Mashed up death cage

[Matthew Myatt]

"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Take comfort in this thought, Guy (although you obviously don't need to as you've covered
> virtually every aspect of the Volvo's justification)... The majority of pollution during a cars
> lifetime is created during production of the vehicle, rather than daily running.

Is this true? And do you know of any documentation to justify it?

(Don't take this the wrong way - I'm not trolling. I'm asking out of genuine curiosity as I have a
real interest in sustainable transport and the more reliable 'ammo' I can get, the better.)

Mat

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

"Matthew Myatt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Take comfort in this thought, Guy (although you obviously don't need to
as
> > you've covered virtually every aspect of the Volvo's justification)... The majority of pollution
> > during a cars lifetime is created during production of the vehicle, rather than daily running.
>
> Is this true? And do you know of any documentation to justify it?
>
> (Don't take this the wrong way - I'm not trolling. I'm asking out of genuine curiosity as I have a
> real interest in sustainable transport and
the
> more reliable 'ammo' I can get, the better.)
>
It may be true of CO2 emissions, but it's definitely not true of particulates, NOx emissions, noise,
and the like.

I've heard it cited before, and I'd like some analysis. Back of the envelope guesses suggest it's
plausible, but I don't know how close.

A

 

[Tony W]

"Matthew Myatt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Take comfort in this thought, Guy (although you obviously don't need to
as
> > you've covered virtually every aspect of the Volvo's justification)... The majority of pollution
> > during a cars lifetime is created during production of the vehicle, rather than daily running.
>
> Is this true? And do you know of any documentation to justify it?
>
> (Don't take this the wrong way - I'm not trolling. I'm asking out of genuine curiosity as I have a
> real interest in sustainable transport and
the
> more reliable 'ammo' I can get, the better.)

A simple calculation would seem to suggest this is unlikely.

Say a Volvo weighs 2 tonnes and will travel 20,000 miles per year for 15 years. Assuming 40 mpg (I'm
being generous!!). This implies it uses about 34,000 litres of fuel (petrol, diesel, chip fat -- I'm
not too worried) which will weigh at least 30 tonnes.

2 tonnes of metal and plastic vs. 30 tonnes of fuel.

Ummm.

 

[Dave]

"Matthew Myatt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Take comfort in this thought, Guy (although you obviously don't need to
as
> > you've covered virtually every aspect of the Volvo's justification)... The majority of pollution
> > during a cars lifetime is created during production of the vehicle, rather than daily running.
>
> Is this true? And do you know of any documentation to justify it?
>
> (Don't take this the wrong way - I'm not trolling. I'm asking out of genuine curiosity as I have a
> real interest in sustainable transport and
the
> more reliable 'ammo' I can get, the better.)
>
> Mat
>
Buggered if I know Mat, just had it quoted to me once by a very eco friendly/warrior type friend and
as I've never been one to let facts stand in the way of a good story (as I'm sure others on this ng
will confirm ;-), I'm quite happy to quote from the hip. As I said, it was something for Guy to take
comfort in, never stated it was an actual fact ;-) cheers, Dave.

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Matthew Myatt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Take comfort in this thought, Guy (although you obviously don't need
to
> as
> > > you've covered virtually every aspect of the Volvo's justification)... The majority of
> > > pollution during a cars lifetime is created during production of the vehicle, rather than
> > > daily running.
> >
> > Is this true? And do you know of any documentation to justify it?
> >
> > (Don't take this the wrong way - I'm not trolling. I'm asking out of genuine curiosity as I have
> > a real interest in sustainable transport and
> the
> > more reliable 'ammo' I can get, the better.)
> >
> It may be true of CO2 emissions, but it's definitely not true of particulates, NOx emissions,
> noise, and the like.
>
> I've heard it cited before, and I'd like some analysis. Back of the
envelope
> guesses suggest it's plausible, but I don't know how close.
>
Not true

http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html

gives figures of 120 gigajoules for manufacture and 880 gigajoules for fuel use.

