31 replies to this topic

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Click in your country, take the quiz and see how you do compared to other nations across the globe.
Via National Geographic.

[F.Tnioli]

It rated me at 0.8, and it said average for my country is 47.6. By my own calculations, i "emit" ~2.5...2.8 tons of CO2 a year via non-food goods and services, plus large part of my ration is industrially made food, - which contributes at least comparable, and probably way higher, amount; i can only guess than my personal annual total footprint is something about 7...12 tons of CO2, all direct and indirect effects included (ones which _only_ happen because i consumed goods and used services).

Also, CO2 is just one of many types of pollution i do - and for majority of people now alive, it's also so.

This makes me say that the quiz is overly optimistic, and scoring is completely silly. Indeed, how any serious quiz can go without at least trying to estimate carbon emissions originating from personal food consumption - is beyond my ability to comprehend; by the way, i highly recommend to read this: http://www.openthefu...eburger_CF.html .

There are many other sources of GHG emissions which are made only because modern person lives as he lives; namely, when you go to the bank and get some service, that's pollution - those working there have to eat and live and they emit CO2, but their primary (or even only) occupation - making services to you; by consuming those services you become responsible for much of their personal emissions - they get paycheks and salaries serving YOU, a customier. Much same thing with education, trade, politics, army, police - you name it; post-industrial economy is in its majority service-based, and somehow people think it's "clean". It's not.

Then the media. Watching TV, using internet, listening to a radio station, - when i do all that, i become partially responsible (proportionally to the audience of the media) for carbon emissions made personally by those media stuff, and by those media electricity consumption, devices, their corporate transport and so on. Indeed, without any single person being their audience, they would not exist. They make "product" - films, show, forums such as this one and so much else, - which i "consume". Much like a cheeseburger, these "non-matherial" kinds of products are also to be included into one's personal carbon footprint - after all, the fuel is burned and the power is flowing to make these, and carbon is emitted, in different amounts varying in every particular case, - but in principle just the same when we'd make a cheeseburger. It's quite easy to see, isn't it.

Raising awareness? Great. Fooling people to think the impact is limited to electricity usage, cars, planes and home heating? A crime. Really, a crime.

And it's National Geographic... What a shame.

[Phil]

My score was .91, mostly the travelling wife! :<)  If I recall 80% of CO2 is generated by individuals, 40% housing, 40% transportation.  That is why this quiz can raise awareness.

[Besoeker]

[Besoeker]

Phil, on 22 April 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

My score was .91, mostly the travelling wife! :<)

If it's b car, you need to get a more economical car....:)

From my previous car:



Not a stripped to the bare minimum Noddy car but a "fully loaded" vehicle with all the boyz toyz.
Leather, cruise, voice commands for just about everything - setting the cabin temperatures, telling the satnav where to go, finding the nearest hotel, calling it......etc.

[Phil]

Our Saturn Vue gets about 30 mpg now, I am planning on a BEV or FCV as our next car but we drive ours into the ground before replacing them so it will be another few years.  She typically takes one cruise with her friends and one short quilt shop tour a year.  I, on the other hand, did too much traveling in my career and am totally burnt out on long trips.  Cruises would bore me to death.  For some reason underline is stuck on and my return key doesn't work.  It's not my PC, could it be Eplorer 8/website compatibility?

[Besoeker]

Phil, on 23 April 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

Our Saturn Vue gets about 30 mpg now, I am planning on a BEV or FCV as our next car but we drive ours into the ground before replacing them so it will be another few years.  She typically takes one cruise with her friends and one short quilt shop tour a year.  I, on the other hand, did too much traveling in my career and am totally burnt out on long trips.

I suppose 30mpg in US terms is reasonable. I don't know what engine you have. Maybe the 2.4L DOHC lump?

My current car is the same make and model as the one the the computer readout came from. The new model has been upgraded and includes a few more bells and whistles. But still the same 2.2L Diesel and six speed manual box. And that's where the economy comes from. At 70mph in top cog, the engine is just about 2000 rpm.

I take your point about travel burn out. I used to routinely do about 40,000 miles a year.
It's now maybe aboult half that on average. But, now and again, I still do about 1,000 miles in a week and 500 miles in a day.
Mostly on business.

