Re: Climate camp news.

On 30 Aug, 16:34, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
"Doug" <jag...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:24b4a9f4-261b-45cd-bd2c-c27ab18284b2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 29 Aug, 18:25, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
"Doug" <jag...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
....
""By contrast, Petroleum diesel's life cycle yields only 0.83
units of fuel energy per unit of fossil energy consumed."

What that means is that for every litre of diesel created, 0.17
litre is consumed in extracting the fuel. In other words, you get
nearly six times as
much energy out of diesel as you need to put in to extract it.

Well if that is so how do you account for the fact that a diesel
engine is only 45% efficient? Either your source is not taking into
account the whole process, from exploration-to-vehicle, or it is
wrong or you are wrong. Both I suspect.

I answered the question of how much energy it takes to produce a
litre of diesel. What you are now asking is how efficiently can the
energy in that litre be converted into useful output, which is a
different and much more complex question. It depends greatly upon
whaat sort of engine you use and what sort of duty cycle that engine
runs at. The theoretical maximum efficiency of the diesel cycle
engine is 56%, but the maximum attained in practical engines is 52%.
That is for a modern marine diesel engine, which spends long periods
running at a steady speed. Diesel generators achieve simlar
efficiencies. Work in progress on dual fuel petrol / diesel engines
suggest they could achieve up to 20% better efficiency than a pure
diesel engine. If you burn the diesel oil to run a gas turbine,
efficiencies of up to 65% are possible. With waste heat recovery, gas
turbines can reach 80% efficiency.
....
I agree that everything should be done to save lives and human
suffering, both by reducing human CO2 and by taking measures to
protect people from the disasters of global warming.

There are limited resources, so you can't do both effectively.

What, persuade people to consume and waste less energy? How much
energy does persuasion take?

I'm talking about cost and an effective campaign to change attitudes
takes a lot of money. However, the real waste is in building things
like wind farms, when a nuclear power station to produce the same
amount of power would be half the cost.

As it can be
shown that protective measures will work, while it cannot be shown
that reducing CO2 will have any effect whatsoever, the money should
go to what we
know will work.

It is known that people and their cattle are emitting a great deal of
greenhouse gases.That is well documented and greenhouse gases are
causing global warming which in turn is causing climate change.

According to this study, 95% of all global warming is caused by water
vapour, of which 99.999% is of natural origin. If you take that into
account, all human activity contributes just 0.28% to the greenhouse
effect. As I have said before, human activity is not a significant
driver of climate change, when compared to what nature is doing.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Naturally, you and your fellow motorists here are in denial because
it would mean you would have to reduce your car travel, as well as
stopping meat eating.

We would also have to stop eating rice, which produces 75% as much
methane as domestic cattle digestive systems, destroy every termite
on the planet (25% as much) and destroy all wetlands (38% more).
Actually, we would have to give up eating all together, as
agriculture is a primary source of CO2 and the biggest single source
of nitrous oxide.

.
I think the above article, that you have linked to, should be required
reading for Doug and his loony fringe activists.  What they fail to
comprehend is that they are being used as pawns in a global gov't
conspiracy!

No, people like you are the conspiracy pawns. The government wants you
to think it is dealing with the problems while it is actually making
matters much worse. Of course it doesn't want you to stop driving your
gas guzzler, for economic reasons. Of course it wants you to use more
energy in your homes, for economic reasons. Of course it wants you to
consume more and more, for economic reasons. Without continuous
economic growth the whole system falls apart. There must be a lesson
there somewhere.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Government, the blind misleading the blind.
.

Quantcast