Land Rover - Making a Difference [Archive] - Australian Land Rover Owners

PDA

View Full Version : Land Rover - Making a Difference

camel_landy

14th October 2008, 05:35 AM

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=k0s4cF_6Xhs

M

CapeLandy

14th October 2008, 05:55 AM

camel_landy

14th October 2008, 06:56 AM

Hmmm.... I think you missed the point.

I.e. Land Rover are doing their bit to offset the CO2 that they produce and they're doing it in such a way that has additional benefits. If everyone else did the same, the World would be in a much better shape.

However, it's the developing countries that we need to be worried about as they are pumping out more crud into the atmosphere than what we're doing in the 1st world countries.

M

Tank

14th October 2008, 11:09 AM

I am a little concerned hearing that a small project for a few people cooking on a coal/wood stoves in the middle of Africa is making any difference to CO2 figures when compared to 1'st world emmision figures. I would be more inclined to concentrate elsewhere for more impact on CO2. My 2 cents worth:)
When you consider that cooking over a wood fire will produce more Co2 in 1 day than a small economical car will produce in a year, makes sense to me, Regards Frank.

isuzurover

14th October 2008, 11:32 AM

When you consider that cooking over a wood fire will produce more Co2 in 1 day than a small economical car will produce in a year, makes sense to me, Regards Frank.

Not sure where you get your numbers from Frank.

wood and petrol/diesel have similar carbon content, so a tonne of diesel or a tonne of wood produce about the came amount of CO2.

The difference is that wood is RENEWABLE!!!

Of course, if you are talking about CO2e, then incomplete combustion of wood produces other substances, which may have a greenhouse effect. Interesting to note though, that smoke/soot particles actually have a greenhouse cooling effect!!!

EDIT - but, back on topic... Seems like LR aren't doing anything more than creative accounting to greenwash themselves and give them carbon credits. Where are the REAL solutions??? Hybrids, electric vehicles, natural gas vehicles,

Like this Renault system: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05/11/renaults-electric-car-debuts-in-tel-aviv/

An electric car with a 125 mile range and swappable batteries. So instead of pulling into a service station, you pull into a battery "swap and go" station. Sure, it isn't a solution for remote areas, however we do know that 99% of (new) rangies spend their life in the city.

Tank

15th October 2008, 12:50 AM

Not sure where you get your numbers from Frank.

wood and petrol/diesel have similar carbon content, so a tonne of diesel or a tonne of wood produce about the came amount of CO2.

The difference is that wood is RENEWABLE!!!

Of course, if you are talking about CO2e, then incomplete combustion of wood produces other substances, which may have a greenhouse effect. Interesting to note though, that smoke/soot particles actually have a greenhouse cooling effect!!!

EDIT - but, back on topic... Seems like LR aren't doing anything more than creative accounting to greenwash themselves and give them carbon credits. Where are the REAL solutions??? Hybrids, electric vehicles, natural gas vehicles,

Like this Renault system: Renault's electric car debuts in Tel Aviv - AutoblogGreen (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05/11/renaults-electric-car-debuts-in-tel-aviv/)

An electric car with a 125 mile range and swappable batteries. So instead of pulling into a service station, you pull into a battery "swap and go" station. Sure, it isn't a solution for remote areas, however we do know that 99% of (new) rangies spend their life in the city.
I don't know where you get the Idea that Wood is Renewable, can you name this source, can you name any Country anywhere in the World that actually PLANTS more trees than they cut down, even Landcare Australia admits they are wasting their time trying to keep the status quo, did you see the program tonight on 2, I think, called the Burning Season about Indonesia burning it's Rainforests, 300 football fields every hour. Burning wood because it is supposed to be Renewable is like Screwing for Virginity.
Sources for my figures are CSIRO/DAR, NSW EPA, National Polltion Inventory (NPI) et al, Regards Frank.

RobHay

15th October 2008, 01:09 AM

I don't know where you get the Idea that Wood is Renewable, can you name this source, can you name any Country anywhere in the World that actually PLANTS more trees than they cut down, even Landcare Australia admits they are wasting their time trying to keep the status quo, did you see the program tonight on 2, I think, called the Burning Season about Indonesia burning it's Rainforests, 300 football fields every hour. Burning wood because it is supposed to be Renewable is like Screwing for Virginity.
Sources for my figures are CSIRO/DAR, NSW EPA, National Polltion Inventory (NPI) et al, Regards Frank.
.........errrrr ....what page number was that..................:D

isuzurover

15th October 2008, 01:42 AM

.........errrrr ....what page number was that..................:D

Exactly. Please give some more detail Frank. Your vague assertion of sources means nothing.

Frank - Sure, in some/many countries, wood is being consumed faster than it is grown. However, in OZ, we are getting pretty close to 1:1. With all the carbon neutral/tree planting schemes, this may even be exceeding 1:1 (for wood combusted/felled).

The bottom line is that it is MUCH more renewable than crude oil, or even natural gas!!!

EDIT - e.g. I can back up my info with REAL SOURCES!!!

Australian forests store more than 10.5 billion tonnes of carbon, removing almost 38.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere - about 70 times Australia's annual net greenhouse gas emissions. 4

References
4 FWPRDC and CRC for Greenhouse Accounting, Forests, Wood and Australia's
Carbon Balance, 2006

EDIT 2

Natural untreated wood with a low content of pollutants can easily be burned in a
modern wood combustor at low emissions and in compliance with Swiss regulations
http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/*/5634/---/l=2

Steel/iron production facilities are investigating (or already using) wood coke as a green substitute for coal coke.

camel_landy

15th October 2008, 07:04 AM

but, back on topic... Seems like LR aren't doing anything more than creative accounting to greenwash themselves and give them carbon credits. Where are the REAL solutions??? Hybrids, electric vehicles, natural gas vehicles,

Well... If you'd followed the link, you'd find out:

Our Planet (http://www.landrover.com/int/en/about-us/our-planet/our-planet.htm)

e_Terrain
ERAD Diesel hybrid
Stop/Start

(You'll have to click & explore as I can't link directly)

The Stop/Start will be available early next year...

M

Tank

15th October 2008, 10:49 AM

Exactly. Please give some more detail Frank. Your vague assertion of sources means nothing.

Frank - Sure, in some/many countries, wood is being consumed faster than it is grown. However, in OZ, we are getting pretty close to 1:1. With all the carbon neutral/tree planting schemes, this may even be exceeding 1:1 (for wood combusted/felled).

The bottom line is that it is MUCH more renewable than crude oil, or even natural gas!!!

EDIT - e.g. I can back up my info with REAL SOURCES!!!

EDIT 2

http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/*/5634/---/l=2

Steel/iron production facilities are investigating (or already using) wood coke as a green substitute for coal coke.
If you go to the web-sites of CSIRO/Dept. of Atmospheric Research and NSW EPA and search "Wood heating", like I did, you will find a great deal of non-vested interest findings, also the Armidale Air Quality Group at UNE.
Australia is the Third highest Landclearing Nation in the World and the Number 1 in Developed Countries.
Quote (Q@uote):
Natural untreated wood with a low content of pollutants can easily be burned in a
modern wood combustor at low emissions and in compliance with Swiss regulations.

That article shows how Toxic woodsmoke actually is, Coastal forests in Australia are subject to sea mists which leaves behind salt, when the wood is burnt, commercially or Bushfire, Dioxins and Furans are released to the food chain by the burning of that salt, Bushfires and burning wood in a heater is the largest source of Dioxin emissions in Australia, taking over from Industry.