Maybe, at approaching seventy years of age, I should be slowing down.
We'll see.

Phil, on 23 April 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

Cruises would bore me to death.  

I feel the same way.

Phil, on 23 April 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

For some reason underline is stuck on and my return key doesn't work.  It's not my PC, could it be Eplorer 8/website compatibility?

I'll let you off this once...:)

[Phil]

"I'll let you off this once...:) "  Millions wouldn't!    For some reason the underline issue went away but I still can't get the return key to work.  Again, only on this site.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Phil, on 23 April 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

"I'll let you off this once...:) "  Millions wouldn't!    For some reason the underline issue went away but I still can't get the return key to work.  Again, only on this site.

Send a pm to the administrator-he may not know about the problem.

[Besoeker]

Phil, on 23 April 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

"I'll let you off this once...:) "  Millions wouldn't!    For some reason the underline issue went away but I still can't get the return key to work.  Again, only on this site.

'fessing up to 30mpg might have triggered the problem.....;)

[Phil]

_{Yea, the mileage isn't all that impressive but we only drive about 5,000 miles a year total.  I promise I'll make up for it with my next car!}

[Besoeker]

Phil, on 23 April 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

_{Yea, the mileage isn't all that impressive but we only drive about 5,000 miles a year total.  I promise I'll make up for it with my next car!}

So I manage my 12k or so on the same amout of fuel as you use for 5k miles!!
;)

[Besoeker]

FWIW, this the vehicle...

[F.Tnioli]

Besoeker, on 23 April 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

I suppose 30mpg in US terms is reasonable. I don't know what engine you have. Maybe the 2.4L DOHC lump?
...

In US terms, exactly. Which is massively different from "sane terms", considering current rate on CO2 emissions worldwide - which is highest ever recorded, - and the fact that reducing any CO2 emissions in any country helps _all_ countries, including the one which reduces it, no matter what any other countries do. Because in the world where 240MPG car is entering production this year, anything less than 100 MPG seems to me not "reasonable" - but exactly the opposite: "not reasonable". Indeed, what reason may be there to drive a car which emits several times more than current level of technology allows, while pretty much everyone knows by now that we need to reduce pollution, fuel use and CO2 emissions? And can you show me a person who is happy about times higher than otherwise possible personal spending for gasoline? In case you don't know what car i am talking about - it is this one: http://en.wikipedia....gen_1-litre_car .

[Besoeker]

F.Tnioli, on 24 April 2013 - 01:28 AM, said:

In US terms, exactly. Which is massively different from "sane terms", considering current rate on CO2 emissions worldwide - which is highest ever recorded, - and the fact that reducing any CO2 emissions in any country helps _all_ countries, including the one which reduces it, no matter what any other countries do. Because in the world where 240MPG car is entering production this year, anything less than 100 MPG seems to me not "reasonable" - but exactly the opposite: "not reasonable". Indeed, what reason may be there to drive a car which emits several times more than current level of technology allows, while pretty much everyone knows by now that we need to reduce pollution, fuel use and CO2 emissions? And can you show me a person who is happy about times higher than otherwise possible personal spending for gasoline? In case you don't know what car i am talking about - it is this one: http://en.wikipedia....gen_1-litre_car .

Yes, it shows what's possible.
But "entering production" when it is planned to build just 250 units is maybe a bit of a stretch.
The electric range, 50km is, as with all EVs, still a limitation. Then on to diesel alone where the fuel consumption is not quite as spectacular.

[F.Tnioli]

Not quite, yes, 120MPG. Still 4 times higher than 30. Makes 30 still quite unreasonable in _my_ book. 70+, like Besoeker did, is so much better - and so much closer to what i said to be reasonable, which is 100+ MPG. And that "1 liter" VW car - noone says it gotta be oh so much using its electrical power indeed, however energy recuperation system should be used if present, getting back part of kinetic energy of the car wheneevr braking, and using that energy when accelerating/cruising. Even much larger size car can go with 100+ MPG using this approach.

Again, from personal point of view, lower costs of gasoline/diesel fuel - how can it be bad or unreasonable?

It's just corporations for whom it may be. And it's just corporations which keep majority of cars being way less economical than what can easily be. Eh?

