Conference terri::cars_uk

    
    Re .0
    
    Are these figures comparing against a Catalysed unleaded Petrol
    car or a leaded smog-pumper?
    
    Also, I'd query the 25%-30% better fuel consumption. My girlfriend's
    Fiat can (and does) regularly exceed 50 mpg (even in stop start
    traffic), so it becomes rather academic. Unless ALL types of car
    are available in diesel form you can't compare. I mean, would someone
    buy a petrol BX just because they're looking at a diesel. I suspect
    in many cases the answer would be no, so comparing like with like
    isn't neccesarily a true reflection of what people would buy.
    
    And then there's the hype about the 'Greenhouse effect'. None of
    the weather experts have said that the unusual weather we are having
    is caused by Global Warming or whatever. There isn't any evidence
    to support it as yet, and may well never be. A bit like the Leukemia
    and nuclear power station scare recently. In the end they found
    out that places where power stations were planned but never built
    also had higher than usual incidents of Leukemia.
    
    Having said all that, the figures for diesel do sound impressive
    (but statistics can say anything you like!) and I agree the cost
    of diesel here seems to have got higher rather than lower recently.
    
    If I was a cynic I'd suspect that the price is rising along with
    the growing popularity of diesel passenger cars.
    
    Mark 

    RE: Is Diesel cost-effective?
    
    I bought my current car (Ford Escort 1.8D) on a special offer by
    Ford (France only, I'm afraid) whereby you could get a Diesel for
    the price of a petrol, provided you chose Ghia specs. I've now had
    the car for almost a year - the guarantee expires on FEB 17 - and
    I'm really pleased with it: 5.7 l/100 km on average, extremely reliable
    so far, cruising speed 140 kph @ 3,300 rpm...
    
    Still, I agree with .-1, they must be jacking up the price because
    of increasing popular demand, although the French government might
    also be trying to protect Renault, whose diesels are lagging a bit
    behind the competition...
    
    /Ben

    
     I agree with .1 about statstics, lies etc....The intention of posting
    the note was to be controversial and get some impassioned replies.
    
    BUT...............Can this 'doubting green' Mr. Saxby be the same
    Mr.Saxby in note 938 who was predicting the End of the World!?
    
    The point behind the note was to say that advances in diesel engine
    design might be the answer to reducing emmissions of these harmful
    pollutants. The claim for this new VW is that it exceeds even the
    next round of US standards which most existing petrol vehicles (even
    unleaded and catalysed ones) do not meet.
    
    Dave

    
    Hello Dave,
    
    I wasn't ENTIRELY serious about the end of the world in note 938.
    
    Maybe my meaning was lost.
    
    Interestingly all the news programmes were happily questioning so
    called experts on how the greenhouse effect was causing the storms
    and the weathermen were all saying "hold on, this couldn't have
    anything to do with the greenhouse effect anyway!". The real
    problem with Green issues is that they've become a bandwagon and
    eventually people will loose interest and they'll get forgotten.
    
    Don't get me wrong, if we are damaging the world we ought to do
    something about it, but in the long run scaremongering will only
    devalue the truth about the damage we're doing and the value of
    reducing the pollutants we output in many forms.
    
    Mark

    OK, so the experts haven't actually proved anything yet, but they say
    it may take 10 to 15 years to prove that car emissions and other
    pollutants are linked with the changing weather patterns.  Personally, 
    I think it is far better to have the attitude "let's do something about 
    it *now* just in case it is true", than to wait around for another 10-15 
    years and say "Those guys were right!! The world has been destroyed due 
    to our misuse of its resources - pity there is no longer any time to do 
    anything about it"
    
    Jumping on the bandwagon is inevitable - after all, most companies are
    there to make money - but it is also beneficial - it is up to the
    individual to make up his/her own mind about how accurate the
    information is, as there will always be someone trying to con you.  The 
    very fact that companies are now responding to green issues shows the 
    power that the consumer has in changing things on a large scale.  
    Let's hope it continues and that it won't be long before we have the 
    technology to travel without harming the environment so greatly. 