Australian forests store more than 10.5 billion tonnes of carbon, removing almost 38.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere - about 70 times Australia's annual net greenhouse gas emissions. 4

References
4 FWPRDC and CRC for Greenhouse Accounting, Forests, Wood and Australia's
Carbon Balance, 2006

The AGO does not count any Green House Gasses (GHG) that are not CO2, reason being is they DON'T have a PROTOCOL for doing so.
Methane is by far the worst GHG, it is 23 times more potent than CO2, it is just as prolific, if not moreso, once Methane has been in the atmosphere for a short period of time it changes into CO2.
The other CO2 Eq. GHG, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, et al, are not considered because there is NO PROTOCOL for their measurement, talk about burying your head in the sand.
The AGO states that "wood is a Renewable resource IF for every tree burnt another is planted", in the real world that is not happening Australia and the rest of the world is Using MORE trees than are being replaced.
Quote:
Steel/iron production facilities are investigating (or already using) wood coke as a green substitute for coal coke.

This is known as a SERDF project, BHP Port Kembla did conduct experiments and actually used Charcoal as a substitute for Coke in the steelmaking process.
BHP said it was very sucessful as they would be able to claim Carbon Credits, they had plans to replace 2 million tonnes of coal with charcoal, which would have required 14 million tonnes of trees annually, they were going to establish Charcoal manufacturing plants in over a dozen places on the east coast of NSW.
Why the east coast? because it was quick and cheap, BHP was going to replace native forest with quick growing (9 years) Genetically Modified trees, they would have built Charcoal loading wharves adjacent to the Charcoal plants and shipped direct to Pt. Kembla.
When Australian Silicon tried to Build a Charcoal Plant at Mogo, between Batemans Bay and Moruya the public outcry was heard worldwide (see Charcoalition web-site) and the idiotic idea of building one of the worst polluting industries in the middle of a Tourist area was squashed in the Land and Environment Court. Can you imagine Charcoal plants in Coffs Harbour and a dozen or so other Popular tourist areas, it would have killed off a multi billion dollar tourist industry overnight, let alone the destruction on an unprecedented scale of coastal forests, all so BHP can claim Carbon Credits.
BTW it takes 7 tonnes of logs to produce 1 tone of Charcoal, when you consider that Woodchipping accounts for 3 million tonnes of trees/year, Firewood supplied by State Forests 3/5 million tonnes/year and up to 3 million tonnes/year taken illegally for firewood, coupled with 14 million tonnes/year for BHP, there is no way it could be classed as Sustainable or Renewable, even without BHP's greed, sustainable Wood use is NOT a Reality. Regards Frank.

isuzurover

15th October 2008, 01:04 PM

Well... If you'd followed the link, you'd find out:

Our Planet (http://www.landrover.com/int/en/about-us/our-planet/our-planet.htm)

e_Terrain
ERAD Diesel hybrid
Stop/Start

(You'll have to click & explore as I can't link directly)

The Stop/Start will be available early next year...

M

All well and good, but all these are (mostly) just ideas that are still in the early stages of development. LR are a long way behind other manufacturers, and the proposed ideas are hardly innovative. Holden (Aust), CHev, and Ford have all announced something similar.

The Mini already has a stop start system (probably others too?).
Hybrids have been in production for many years now.
The renault electric car is already in production.

I suppose my point is that LR is not breaking new ground like they did when they designed the RRC back in the 60's, and ETC ACE etc later on... Instead they are just copying the others.

isuzurover

16th October 2008, 10:59 AM

If you go to the web-sites of CSIRO/Dept. of Atmospheric Research and NSW EPA and search "Wood heating", like I did, you will find a great deal of non-vested interest findings, also the Armidale Air Quality Group at UNE.
Australia is the Third highest Landclearing Nation in the World and the Number 1 in Developed Countries.
Quote (Q@uote):
Natural untreated wood with a low content of pollutants can easily be burned in a
modern wood combustor at low emissions and in compliance with Swiss regulations.

That article shows how Toxic woodsmoke actually is, Coastal forests in Australia are subject to sea mists which leaves behind salt, when the wood is burnt, commercially or Bushfire, Dioxins and Furans are released to the food chain by the burning of that salt, Bushfires and burning wood in a heater is the largest source of Dioxin emissions in Australia, taking over from Industry.

Australian forests store more than 10.5 billion tonnes of carbon, removing almost 38.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere - about 70 times Australia's annual net greenhouse gas emissions. 4

References
4 FWPRDC and CRC for Greenhouse Accounting, Forests, Wood and Australia's
Carbon Balance, 2006

The AGO does not count any Green House Gasses (GHG) that are not CO2, reason being is they DON'T have a PROTOCOL for doing so.
Methane is by far the worst GHG, it is 23 times more potent than CO2, it is just as prolific, if not moreso, once Methane has been in the atmosphere for a short period of time it changes into CO2.
The other CO2 Eq. GHG, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, et al, are not considered because there is NO PROTOCOL for their measurement, talk about burying your head in the sand.
The AGO states that "wood is a Renewable resource IF for every tree burnt another is planted", in the real world that is not happening Australia and the rest of the world is Using MORE trees than are being replaced.
Quote:
Steel/iron production facilities are investigating (or already using) wood coke as a green substitute for coal coke.

This is known as a SERDF project, BHP Port Kembla did conduct experiments and actually used Charcoal as a substitute for Coke in the steelmaking process.
BHP said it was very sucessful as they would be able to claim Carbon Credits, they had plans to replace 2 million tonnes of coal with charcoal, which would have required 14 million tonnes of trees annually, they were going to establish Charcoal manufacturing plants in over a dozen places on the east coast of NSW.
Why the east coast? because it was quick and cheap, BHP was going to replace native forest with quick growing (9 years) Genetically Modified trees, they would have built Charcoal loading wharves adjacent to the Charcoal plants and shipped direct to Pt. Kembla.
When Australian Silicon tried to Build a Charcoal Plant at Mogo, between Batemans Bay and Moruya the public outcry was heard worldwide (see Charcoalition web-site) and the idiotic idea of building one of the worst polluting industries in the middle of a Tourist area was squashed in the Land and Environment Court. Can you imagine Charcoal plants in Coffs Harbour and a dozen or so other Popular tourist areas, it would have killed off a multi billion dollar tourist industry overnight, let alone the destruction on an unprecedented scale of coastal forests, all so BHP can claim Carbon Credits.
BTW it takes 7 tonnes of logs to produce 1 tone of Charcoal, when you consider that Woodchipping accounts for 3 million tonnes of trees/year, Firewood supplied by State Forests 3/5 million tonnes/year and up to 3 million tonnes/year taken illegally for firewood, coupled with 14 million tonnes/year for BHP, there is no way it could be classed as Sustainable or Renewable, even without BHP's greed, sustainable Wood use is NOT a Reality. Regards Frank.

Frank - we are talking about sustainability/GHGs etc. I am pretty sure Dioxins are not a GHG? And why mention methane??? Surely you aren't suggesting there are methane emissions from wood combustion :D

Sure, according to DEH ESTIMATES, wood combustion for heating and cooking are about the 5th most significant source of dioxin emissions to Air in Australia. However, as all reports show, bushfires are 10-20 times more significant than wood combustion for cooking and heating - which is a natural part of the australian ecosystem. However I digress...

I am not familiar with the BHP project you mention, so cannot comment - especially since you (again) provided no sources. Projects over here have been focussed on oil mallee derived char. However I have been doing some work looking at the feasibility of using waste wood as a supplemental char for steelmaking.