[Besoeker]

F.Tnioli, on 24 April 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

Not quite, yes, 120MPG. Still 4 times higher than 30. Makes 30 still quite unreasonable in _my_ book. 70+, like Besoeker did, is so much better - and so much closer to what i said to be reasonable, which is 100+ MPG. And that "1 liter" VW car - noone says it gotta be oh so much using its electrical power indeed, however energy recuperation system should be used if present, getting back part of kinetic energy of the car wheneevr braking, and using that energy when accelerating/cruising. Even much larger size car can go with 100+ MPG using this approach.

As far as I'm aware, all EVs and hybrids incorporate regenerative braking. I know that BMW have done some research on this for their IC engined cars and incorporated it on some models. "BMW EfficientDynamics"

Formula One, the pinnacle of motor sport, has KERS - kinetic energy recovery system.
The sport has also taken out refuelling during the race and reduced engine capacity from V-10 3-litre to V-8 2.4 litre. Still gives about 750bhp.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

The main reason for this test, (or any eco test, for that matter) is to let the person know what impact they are
having on the planet.
Years ago, when I first started becoming green, I had no idea of how many "Earth's" it took to sustain my
lifestyle.
But through conservation and awareness, I've cut my consumption down considerably; on all things,
not just energy from coal but water, hard goods, personal care products, unhealthy food stuffs, etc.

This might not be a perfect test, but it helps people that take it, to know their footprint; and how to
make that footprint smaller.

[F.Tnioli]

Besoeker, on 25 April 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:

As far as I'm aware, all EVs and hybrids incorporate regenerative braking. I know that BMW have done some research on this for their IC engined cars and incorporated it on some models. "BMW EfficientDynamics"

Formula One, the pinnacle of motor sport, has KERS - kinetic energy recovery system.
The sport has also taken out refuelling during the race and reduced engine capacity from V-10 3-litre to V-8 2.4 litre. Still gives about 750bhp.

Yes, i know, and i meant that when talking about VW 1-liter car in a sense that "diesel only" is sort of misleading, because this and other similar cars - in fact any reasonable car from now on, - does use regenerative breaking and thus is not exactly entirely "diesel" even if used in "diesel-only" mode - since part of energy to accelerate (or maintain speed) will come from KERS-like systems. Shame on any new cars which does not have one - low-capacity battery and most simple inductive brakes are quite rather cheap.

And yes, i know about F1. They got rid of the turbo in early 1990s iirc, too - which is much (times!) more important that mere reduction of engine internal volume. Because high-tech turboes can eat fuel at rates TIMES higher than non-turbo engines of the same size. F1 being a "king" of motorsport, and most luxurious and prestige motor sport, did the "no more turboe!" move ~20 years ago - and yet we still see so many turboed cars in wide production, sales, and use by general population (i mean, i can understand exceptions for limited numbers of turboed engines such as some types of motor sport, police chasers, fire deprtment high-speed units etc, but i can't fathom how the 1st world can still keep going turbo for much of its wealth and powerful people given the fact we know EXTREMELY well that not-really-required large extra fuel burning is to be avoided at all costs now).

See it's quite a circle; people use high-power ICE cars and vehicles not just because they want to go FAST and/or UNSTOPPABLE (off-road cars etC) - since there are other means to achieve that - lowering mass of the vehicle, size of it, improving aerodynamics of it, and other means. No, people use them because the whole culture of those "monster trucks" and "big V8s" etc etc was created, promoted and much helped by big sellers of those big V8s and such. In turn, the more people get the dream of the "real powerful car" etc, - the more money flow to sellers of those, and the more they can spend to promote that whole culture further.