    
    I agree with you wholeheartedly that would should do something now
    rather than later, BUT the whole GREEN this, GREEN that marketing
    gimmick does no good at all.
    
    Sure it's raising people's awareness now, but when the summer isn't
    100+ and the winter is cold again, people will say 'Hey we've been
    had. There's no global warming!' and loose all interest in
    environmental issues. They might even stop buying products which
    are BAD for the environment, but labelled Green (like unleaded Petrol,
    which doesn't do anything for the Ozone layer on it's own except
    require more fossil fuel to produce it!).
    
    Mark

The problem with green issues is that there is no black and white (sorry, no
pun intended).  All you have is pros and cons.  For example, throw away 
batteries contain mercury so they damage the environment when you throw them 
away.  So use rechargeable ones.  They drain power from the grid causing more
fossil fuels to be burnt and more acid rain to fall.

Worse than that, all the arguments are based on insufficient data, so no 
argument can end in a good old yes or no.  What is true, however, is that by
consuming less, less damage will be done and whatever we consume will last 
longer.

Dave

PS everyone wants to go green, but they all want to go by car...

    
    .5  A very sensible attitude with which I agree.
    
    Its no good waiting to take action, I'm 33 years old so won't be
    worrying too much if the Thames valley does flood late next century!
    But hang on a minute.....what if my children/grandchildren want
    to live there??
    That's the problem, we need to start thinking Long TERM and GLOBAL
    and to manage more carefully what we have, over that there can be
    no argument.
    
    Dave

>. They might even stop buying products which
>    are BAD for the environment, but labelled Green (like unleaded Petrol,
>    which doesn't do anything for the Ozone layer on it's own except
>    require more fossil fuel to produce it!).
   
    I think that you've hit the nail on the head there (though I am sad to
    say it).  As long as we consume we will damage the environment, simply
    because today we do in it on such a large scale and I can't really see
    a *reduction* in this as long as the major companies of the world are
    around to make money out of it, and as long as people like myself
    continue to demand.  I think we can play for time though,
    and perhaps if there is a connection in the greenhouse effect, try to
    prolong the effects from now by encouraging these companies to produce
    greener goods.  The benefits of giving ourselves more time would give
    way to the possibility of using technology to repair the damage already
    done.  Who cares if the weather goes back to normal and it was
    all proved to be a big con?  It certainly wouldn't have made
    the situation worse, and at best it would have provided a better
    environment in which to live (ie less pollution in the air, less
    problems with dumping rubbish etc.).
                              

    Re: .7
    
    > So use rechargeable [batteries].  They drain power from the grid
    > causing more fossil fuels to be burnt and more acid rain to fall.
    
    Not true.  It takes less energy to recharge a battery than to make a
    new, non-rechargeable one.
    
    Jeff.

Yes, but rechargeable ones are less energy efficient and harder to destroy 
afterwards - although most rechargeable tools manufacturers have an exchange
system worked out.

The example was trying (unsuccessfully) to point out that green issues require
thought and not just gut reactions.  The best advise we can all take is to 
consume less of everything.

How about another one, this time more in keeping with this notes file?  The 
amount of energy required to build a car is so collossal that the final car's
fuel efficiency doesn't matter, it will never consume enough fuel to make any
real difference.  

Dave

    Re: .11
    
    If you're just looking at the energy equation, then it's quite probably
    true that one car's fuel efficiency doesn't matter.  I think it's more
    important in terms of the way the energy is generated, and the waste
    products of the process.
    
    Jeff.

Re: .11

> Yes, but rechargeable ones are less energy efficient and harder to destroy 
> afterwards - ...

This is NOT TRUE.  While a rechargeable bettery is less energy efficient
than no battery at all, it is, over its total life, far more energy
efficient and less polluting than a primary (non-rechargable) battery.

jb

    
    50 miles between charges....
    
    no good for me :-)