The bottom line, is that biomass CAN BE, and often is, much more sustainable than fossil fuels (including natural gas).

foz.in.oz

16th October 2008, 11:49 AM

Just to throw more renewable fuels on to the fire,

One point I feel that is overlooked in all this climate doom and gloom end of the world is nigh stuff is that major companies like BHP, RioTinto etc try to act the part and claim that in Australia they are all doing their bit to reduce emissions etc by improving efficiencies. However at the same time they are also maximizing production of exportable goods such as coal and other ores and selling them as fast as they can to countries like China who then burn them with old technologies creating the said gases that they are trying so hard to reduce. On top of that they then turn around and say things like "We are doing our best, but if our neighbours don't play the same game what chance have we all got?"
The bottom line is, none of this will change until carbon is not related to making a buck.

isuzurover

16th October 2008, 02:46 PM

Tank

16th October 2008, 10:51 PM

Frank - we are talking about sustainability/GHGs etc. I am pretty sure Dioxins are not a GHG? And why mention methane??? Surely you aren't suggesting there are methane emissions from wood combustion :D

Sure, according to DEH ESTIMATES, wood combustion for heating and cooking are about the 5th most significant source of dioxin emissions to Air in Australia. However, as all reports show, bushfires are 10-20 times more significant than wood combustion for cooking and heating - which is a natural part of the australian ecosystem. However I digress...

I am not familiar with the BHP project you mention, so cannot comment - especially since you (again) provided no sources. Projects over here have been focussed on oil mallee derived char. However I have been doing some work looking at the feasibility of using waste wood as a supplemental char for steelmaking.

The bottom line, is that biomass CAN BE, and often is, much more sustainable than fossil fuels (including natural gas).
Go to the NPI site and have a look at the pollutants caused by making Charcoal at Bunbury, when you consider they have only 1 Retort and burn <50,000 tonnes of Jarrah/year which they pay $9/tonne delivered and the amount of Dioxins, GHG, including Methane, which is a major by-product of Bio-Mass combustion, do you really believe that Methane is NOT a GHG and does not contribute to Climate change?
Google is your friend, Google SERDF, Sustainable Energy Research Developement Fund, run by the State Government, they've even got pics showing the whole deal. Did you go to AAQG web-site, did you do a search of woodheating at NSW EPA or CSIRO/DAR.
You can believe me or not, if you are seious about wanting knowledge do your own research, like I have for the last 15 years, I have given you some sites to look at, start from there, it is quiet clear from statements made by you, like this,

Quote: "And why mention methane??? Surely you aren't suggesting there are methane emissions from wood combustion :D

that your information on this subject is far from accurate.
The fact that you believe that wood is a renewable, sustainable resource when we are burning, poisoning and clearing native forest at a rate that if we stopped Right Now it would take 10 years to return to an even playing field.

Qoute: "However I have been doing some work looking at the feasibility of using waste wood as a supplemental char for steelmaking."

By wastewood I presume you are talking about branches and stumps left behind after forestry felling operations, which BTW is what the Woodchipping Mills and the Bunbury Charcoal plant are supposed to be using in the first place, WA and NSW govt's. stated that no tree will be cut down FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF WOODCHIPS OR CHARCOAL PRODUCTION.
Never ever seen a timber jinker going into a woodchip mill or charcoal plant with Branches or Stumps, go and have a look at Bunbury and see the stacks of LOGS stored waiting to be burnt.
I have a copy of the Timber Supply Agreement for woodchipping and Charcoal production, 1. NO BRANCHES, 2. Logs to be up to 8 metres long, 3. No more than 5% bend over entire length, just to name a few, you can find this document in Hansard (NSW Parliament).
There is a good reason that State Forests (Australia-wide) burn waste wood on site, the Forest Industry does not have the equipment to remove it, you need men on the ground to cut up manually (logging machines can only handle straight logs not bendy branches), the trucks would have to be Tippers to handle the 1 metre long stumps and the bendy branches.
State Forests NSW commissioned a feasability study on using wastewood and the conclusion was that wastewood in the forests would cost up to 10x more to cut and transport than saw-logs or woodchip/charcoal logs.
A lot of the timber in State Forests is classified Standing Wastewood, it is poisoned (Silviculture, any and all trees not suitable for woodchipping) with Tordon (Agent White) a Chlorine based poison, when this timber is burnt it releases extreme amounts of Dioxins, which BTW is not a GHG, but a POP, a Persistent Organic Pollutant, which is not water soluble, but when ingested (Through the food chain) stores itself in your fat cells for life, get enough of it and you're dead.
Do some research, Regards Frank.

LOVEMYRANGIE

17th October 2008, 12:53 AM

isuzurover

17th October 2008, 01:39 AM

How many logs were burnt to supply the energy that runs the puta that you both just spent 10 hours each researching and typing???

Maybe i could have stoked up the woodfired barby and had a nice hot juicy steak for dinner instead of salad....... pmsl :firedevil::clap2::Rolling::Rolling:

Andrew - hope that wasn't directed at me! I love nothing more than a nice jarrah fire! I'll bring the steak!!!

I certainly didn't spend 10 hrs researching this. I have barely enough time to do the research I am paid to do!

Frank - I think any further discussion is pointless, since you neatly sidestepped my main points, e.g.
- Dioxins are not a GHG
- Biomass burning for heating and cooking is almost insignificant compared to bushfires
- Methane is highly combustible. Therefore methane is not emitted during biomass combustion (however anaerobic decomposition is another matter).

You have the wrong end of the stick completely with the ww char issue, however I cannot go into detail at the moment - however I can give you a copy of the paper when it is published if you are interested.

I think it is best to agree to disagree, and I can go and stock up on (sustainably grown) Jarrah for next winter.

Tank

17th October 2008, 10:06 AM

Andrew - hope that wasn't directed at me! I love nothing more than a nice jarrah fire! I'll bring the steak!!!

I certainly didn't spend 10 hrs researching this. I have barely enough time to do the research I am paid to do!

Frank - I think any further discussion is pointless, since you neatly sidestepped my main points, e.g.
- Dioxins are not a GHG
- Biomass burning for heating and cooking is almost insignificant compared to bushfires
- Methane is highly combustible. Therefore methane is not emitted during biomass combustion (however anaerobic decomposition is another matter).

You have the wrong end of the stick completely with the ww char issue, however I cannot go into detail at the moment - however I can give you a copy of the paper when it is published if you are interested.

I think it is best to agree to disagree, and I can go and stock up on (sustainably grown) Jarrah for next winter.
At no point did I say Dioxin is a GHG, that's something that you seem to have conjured up.

State governments buying back woodheaters seems to contradict that.

Maybe you should do some research, FACT, Methane is a by-product of bio-mass combustion.

Seems you know little or nothing about about State Forests Waste Wood, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree, Regards Frank.

VladTepes

17th October 2008, 10:13 AM

VladTepes

17th October 2008, 10:30 AM

EDIT - but, back on topic... Seems like LR aren't doing anything more than creative accounting to greenwash themselves and give them carbon credits. Where are the REAL solutions??? Hybrids, electric vehicles, natural gas vehicles,

Like this Renault system:
Renault's electric car debuts in Tel Aviv - AutoblogGreen (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05/11/renaults-electric-car-debuts-in-tel-aviv/)

An electric car with a 125 mile range and swappable batteries. So instead of pulling into a service station, you pull into a battery "swap and go" station. Sure, it isn't a solution for remote areas, however we do know that 99% of (new) rangies spend their life in the city.

Land Rover are trying:
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/articles/Concept:-Land-Rover-LRX-Hybrid-Preview

Tank

17th October 2008, 10:37 AM

isuzurover

20th October 2008, 04:15 PM

Tank - I think his point was that though methane is produced as part of bio-mass combustion, it is at the same time burned in that process? (or I could be wrong, that happens from time to time).

As for State Governemnts buying back wood heaters, well... I can think of another situation where a buyback was conducted purely for publicity / "seen to be doing something" reasons, and where the net effect was bugger all.