However, manufacture causes toxic releases of 39kg and fuel use gives only 22kg, so that's a bit
more even.

The paper seems fairly well cited, anyway

A (I searched "car manufacture" energy use on Google)

 

[Just Zis Guy]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

>>> justification)... The majority of pollution during a cars lifetime is created during production
>>> of the vehicle

>> Is this true? And do you know of any documentation to justify it?

> It may be true of CO2 emissions, but it's definitely not true of particulates, NOx emissions,
> noise, and the like.

The usual quote is that it uses more oil to produce a car than it will use in its lifetime, but
given the problems of end-of-life vehicles it's also quite believable that there would be more
pollution as well.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104

 

[James Of Staple]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> W K wrote:
>
> >>> Why not go the whole hog and get yourselves a real SUV eh?
>
> >> Great idea - it would do everything the Volvo does but with even worse handling and fuel
> >> efficiency! Wonder why I didn't think of that before ;-)
>
> > Or you could have something that handles better, uses less fuel, and is less of a roadgoing tank
> > that can barge through other roadusers leaving the occupants safely protected.
>
> Of course we could spend a few thousand quid and get a car which would return nearly 50% more
> miles per gallon, but it hardly seems worth it when we did less than 6,000 miles in both cars
> combined last year, and we're about to buy a tandem to make doing the school run by bike even
> easier so the old bus won't do more than 5,000 this year.
>
> The Volvo was bought five years ago as a workhorse
<snip>

Blimey - thought I'd accidentally wandered into uk.trainspot

Thinking on, I know it's one world and all that but if the unenvironmental stuff of cycle use is in
the creation perhaps we should shift production and hence the polution problem to eastern Europe,
China, Birmingham or other similarly deprived areas?

Oh, we already have done...

James Who for the record actually loves Brum and his WM neighbours to bits and pieces (even to the
point of sh**ging them!).

 

[Dave]

<snip>
> Oh, we already have done...
>
> James Who for the record actually loves Brum and his WM neighbours to bits and pieces (even to the
> point of sh**ging them!).
>
...oh..too much info. James...or are you crossposting to uk.thosei'veshagged ?..

 

[Matthew Myatt]

"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html
>
> gives figures of 120 gigajoules for manufacture and 880 gigajoules for
fuel
> use.
>
> However, manufacture causes toxic releases of 39kg and fuel use gives only 22kg, so that's a bit
> more even.
>
> The paper seems fairly well cited, anyway
>
> A (I searched "car manufacture" energy use on Google)

Thanks for that, Ambrose - interesting reading and a (to me) surprising conclusion that:

"...the bulk of environmental impacts from automobiles occur during the use stage. The implicit
message is that if you can replace your car with one that is more energy efficient, chances are high
that you truly will be reducing your overall environmental impact. However, if you are a person who
considers toxic releases more important than energy use, then it is wiser to hold on to your
existing car, in order to avoid promoting the manufacture of a new one."

That's got me thinking - what's the energy/toxic emission cost of manufacturing and selling a new
bike? Time for a play on Google, I think...

Mat

 

[Just Zis Guy]

Matthew Myatt wrote:

> "...the bulk of environmental impacts from automobiles occur during the use stage. The implicit
> message is that if you can replace your car with one that is more energy efficient, chances are
> high that you truly will be reducing your overall environmental impact."

I replaced mine with a vehicle which gets, at a rough guess, 10,000mpg[1]. Does that count?

[1]120ml of oil per 200 miles, and actually it's not even really oil, it's wax.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104

 

[Dave]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matthew Myatt wrote:
>
> > "...the bulk of environmental impacts from automobiles occur during the use stage. The implicit
> > message is that if you can replace your car with one that is more energy efficient, chances are
> > high that you truly will be reducing your overall environmental impact."
>
> I replaced mine with a vehicle which gets, at a rough guess, 10,000mpg[1]. Does that count?
>
> [1]120ml of oil per 200 miles, and actually it's not even really oil, it's wax.
>
> --
> Guy
> ===
WAX!!!!...oh, guy, how could you...surely you know that the mass use of wax was phased out with the
invention of the electrical light because of the environmental impact of the use of wax ?!!?....
(don't know how to do a 'tongue deeply embedded in cheek smilie thingy 8.P ) Dave.

