just as much CO2; the
environment sees no benefit.

The argument is that it changes people's buying decisions, also
what car makers produce. Certainly as far as company cars are
concerned the evidence seems to be that CO2 is a significant
factor in choosing what to buy - thus all the diesel BMWs and
Audis.

What makes less sense is my Borough's much publicised decision to
charge for residents parking permits according to CO2. This is
really nothing more than a tax on not having a driveway.

Interestingly there is relatively little price elasticity[1] in
petrol and by association car buying habits. I would expect that
for someone paying 30-40k for a 4x4, another few hundred quid a
year won't really be noticed. After all if you've got a multi-
hundred thousand pound mortgage, it's equivalent to less than a
quarter percent rate increase - that doesn't lead to much grumbling.

I would be slightly more sympathetic towards councils embarking
on this cause if the extra revenue was actually spent on reducing
CO2 (i.e. was hypothecated) rather than just going into the
spending pot.

Pete

[1] price elasticity: the concept that as the price of a good is
raised, the demand for it decreases. For petrol, demand is
generally constant irrespective of price, see here.
http://www.bized.co.uk/current/mind/2003_4/061003.htm


--
.................................................. .........................
.. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
.. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
.. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................

Tony Bryer wrote:

The argument is that it changes people's buying decisions, also
what car makers produce. Certainly as far as company cars are
concerned the evidence seems to be that CO2 is a significant
factor in choosing what to buy - thus all the diesel BMWs and
Audis.

All it will mean is that the cars will be exported to e.g. China and
India, whose carbon emissions are such that the UK's is in the third
most significant figure; that is, of unquantifiably small effect - and
that's for the *whole*country*, not some minor subset of it.

What makes less sense is my Borough's much publicised decision to
charge for residents parking permits according to CO2. This is
really nothing more than a tax on not having a driveway.

It would only make sense if it applied to new purchases, rather than
penalising people retrospectively.

--

Frank