Vlad - thanks, that is exactly what I meant. As this study shows, Methane emissions from modern wood heaters are negligible. As are emissions from older devices which are correctly managed.

Emission characteristics of modern and old-type residential boilers fired with wood logs and wood pellets

Linda S. JohanssonCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, a, Bo Lecknerb, Lennart Gustavssona, David Cooperc, Claes Tullina and Annika Potterc
a Department of Energy Technology, SP Swedish National Testing and Research Institute, P.O. Box 857, Borås 501 15, Sweden b Department of Energy Technology, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg 412 96, Sweden c IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd., P.O. Box 4708, Göteborg 402 58, Sweden

Received 27 November 2003;
Revised 30 March 2004;
accepted 20 April 2004.
Available online 8 June 2004.

Abstract

Emissions from commercial residential boilers fired with wood logs and wood pellets, have been compared. Seven boilers, selected with respect to age, design, connection to heat storage tank, and type of biofuel, were included in the study, which also covers two oil-fired boilers in comparison. The measurements of gaseous emissions comprised carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), oxygen (O2), total organic carbons (TOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and 33 volatile organic compounds (VOC). Particle emissions were characterised by mass concentration, number concentration, and the corresponding particle size distributions. In general, old-type wood boilers caused considerably higher emissions than modern wood and pellet boilers. The mass concentration of particles was 180 times larger in the worst old-type case (a water-cooled wood boiler without heat storage tank) compared to the best modern case (wood pellets). The TOC emission was shown to be correlated to the CO emission, both ranging between very low values and up to 10 000 mg/MJ, depending on design and operation. The highest emissions of unoxidised compounds occurred at the highest excess air ratio, and oxygen was not the limiting parameter for poor combustion. Instead, high excess air can be suspected to cool the combustion chamber, resulting in high CO emissions. VOC was dominated by methane. Especially from an old-type boiler the methane emissions could be high and the effect on climate change then may become larger than that of an oil boiler. However, substitution of an old-type wood boiler with a modern wood boiler attached to a storage tank or with a pellet boiler, would reduce methane emissions by 8 to 9000 times and the efficiency would increase. Most emissions could be considerably lowered by connecting the old-type wood boiler to a heat storage tank, or by charging small (in relation to the combustion chamber) batches of wood.

Tank, since you souldn't let it rest...

As I have stated before, emissions from all the wood heaters in Australia are insignificant compared to bushfires. So banning wood fires will achieve what???

Methane emissions from Camels account for about 8% of NT's CO2e emissions. Methane emissions from sheep and cattle account for a significant proportion of Australia's CO2e emissions (and the methane emissions from wood heaters are completely insignificant in comparison) - have you become vegetarian - due to your concerns over methane (and other) emissions to air?

The methane emissions from wood left to rot on the ground would (I am sure) be significantly greater than if that wood was (efficiently) combusted.

Natural, unmanaged, forests (e.g. "old-growth" forests) have little or no net sequestration of CO2. Whereas managed forests (including plantations or monocultures) sequester comparatively large amounts of carbon. While I am definitely not promoting logging of old growth forests or land clearing for plantations, the fact remains that they sequester quite a lot of carbon.

Therefore, wood/biomass CAN BE, and in many cases already IS sustainable as a fuel source - or as sustainable as anything else we can offer.

Ace

20th October 2008, 05:08 PM

Tank

21st October 2008, 01:30 AM

Vlad - thanks, that is exactly what I meant. As this study shows, Methane emissions from modern wood heaters are negligible. As are emissions from older devices which are correctly managed.

Tank, since you souldn't let it rest...

As I have stated before, emissions from all the wood heaters in Australia are insignificant compared to bushfires. So banning wood fires will achieve what???

Methane emissions from Camels account for about 8% of NT's CO2e emissions. Methane emissions from sheep and cattle account for a significant proportion of Australia's CO2e emissions (and the methane emissions from wood heaters are completely insignificant in comparison) - have you become vegetarian - due to your concerns over methane (and other) emissions to air?

The methane emissions from wood left to rot on the ground would (I am sure) be significantly greater than if that wood was (efficiently) combusted.

Natural, unmanaged, forests (e.g. "old-growth" forests) have little or no net sequestration of CO2. Whereas managed forests (including plantations or monocultures) sequester comparatively large amounts of carbon. While I am definitely not promoting logging of old growth forests or land clearing for plantations, the fact remains that they sequester quite a lot of carbon.

Therefore, wood/biomass CAN BE, and in many cases already IS sustainable as a fuel source - or as sustainable as anything else we can offer.
You STATED there were NO Methane emissions from burning wood, NOW you agree there is.
Your Quoted study was conducted in Sweden using Softwoods, so cannot be compared to Hardwood (emissions) used in Australia. If you wish to quote relevant information do as I said and search CSIRO/DAR and local EPA's.
Woodheaters are insignificant, well maybe you should tell the NHMRC, NEPC as they seem to think they are a problem as does the AMA, The Australian Lung Foundation, The National Asthma Council, the CSIRO/DAR study found that the 2 most air polluted cities in Australia are Launceston (Tamar Valley see Tamar Study) Tas. and Canberra ACT DUE soley to Domestic Wood Heaters (DWH), car emissions were insignificant, but woodheater emissions were not.
You State that woodheater emissions are nothing compared to Bushfires, where is this info sourced, would like to look at that gem.
NSW EPA White paper a few years back showed that during Winter in Sydney up to 65% of ALL air pollution in Sydney was from the 13% of Sydney households that have DWH. That PUBLISHED White Paper along with NSW Dept. of Health's Dr. John Morgan study that found that there were 400 deaths every Winter in Sydney as a direct result of Air Pollution.
These 2 published papers forced the NSW Government to introduce tough new penalties for smoky DWH and the Buy-Back of DWH, can you name any other Domestic appliance that the Govt. will buy back off you, they certainly didn't thinik it was insignificant.
Australia will PLANT about 80,000/90,000 hectares of forest/year, while clearing almost a MILLION hectares, source, Forestry Industries Australia. So like OIL we are using (Mining) our Forests faster than we can replace them, so no matter what way you look at it, at the rate we are going, esp. now that they are talking about using our forests to make Methanol and Ethanol we will run out of trees before we run out of OIL.
No I haven't become Vegan or Green or Feral, but when I see you attacking my credibility, when plainly you have no idea of what you are talking about, proven by your own statements, I get a bit P'd off, I like a good argument, but not when you quote crap from vested interests, you have not provided one single reputable published source to back anything you say, it's not true just because you said it or believe it.
I did let it go, my previous reply was to VladTepes, it was not directed at you or about you, I was commenting on Vlads Post, so until you know what you're talking about, we will leave it there, Regards Frank.

isuzurover

21st October 2008, 04:46 PM

Its funny all this talk about hybrid cars being better for the environment. I read an article in the news paper some time back that compared the environmental imprint of a prius with that of a Hummer. It was an american article but was interesting none the less.

The basic jist of the article was that a hummer is actually better for the environment due to the polution and C02 that is released during the manufacture of both. The problem is the manufacturing process of the Prius is "dirty" and there are alot of emissions released whilst its made, the author of the article said that the factory in Detroit that makes the batteries for the Prius is so disgusting there is a 500m dead zone around it where nothing grows, and they actually tested the mars rover there.

Both cars need to travel a set distance before they balance out.

So whilst the cars might be clean on road there needs to be a consideration about how many emissions are made whilst they are made, and Land Rover appears to be doing this. Matt

The study you mentioned was significantly flawed. Here is an independant analysis which discredits their findings. There is at least 1 vehicle in the Prius's size class which has equivalent fuel consumption, so it would naturally have a smaller life cycle impact, however the hummer does not.

http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Transportation/T07-01_DustToDust.pdf

I agree that Land Rover's effort is better than nothing, and certainly better than Holden's efforts of offering fuel discounts so people keep buying large cars. IMHO, it just lacks the innovation that you usually see from LR in their vehicle designs.