 

[Andymorris]

Tony W wrote:
>>> Take comfort in this thought, Guy (although you obviously don't need to as you've covered
>>> virtually every aspect of the Volvo's justification)... The majority of pollution during a cars
>>> lifetime is created during production of the vehicle, rather than daily running.
>>
>
> A simple calculation would seem to suggest this is unlikely.
>
> Say a Volvo weighs 2 tonnes and will travel 20,000 miles per year for 15 years. Assuming 40 mpg
> (I'm being generous!!). This implies it uses about 34,000 litres of fuel (petrol, diesel, chip fat
> -- I'm not too worried) which will weigh at least 30 tonnes.
>
> 2 tonnes of metal and plastic vs. 30 tonnes of fuel.
>
> Ummm.

Sounds borderline to me. Steel and alu production take an awfull lot of fuel, plus the cost of
making it the right shape and shipping it about.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

 

[Tony W]

"AndyMorris" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> > 2 tonnes of metal and plastic vs. 30 tonnes of fuel.
> >
> > Ummm.
>
> Sounds borderline to me. Steel and alu production take an awfull lot of fuel, plus the cost of
> making it the right shape and shipping it about.

The reason steel works are always near the coal fields and not near the iron ore mines is that it
takes about 5 tonnes of coal and 1 tonne of ore to make steel. Trouble is I can't remember how much
steel you get per tonne of ore. You might be right.

T

 

[Stephen Pridgeo]

"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "AndyMorris" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > > 2 tonnes of metal and plastic vs. 30 tonnes of fuel.
> > >
> > > Ummm.
> >
> > Sounds borderline to me. Steel and alu production take an awfull lot of fuel, plus the cost of
> > making it the right shape and shipping it about.
>
> The reason steel works are always near the coal fields and not near the iron ore mines is that it
> takes about 5 tonnes of coal and 1 tonne of ore to make steel. Trouble is I can't remember how
> much steel you get per tonne of ore. You might be right.
>
> T

It will depend on the quality of the ore I guess.

I haven't seen figures for; obtaining the fuel, obtaining the ore, smelting it, forging the steel,
transporting it, re-working the steel, producing the paint, transporting the paint, producing the
plastic, moulding the plastic (anyone got figures for how much fuel it takes to make plastic?)

I would have thought that the sum of all this energy comsumption / toxic byproducts would far
outweigh the environmental impact of actually running a well-serviced large car. I'm also starting
to think that nuclear power is going to be a necessity, rather than a "viable option" :-((

SteveP

 

[Tim Woodall]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:11:47 -0000, Tony W <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "AndyMorris" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>> > 2 tonnes of metal and plastic vs. 30 tonnes of fuel.
>> >
>> > Ummm.
>>
>> Sounds borderline to me. Steel and alu production take an awfull lot of fuel, plus the cost of
>> making it the right shape and shipping it about.
>
> The reason steel works are always near the coal fields and not near the iron ore mines is that it
> takes about 5 tonnes of coal and 1 tonne of ore to make steel. Trouble is I can't remember how
> much steel you get per tonne of ore. You might be right.
>
Unless you are in the black-country where they had the sense to site their iron and coal mines in
the same place

AFAIAA there are no working coal or iron seams left BICBW.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[Just Zis Guy]

Tim Woodall wrote:

> Unless you are in the black-country where they had the sense to site their iron and coal mines in
> the same place

Prior to which, of course, it was known as the green-country ;-)

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104

 

[Dave]