We end up with modern-day ideas (VERY wrong) such as "any good car has to have 100+, better 150+, horse powers" - even most mass-rpoduced economical models; such as "VERY powerful car is a sign of success and a thing to respect"; such as "big cars are cool - the bigger the better". Those are all wrong, as a matter of _fact_. True success and a thing to respect is driving that VW 1-liter car, or anything most similar, or for most poor blocks around - something like Daewoo Matiz (success is often, but not ALWAYS, has to be financial success); a good car - fist of all, good for its owner due to reduced (times!) fuel costs, - should not and cannot have ICE engine more than some 60-70 horse powers max output, more likely some 20...40 with proper implementation of KERS and supporting electric engines (for city use, at least, but i say even for long-distance light-duty travel); big cars are good only if we speak trucks and buses and such - it's more economical to use big ones whenever full load is regularly achievable; personal car is good when it's _small_ - easier parking, storing, fuel economy (less air resistance), cheaper to make and buy (with everything else except size being the same), creating less traffic jams - just to mention few REAL things (in opposition to things artifially created in our minds, such as much of fashion and "customs").

So you see, there ARE massive ways to reduce pollution and amount of fossil buels burnt, which are times and times easier than hydrogen cells and making most of the world to drive EVs - but still, for decades public does not take them, and car makers do not try to implement them. $$$ still rules the world. This keeps going, and they'd try to burn fossils as long as it's economical, for 200, for 400 years may be - so that even our grand-grand-grand-grand-children wouldn't see a world where all cars do not have an exhaust pipe.

Sometimes i think it's really GOOD that clathrates will start to melt massively in about 10-15 years. Really good. It'll break global technological civilization in a matter of a decade or two since its start, and thus we humans won't be able to ruin the Earth as much as we otherwise most likely would, given enough time to proceed where we keep going. So instead of calling me a doomer and fearmonger - which i bet at least few here do, if just thinking it only, - may be call me a huge optimist and dreamer. Only life is important, in the end. In a broad sense, that is. So if by some strange chance i'd be sialing through arctic ice any time soon, then perhaps i'll try not to slow ongoing melt, - but on the opposite, will throw some dirt and soot on those ice fields, so that they'd melt faster - and will consider myself SAVING the planet by doing so, not destroying it.

Interesting, eh.

[Besoeker]

F.Tnioli, on 25 April 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

Yes, i know, and i meant that when talking about VW 1-liter car in a sense that "diesel only" is sort of misleading, because this and other similar cars - in fact any reasonable car from now on, - does use regenerative breaking and thus is not exactly entirely "diesel" even if used in "diesel-only" mode - since part of energy to accelerate (or maintain speed) will come from KERS-like systems. Shame on any new cars which does not have one - low-capacity battery and most simple inductive brakes are quite rather cheap.

Agreed.

F.Tnioli, on 25 April 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

And yes, i know about F1. They got rid of the turbo in early 1990s iirc, too - which is much (times!) more important that mere reduction of engine internal volume. Because high-tech turboes can eat fuel at rates TIMES higher than non-turbo engines of the same size. F1 being a "king" of motorsport, and most luxurious and prestige motor sport, did the "no more turboe!" move ~20 years ago - and yet we still see so many turboed cars in wide production, sales, and use by general population (i mean, i can understand exceptions for limited numbers of turboed engines such as some types of motor sport, police chasers, fire deprtment high-speed units etc, but i can't fathom how the 1st world can still keep going turbo for much of its wealth and powerful people given the fact we know EXTREMELY well that not-really-required large extra fuel burning is to be avoided at all costs now).

Actually, my current car and the previous one, both the same make and model, are 2.2 litre turbo diesels. And that what gave me the 70 mpg. It wasn't a one off.



The main reason I went with the same make/model was because it was so frugal on fuel and very well equipped. Prior to those, I had a a supercharged C-class Mercedes. Even with that, I routinely got 50mpg.

F.Tnioli, on 25 April 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

No, people use them because the whole culture of those "monster trucks" and "big V8s" etc etc was created, promoted and much helped by big sellers of those big V8s and such. In turn, the more people get the dream of the "real powerful car" etc, - the more money flow to sellers of those, and the more they can spend to promote that whole culture further.

I think that may be true of US culture. In UK and in Europe as a whole, V8s are limited to some up-market models. Fuel here is much more expensive, mostly because of taxation.

F.Tnioli, on 25 April 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

We end up with modern-day ideas (VERY wrong) such as "any good car has to have 100+, better 150+, horse powers" - even most mass-rpoduced economical models; such as "VERY powerful car is a sign of success and a thing to respect"; such as "big cars are cool - the bigger the better".

Agreed. Cars are status symbols. I can see no other reason for driving a Range Rover.