Tank, I have given more (cited) sources than you. All you have give are vague references to organisations/websites which I don't have hours/days to search through, and which you claim to already have read? Feel free to post some links.

I posted european softwood data as it was the best reference I could find. I could not find a similarly comprehensive study for hardwoods. I can email you a pdf if you want a read of the full article (it isn't available to the general public).

I don't doubt there are some places such as those you mention where a combination of weather patterns and inefficient DWHs produce poor air quality. Perth also had a scheme to subsidise those removing DWHs, yet a significant number remain. A recent air quality study has found that air pollutants in Perth are (bushfire incidents excludes) orders of magnitude below threshold values. VOC emissions from the BP refinery were found to be the major cause of poor winter air quality in Perth (which BP has since addressed).

EDIT:

To digress for a moment. I note your key issue with biomass combustion seems to be dioxin emissions. In that case, please note the study below which found that aggregate samples from all over Australia showed that dioxin levels in the Australian population is low compared to international levels.

Author(s): Harden FA (Harden, F. A.), Toms LML (Toms, L. M. L.), Paepke O (Paepke, O.), Ryan JJ (Ryan, J. J.), Muller JF (Muller, J. F.)
Source: CHEMOSPHERE Volume: 67 Issue: 9 Special Issue: Sp. Iss. SI Pages: S318-S324 Published: APR 2007
Times Cited: 1 References: 16 Citation MapCitation Map beta
Abstract: The results of this study provide a measure of the levels of dioxin-like compounds (polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans and polychlorinated biphenyls) in pooled blood serum collected throughout Australia in 2003. De-identified samples selected from surplus pathology samples were stratified on the basis of gender, region and age. In total 9090 samples were collected and analysed as 96 pools.

Dioxin-like chemicals were detected in all strata. The mean and median levels expressed as TEQ values for all pooled samples were 10.9 +/- 1.0 pg TEQ g(-1) lipid and 8.3 pg TEQ g(-1) lipid. For males and females the mean levels were 10.4 +/- 0.6 pg TEQ g(-1) lipid and 11.5 +/- 1.5 pg TEQ g(-1) lipid, respectively.

A direct relationship of increasing dioxin-like chemical levels with increasing age was observed and could be described by the following equation:

Levels in blood expressed as pg TEQ g(-1) lipid = 3.3exp(0.025large) (r(2) = 0.87).

No significant differences were observed in the levels of dioxin-like chemicals in samples collected from males and females. In addition, the levels of dioxin-like chemicals across the five regions were similar within each age range.

In summary, the levels of dioxin-like chemicals in the Australian population are low compared to international levels and are similar across all regions of Australia within each designated age range. The levels of these chemicals increase with age and can be estimated if the age of an individual is known. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Document Type: Proceedings Paper
Language: English
Author Keywords: polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins; polychlorinated dibenzofurans; polychlorinated biphenyls; human blood serum; Australia
KeyWords Plus: BLOOD; WOMEN; HUMANS; SERUM; MILK
Reprint Address: Harden, FA (reprint author), Univ Queensland, Natl Res Ctr Environm Toxicol, Brisbane, Qld Australia

EDIT2

This study found that PAH emissions were HIGHEST when pine was combusted. Which suggests that the "european" paper on heater emissions which you derided p[resents a worst case scenario for Australian emissions:

The characterisation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons emissions from burning of different firewood species in Australia
Context Sensitive Links

Context Sensitive Links Go to NCBI for additional information
more options
Author(s): Zou LY, Zhang WD, Atkiston S
Source: ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION Volume: 124 Issue: 2 Pages: 283-289 Published: 2003

Also, note that I am not alone in suggesting biomass/wood as an option to increase Australia's sustainability and/or reduce Co2e emissions - at least in the interim (pre a hydrogen economy or algal biofuel on a large scale).

Opportunities and impediments to the expansion of forest bioenergy in Australia

Author(s): Raison RJ (Raison, R. J.)
Source: BIOMASS & BIOENERGY Volume: 30 Issue: 12 Pages: 1021-1024 Published: DEC 2006
Times Cited: 1 References: 8 Citation MapCitation Map beta
Abstract: There are significant opportunities for expansion of a forest bioenergy industry in Australia based on distributed electricity generation and production of liquid fuels (ethanol and bio-oil). If the large amounts of forest residues already available annually could be utilized, this would deliver useful greenhouse benefits, assist regeneration of new forests that have increased environmental values, and benefit silvicultural management. Creation of new forests in low rainfall environments for both environmental and commercial reasons will also provide residues in the future that could be used for energy production, thus enhancing overall viability of such ventures. Currently, there are several serious impediments to realising the potential. These include: center dot Large reserves of accessible coal, and low cost of electricity generated in coal-fired power plants. center dot Uncertain greenhouse and renewable energy policy (specifically that relating to implementation of the Mandated Renewable Energy Target (MRET)). center dot Lack of proven efficient small-scale technology to enable distributed electricity generation that would reduce transportation costs for delivery of biofuels. center dot Controversy over the sustainable use of native forest residues for renewable energy generation. center dot Lack of markets for environmental credits (carbon, salinity, biodiversity). center dot Lack of efficient processes for producing ethanol from wood, inadequate commercial products from lignin, and the need for further development before diesel engines can be run on bio-oil for stationary power generation and transport. In Australia, apart from the use of firewood for domestic heating, forest bioenergy has developed only to a very limited extent, despite the existence of significant opportunities. A major impediment to expansion is lack of public acceptance and support, especially for the use of native forest residues which are the main available biomass source. A concerted effort at several levels is needed to address this issue. (c) 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

You asked for a source on my statement that bushfire emissions are far more significant. The source I posted a page or 2 ago showed that estimated dioxin emissions from bushfires were an order of magnitude greater than extimated emissions from biomass burning for cooking/heating. It doesn't take much to work out that due to the huge quantity of biomass which is burned during a bushfire, the number of bushfires in Australia per year, the non-ideal combustion conditions which are usually present (incomplete, etc...) that emissions are much higher. However if you want further proof:

Multi year satellite remote sensing of particulate matter air quality over Sydney, Australia
Context Sensitive Links

Context Sensitive Links
more options
Author(s): Gupta P (Gupta, P.), Christopher SA (Christopher, S. A.), Box MA (Box, M. A.), Box GP (Box, G. P.)
Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING Volume: 28 Issue: 20 Pages: 4483-4498 Published: 2007
Times Cited: 0 References: 23 Citation MapCitation Map beta
Abstract: Particulate matter (PM) air-quality information is usually derived from ground-based instruments. These measurements, while valuable, are not well suited to provide air-quality information over large spatial scales. In this study, using 4 years of satellite aerosol optical thickness (AOT) at 0.55 mu m derived from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on board NASA's Terra and Aqua satellites, we present a multi-year air analysis of PM air quality over Sydney, Australia. We then compare the satellite data with PM2.5 mass concentration measurements from six ground-based stations in the area. Our results indicate significant diurnal variations and an overall increase in PM2.5 during Southern Hemisphere spring and summer seasons due to bush fires. The air quality in Sydney, Australia is good throughout the year except during major bushfires when PM2.5 mass loading can increase from normal (<20 mu g m(-3)) to unhealthy conditions (>70 mu g m(-3)). The satellite data also show corresponding AOT changes from less than 0.1 to greater than 1.0 during bushfire events. We conclude that satellite data are an excellent tool for studying PM air quality over large areas, especially when ground measurements are not available. While this is the first multi-year combined satellite and ground-based air quality analysis over Sydney, ancillary information from lidars, sun photometers, and size-resolved chemistry measurements will further enhance our capability to monitor and forecast air quality in and around Sydney.