"stephen pridgeon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "AndyMorris" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > > 2 tonnes of metal and plastic vs. 30 tonnes of fuel.
> > > >
> > > > Ummm.
> > >
> > > Sounds borderline to me. Steel and alu production take an awfull lot
of
> > > fuel, plus the cost of making it the right shape and shipping it
about.
> >
> > The reason steel works are always near the coal fields and not near the
iron
> > ore mines is that it takes about 5 tonnes of coal and 1 tonne of ore to
make
> > steel. Trouble is I can't remember how much steel you get per tonne of
ore.
> > You might be right.
> >
> > T
>
> It will depend on the quality of the ore I guess.
>
> I haven't seen figures for; obtaining the fuel, obtaining the ore, smelting it, forging the steel,
> transporting it, re-working the steel, producing the paint, transporting the paint, producing the
> plastic, moulding the plastic (anyone got figures for how much fuel it takes to make plastic?)
>
> I would have thought that the sum of all this energy comsumption / toxic byproducts would far
> outweigh the environmental impact of actually running a well-serviced large car. I'm also starting
> to think that nuclear power is going to be a necessity, rather than a "viable option" :-((
>
> SteveP

...nah, there is another energy source out there that we just haven't learned to utilise yet.
Infinite, indestructible and omnipotent and best of all, not harmful. Once we manage to link into
it, we won't need any other energy sources, least of all nuclear...ever. We just have to be patient.
But then again, I might just be insane, right ? Dave. ;-)

 

[Dave]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tim Woodall wrote:
>
> > Unless you are in the black-country where they had the sense to site their iron and coal mines
> > in the same place
>
> Prior to which, of course, it was known as the green-country ;-)
>
> --
> Guy
> ===
> I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
> about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
> wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.
>
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
>
....and it will be again, one day, once we get rid of all this damned industry!!!! Dave. ;-)

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

Dave wrote:
> "stephen pridgeon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>>> "AndyMorris" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>> 2 tonnes of metal and plastic vs. 30 tonnes of fuel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ummm.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds borderline to me. Steel and alu production take an awfull lot of fuel, plus the cost of
>>>> making it the right shape and shipping it about.

Link posted in a diferrent part of this thread:

http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html

It's still 5 units (driving it) to 1 (making it) after these costs are taken into account

>>> The reason steel works are always near the coal fields and not near the iron ore mines is that
>>> it takes about 5 tonnes of coal and 1 tonne of ore to make steel. Trouble is I can't remember
>>> how much steel you get per tonne of ore. You might be right.
>>>
>>> T
>>
>> It will depend on the quality of the ore I guess.
>>
>> I haven't seen figures for; obtaining the fuel, obtaining the ore, smelting it, forging the
>> steel, transporting it, re-working the steel, producing the paint, transporting the paint,
>> producing the plastic, moulding the plastic (anyone got figures for how much fuel it takes to
>> make plastic?)

4% of the world's oil use. I imagine that's lots less than metal.

http://www.bpf.co.uk/bpf/industry_issues/general_issues/environment/sustaina bility/

>> I would have thought that the sum of all this energy comsumption / toxic byproducts would far
>> outweigh the environmental impact of actually running a well-serviced large car. I'm also
>> starting to think that nuclear power is going to be a necessity, rather than a "viable
>> option" :-((
>>
>> SteveP
>
> ...nah, there is another energy source out there that we just haven't learned to utilise yet.
> Infinite, indestructible and omnipotent and best of all, not harmful. Once we manage to link into
> it, we won't need any other energy sources, least of all nuclear...ever. We just have to be
> patient. But then again, I might just be insane, right ?

Go on, what is it? Wave power, offshore wind, solar roofing tiles? Coppicing for charcoal?
Biodiesel?

Or maybe a combination of all of these.

My guess is that we could fairly easily use just sustainable energy _if_ we wished to, and the
vested interests would go that way.

A

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Tim Woodall wrote:
>
>> Unless you are in the black-country where they had the sense to site their iron and coal mines in
>> the same place
>
> Prior to which, of course, it was known as the green-country ;-)

No, that coal was always seeping out and making a mess. That's why we had to go underground and dig
it all out.