As for the methane issue, I am happy to agree that you were correct (and I was surprised), that there are SOME methane emissions during some methods of biomass combustion. However these are usually insignificant, especially when compared to other sources in OZ.

Magnitude and biophysical regulators of methane emission and consumption in the Australian agricultural, forest, and submerged landscapes: a review
Context Sensitive Links

Context Sensitive Links
more options
Author(s): Dalal RC (Dalal, R. C.)1, Allen DE (Allen, D. E.)1, Livesley SJ (Livesley, S. J.)2, Richards G (Richards, G.)3
Source: PLANT AND SOIL Volume: 309 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 43-76 Published: AUG 2008
Times Cited: 0 References: 281 Citation MapCitation Map beta
Abstract: Increases in the concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) due to human activities are associated with global climate change. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased by 33% (to 380 ppm) since 1750 AD, whilst CH4 concentration has increased by 75% (to 1,750 ppb), and as the global warming potential (GWP) of CH4 is 25 fold greater than CO2 it represents about 20% of the global warming effect. The purpose of this review is to: (a) address recent findings regarding biophysical factors governing production and consumption of CH4, (b) identify the current level of knowledge regarding the main sources and sinks of CH4 in Australia, and (c) identify CH4 mitigation options and their potential application in Australian ecosystems. Almost one-third of CH4 emissions are from natural sources such as wetlands and lake sediments, which is poorly documented in Australia. For Australia, the major anthropogenic sources of CH4 emissions include energy production from fossil fuels (similar to 24%), enteric fermentation in the guts of ruminant animals (similar to 59%), landfills, animal wastes and domestic sewage (similar to 15%), and biomass burning (similar to 5%), with minor contributions from manure management (1.7%), land use, land-use change and forestry (1.6%), and rice cultivation (0.2%). A significant sink exists for CH4 (similar to 6%) in aerobic soils, including agricultural and forestry soils, and potentially large areas of arid soils, however, due to limited information available in Australia, it is not accounted for in the Australian National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. CH4 emission rates from submerged soils vary greatly, but mean values <= 10 mg m(-2) h(-1) are common. Landfill sites may emit CH4 at one to three orders of magnitude greater than submerged soils. CH4 consumption rates in non-flooded, aerobic agricultural, pastoral and forest soils also vary greatly, but mean values are restricted to <= 100 mu g m(-2) h(-1), and generally greatest in forest soils and least in agricultural soils, and decrease from temperate to tropical regions. Mitigation options for soil CH4 production primarily relate to enhancing soil oxygen diffusion through water management, land use change, minimised compaction and soil fertility management. Improved management of animal manure could include biogas capture for energy production or arable composting as opposed to open stockpiling or pond storage. Balanced fertiliser use may increase soil CH4 uptake, reduce soil N2O emissions whilst improving nutrient and water use efficiency, with a positive net greenhouse gas (CO2-e) effect. Similarly, the conversion of agricultural land to pasture, and pastoral land to forestry should increase soil CH4 sink. Conservation of native forests and afforestation of degraded agricultural land would effectively mitigate CH4 emissions by maintaining and enhancing CH4 consumption in these soils, but also by reducing N2O emissions and increasing C sequestration. The overall impact of climate change on methanogenesis and methanotrophy is poorly understood in Australia, with a lack of data highlighting the need for long-term research and process understanding in this area.

For policy addressing land-based greenhouse gas mitigation, all three majr greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O) should be monitored simultaneously, combined with improved understanding at process-level.
Document Type: Review
Language: English
Author Keywords: agricultural soils; desert soils; forest soils; methane emission; methane oxidation; savanna soils; wetlands
KeyWords Plus: GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; NITROUS-OXIDE EMISSION; CARBON-DIOXIDE FLUXES; FRESH-WATER WETLAND; METHANOGENIC ARCHAEAL COMMUNITY; TEMPERATE DECIDUOUS FOREST; COLORADO SHORTGRASS STEPPE; MATHEMATICAL-MODEL ECOSYS; SOUTH-EASTERN AUSTRALIA; WESTERN PUERTO-RICO
Reprint Address: Dalal, RC (reprint author), Dept Nat Resources & Water, Block B,80 Meiers Rd, Indooroopilly, Qld 4068 Australia

Please note above that (ALL) biomass burning accounts for 5% of Australia's Methane emissions.

I fully accept that in some areas, DWHs could contribute to poor air quality:

Factors controlling winter-time aerosol light scattering in Launceston, Tasmania
Context Sensitive Links

Context Sensitive Links
more options
Author(s): Gras JL, Keywood MD, Ayers GP
Source: ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT Volume: 35 Issue: 10 Pages: 1881-1889 Published: 2001
Times Cited: 5 References: 13 Citation MapCitation Map beta
Abstract: Sources of elevated light scattering in Launceston, Tasmania were investigated for a 5 week period during the winter of 1997. Meteorological factors, particularly air temperature and mixing-layer depth combined, explained only about one-third of the observed variance in light scattering. Two methods, a box model and a synthesis method, were used to derive the source function required to explain the observed scattering coefficients. Both methods used a new air-pollution meteorological model "TAPM" to obtain atmospheric properties. Derived source functions showed a persistent, strong nocturnal source and a daytime source. Most of the variance in the observed nocturnal light scattering could be explained by the derived source function (r(2) = 0.89) with domestic wood-heaters the dominant source. Hygroscopic growth was important for visual impact. Scattering source function estimates equivalent to 11-28 g h(-1) (PM2.5) per wood-heater were derived for the evening period using model output and an empirical mass scattering efficiency. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Author Keywords: light scattering; smoke; aerosol; particle; Tasmania
KeyWords Plus: AUSTRALIA
Reprint Address: Gras, JL (reprint author), CSIRO, Aspendale, Vic 3195 Australia

However, this is more due to localised weather patterns (and the use of inefficient combustion systems). AND - please note the concentration is lower than the particulate concentration during a Sydney bushfire. I can find several studies linking reduced air quality from bushfires and mortality rates, however nothing which attributes the same to wood heaters:

Implications for community health from exposure to bushfire air toxics
Context Sensitive Links

Context Sensitive Links
more options
Author(s): Reisen F (Reisen, Fabienne), Brown SK (Brown, Stephen K.)
Source: ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY Volume: 3 Issue: 4 Pages: 235-243 Published: 2006
Times Cited: 1 References: 75 Citation MapCitation Map beta
Abstract: Bushfires can cause widespread air pollution through the emission of high levels of toxic air contaminants that affect the health of surrounding communities. This review of studies that have evaluated the health impacts of bushfires in North America, Australia and South-East Asia shows that the primary pollutant consistently exceeding air quality guidelines is particulate matter. Elevated levels of respirable particles are likely to be the major cause of the higher number of hospital visits and admissions for respiratory and/or cardiovascular treatment, increased mortality, and elevated respiratory-related symptoms that were observed in communities after major bushfire events. Morbidity effects were found to be mostly short-lived and reversible after exposure ceased, and were more prevalent among susceptible groups such as asthmatics, children, the elderly, and people with pre-existing respiratory and/or cardiac illnesses. Implications of such exposures to the Australian population will be discussed in relation to existing (urban) air quality measures and options for community response to bushfire events.
Document Type: Review
Language: English
Author Keywords: atmospheric chemistry; bushfire; community health; particles; toxins
KeyWords Plus: CANADIAN FOREST-FIRES; HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS; BRUNEI-DARUSSALAM; DAILY MORTALITY; UNITED-STATES; INFANT-MORTALITY; 1998 EPISODE; POLLUTION; SMOKE; QUALITY
Reprint Address: Reisen, F (reprint author), CSIRO Marine & Atmospher Res, Aspendale, Vic 3195 Australia
Addresses:
1. CSIRO Mfg & Infrastruct Technol, Highett, Vic 3190 Australia

I think I have addressed all your important key points??? Surely you cannot contest the validity or impartiality of the above sources???

The only remaining key point is the rate of landclearing and reforestation/plantaion in Australia. I cannot find any accurate date on this please post your souces (LINKS). Given the rapid growth in plantations and new forests for sequestration etc, I can forsee this exceeding landclearing in the future. However, please post the sources as you have demanded of me, and don't say "go look on the CSIRO/EPA/XXX website"

dullbird

21st October 2008, 06:21 PM

I was under the impression it wasn't just emissions but they use some precious metals for the batteries that are need to run electric cars...(a non renewable source).. and the cars need a few batteries to give them the go go.

i don't have anything to substansiate this but i have heard more about the cars not being good for the environment to build! over say building a landover that would be on the road for alot longer than i have about them reducing emissions etc.

Its funny all this talk about hybrid cars being better for the environment. I read an article in the news paper some time back that compared the environmental imprint of a prius with that of a Hummer. It was an american article but was interesting none the less.

The basic jist of the article was that a hummer is actually better for the environment due to the polution and C02 that is released during the manufacture of both. The problem is the manufacturing process of the Prius is "dirty" and there are alot of emissions released whilst its made, the author of the article said that the factory in Detroit that makes the batteries for the Prius is so disgusting there is a 500m dead zone around it where nothing grows, and they actually tested the mars rover there.

Both cars need to travel a set distance before they balance out.

So whilst the cars might be clean on road there needs to be a consideration about how many emissions are made whilst they are made, and Land Rover appears to be doing this. Matt

Ace

21st October 2008, 07:04 PM

isuzurover

21st October 2008, 07:26 PM

camel_landy

21st October 2008, 09:02 PM

A Life Cycle Analysis is a "cradle to grave" or "dust to dust" approach which takes a lot more than just emissions into account - including energy and materials use and recyclability.

Which makes the Rolls Royce probably the most eco friendly car on the planet (closely followed by Land Rover). :D

M

Tank

21st October 2008, 09:29 PM

Isuzurover.
My last words on this, you have produced a few papers showing what you believe to be true, selected to back up what you are implying, i.e. woodsmoke from DWH is insignificant as well as Dioxins.
I have presented some leads to papers (which you dont seem to want to read), these papers were mostly commissioned by State and Federal governments, the information provided in these papers has been adopted by these governments and new laws have been enacted to help reduce this problem, which you say, for some reason, are insignificant. I have done submissions to the law makers in this case, my local council has used one of my submissions to argue their case. If as you say this matter is so insignificant why have State and Federal governments spent so much time and money. If you wish to argue the Facts do some research, as I have done for 15 years, Regards Frank.

isuzurover

22nd October 2008, 01:24 AM

Which makes the Rolls Royce probably the most eco friendly car on the planet (closely followed by Land Rover). :D

M

Sorry - not sure how you come to this conclusion. If - for example - emissions during use are the most significant factor, then it would be better to replace your vehicle as soon as a more efficient model became available.

Tank, sorry, but I have no respect for anything you say on the matter after your last comment. Where is the evidence for this supposed 15 years of research. You have posted no sources. Governments, (local governments especially) are famous for taking knee-jerk, populist action based on incomplete data. The sources I have posted are journal papers, unbeholden to govenment bias.

The sources I have shown are up-to-date, and published in very well respected journals. If you are unable to modify your opinion when new data becomes available then I pity you. It wasn't long ago that there was supposed scientific evidence showing that living under high tension power lines was bad for your health - we now know that this was bad science.

camel_landy

22nd October 2008, 07:54 AM

Sorry - not sure how you come to this conclusion. If - for example - emissions during use are the most significant factor, then it would be better to replace your vehicle as soon as a more efficient model became available.

I'm talking about the 27 tons of waste generated for every car produced.

CO2 isn't the only factor...

M

isuzurover

22nd October 2008, 09:14 AM

I'm talking about the 27 tons of waste generated for every car produced.

CO2 isn't the only factor...

M

I agree 100% (with CO2 not being the only factor).

However, the LCA approach accounts for the waste generated during production. Some times this may be done through GHGs/Emissions - but it takes energy (and hence creates emissions) to produce waste.

If you click on the link I posted, it shows that the operational phase of a vehicle (well a prius and a hummer) is the more important than the manufacturing phase.

camel_landy

22nd October 2008, 05:49 PM

If you click on the link I posted, it shows that the operational phase of a vehicle (well a prius and a hummer) is the more important than the manufacturing phase.

Unfortunately, it's hard to tell what's myth & what's reality with the Prius vs Hummer debate. It's a story that has done the rounds in the media, various discussion forums, lobby groups twisting the facts for their own gain, etc... and would appear that some of the original figures may well have been based on 'Bad Science' in the first place.

Is there another comparison about??

I tried hunting for some figures last night but couldn't find any... Even though I remember reading through some last year.

M

isuzurover

22nd October 2008, 06:15 PM

Unfortunately, it's hard to tell what's myth & what's reality with the Prius vs Hummer debate. It's a story that has done the rounds in the media, various discussion forums, lobby groups twisting the facts for their own gain, etc... and would appear that some of the original figures may well have been based on 'Bad Science' in the first place.

Is there another comparison about??

I tried hunting for some figures last night but couldn't find any... Even though I remember reading through some last year.

M

The original LCA was done by a consulting firm (not sure who was paying them?).

The link I posted was a re-evaluation by the Rocky Mountain Institute - an independent research organisation which is highly regarded in the field.

However - there are lots of other LCAs out there:

Life cycle impact assessment of the average passenger vehicle in the Netherlands
Context Sensitive Links

Context Sensitive Links
more options
Author(s): Castro MBG, Remmerswaal JAM, Reuter MA
Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT Volume: 8 Issue: 5 Pages: 297-304 Published: 2003
Times Cited: 5 References: 15 Citation MapCitation Map beta
Abstract: Goal, Scope and Background. In this article, the Life Cycle Impact Assessment of the average passenger vehicle of the Netherlands is performed, with emphasis on the current dismantling and recycling practice in this country. From calculations on recovery rates of the several material streams from ELV (End-of-Live Vehicle) recycling, it seems that attaining the European ELV legislation recycling targets (Directive 2000/53/EC 2000) is very difficult, even for countries with advanced collection and recycling infrastructures such as the Netherlands. An LCA of the current average passenger vehicle of the Netherlands, including a detailed modelling of the recovery and recycling should form a sound basis for comparison with alternative automotive life cycle designs and legislation efforts.

Model and System Definition. An average passenger vehicle is defined, having average weight and material composition. A cradle to grave approach is taken, including all relevant upstream processes for the production of materials and fuels, and the return of the recycled materials to the material cycles in the EOL (End-of-Life) phase. A particularity of this model is the detailed description of the Dutch collection and recycling infrastructure, with current data for the shredding, separation and metallurgical recycling processes (ARN 2000, Barkhof 1998, Chapman 1983, Pilchert et al. 1994, Worrel et al. 1992).

Results and Discussion. According to the Eco-indicator 99 (EI99) (Ministerie van V.R.O.M 1999), the largest environmental impact of the passenger vehicle's life cycle occurs in the use phase over 90% -, due to the combustion and depletion of fossil fuels. This is in agreement of previous studies (Kasai 2000, Kanesaki 2000). Also in the other life cycle phases, the use of fossil fuels is the dominant impact, even for the production phase. Resource depletion due to the use of the materials employed in the vehicle causes a comparatively lower environmental impact, namely due to the high recovery rate and efficiency of the metallurgical recycling, that balances for about 30% the total impacts of the materials production and use. NOx emission was one of the smallest emissions to air in quantity, but was responsible for 36% of the impact of the life cycle, while CO2 was the largest emission to air but caused only 6% of the environmental impact.

Conclusion and Recommendation. Although there is a growing awareness and concern on increasing the recyclability of vehicles, the use phase still has the largest environmental impact of the vehicle's life cycle. A life cycle assessment can be a Sound basis to evaluate and compare design alternatives to increase the sustainabiliry of passenger vehicles. The ASR (Automotive shredder residue) is currently the greatest concern with regard to the recovery targets. It is a large amount of materials (about 32 wt.%), difficult and costly to recycle, and thermal recovery is limited to a maximum of lSwt.% in 1015 by the European ELV legislation. joint efforts from the automotive industry and legislative institutions are required to find a sensible solution. LCA can be a useful tool to support legislative decisions, as purely weight-based recovery definitions are not adequate to evaluate the sustainability of the automobile life cycle.

Reprint Address: Castro, MBG (reprint author), Delft Univ Technol, Fac Design Construct & Prod, Design Sustainabil Sect, Landberghstr 15, NL-2628 CE Delft, Netherlands

EDIT - and :

Can a prolonged use of a passenger car reduce environmental burdens? Life Cycle analysis of Swiss passenger cars
Context Sensitive Links

Context Sensitive Links
more options
Author(s): Spielmann M (Spielmann, Michael), Althaus HJ (Althaus, Hans-Joerg)
Source: JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION Volume: 15 Issue: 11-12 Pages: 1122-1134 Published: 2007
Times Cited: 0 References: 44 Citation MapCitation Map beta
Abstract: As a consequence of the introduction of limits on exhaust gas emissions and a target agreement between the Swiss association of car importers (auto-schweiz) and the Swiss government calling for a reduction in the specific fuel consumption, a considerable reduction of exhaust emissions of newly registered Swiss passenger cars occurred in the last 10 years. Also, for the near future an ongoing reduction of exhaust emissions of newly registered vehicles is expected. However, applying the concept of life cycle thinking, exhaust emission reductions may be outbalanced with an increase in specific car manufacturing expenditures and/or a longer use of the car. Thus, from the point of view of an individual car owner, a prolonged car use may be the environmentally preferable option. In order to investigate this question, a comprehensive analysis of the environmental performance of newly registered diesel and petrol passenger cars in the time period from 2000 to 2010 has been performed. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been employed focusing on three transport components: 'vehicle travel' (exhaust and abrasion emissions), 'fuel chain' (supply of fuels) and 'car infrastructure' (manufacturing, maintenance and disposal of cars). The presented model aims to gain insight into the issue of longevity and prolonged car use for the Swiss case, rather than giving ultimate recommendations. The analysis focuses on classical road pollutants (NO, and PM2.5) as well as on fuel consumption reduction and CO2. Moreover, impact assessment has been applied, employing a common approach: Eco-Indicator (EI) 99. The ranking of different car replacement options revealed prolonged car use as the environmentally better option. As a consequence of the continuous use of the car representing 2000 average technology, the components 'vehicle travel' and 'fuel chain' show a 10% and 9% higher performance, respectively. This effect is compensated by savings in 'car infrastructure' (26%). Uncertainty analysis has been performed by additional model runs with different parameter settings. Despite the fact that a considerably prolonged car use scores best for all additional model runs, the resulting differences between options further decrease. This holds particularly true, if a higher yearly average fuel reduction rate of 3% is assumed. Furthermore, applying an avoided burden concept for infrastructure modeling (Value Corrected Substitution (VCS)) shows the same effect. In both cases the resulting scores differ merely marginally between the considered options and would not allow for discrimination. As a consequence of these outcomes, it is not possible to give any general recommendation to Swiss car owners to extend the use of their cars, in the short term. (C) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Author Keywords: life Cycle Assessment (LCA); passenger cars; industrial ecology; passenger transport; Value Corrected Substitution (VCS); life cycle thinking; product longevity; car replacement; Switzerland
KeyWords Plus: INPUT DATA; ECOINVENT; CONSUMPTION; VEHICLES; SYSTEM
Reprint Address: Spielmann, M (reprint author), Paul Scherrer Inst, Energy Econ Grp, Lab Energy Syst Anal, CH-5232 Villigen, Switzerland

camel_landy

22nd October 2008, 08:02 PM

isuzurover

23rd October 2008, 02:12 AM

Errr... I don't wish to pee on your fire but:

Quote 1. Environmental impact in that report is measured in depletion of natural resources. Not pollutants. (Factor in Bio fuels and that result changes somewhat.)
Quote 2. Their summary says that it's too early to tell (their study will conclude in 2010) and the results so far are inconclusive.

Before you start battering me with quotes again, I'm talking about the impact of the manufacturing process vs in life usage and the greenhouse gasses produced (not depletion of natural resources). Yes, depletion of the resources is an impact but we can live with a hole in the ground... However, we have problems living with a hole in the ozone layer!

Either way, we're straying form the point which was that Land Rover are trying to do their bit and they're doing more than just making fuel efficient cars and planting a few trees.

M

Not sure you have fully understood - I can find nowhere where they say they are JUST measuring depletion of natural resources. They say that the major impact was due to depletion of fossil fuels/natural resources. (since most power stations are powered by fossil fuels as well...) - rather than minerals/metals etc, as these can/are readily recycled.

The bottom line is that at least 3 independant studies have shown that USE is the life cycle phase which produces the greatest impact.

Sure - using (sustainably produced) biofuels will reduce impacts during the usage phase - that is elementary. However, other LCA studies have shown that many biofuels ARE NOT sustainably produced (e.g. asian palm oil crops...). Some biofuels are worse than petrochemical fuels!!! There aren't enough biofuels for everyone to switch atm. The EU 5% BD in normal diesel is hard enough to achieve.

I agree that any step in the right direction is a good one. LR are certainly ahead of the likes of GM and Ford, but way behind the leaders (toyota, renault, etc...)

camel_landy

23rd October 2008, 06:31 AM

Not sure you have fully understood...

Ditto...

I can find nowhere where they say they are JUST measuring depletion of natural resources. They say that the major impact was due to depletion of fossil fuels/natural resources.

I'm getting tired of splitting hairs... [Sigh]

True... They don't say 100% of the environmental impact is through depletion but in my book "over 90%" is pretty damn close!

...the largest environmental impact of the passenger vehicle's life cycle occurs in the use phase over 90% -, due to the combustion and depletion of fossil fuels. This is in agreement of previous studies (Kasai 2000, Kanesaki 2000). Also in the other life cycle phases, the use of fossil fuels is the dominant impact.

isuzurover

23rd October 2008, 11:43 AM

Ditto...

I'm getting tired of splitting hairs... [Sigh]

True... They don't say 100% of the environmental impact is through depletion but in my book "over 90%" is pretty damn close!

I am not sure what you are disagreeing with.

They say 90% of a vehicle's environmental impacts are during the "USE" phase of it's life cycle. Those impacts are mainly related to depletion of resouces (fossil fuels), and the pollution created when those resources are depleted.

What is your alternative to reduce the impact during use on an existing vehicle? Even if we could all switch to biofuels, the impacts of even the most sustainably produced biofuels which are currently available might reduce that 90% to 70% or so (and that is an optimistic estimate).