From: MasonS on
On 5 Dec, 19:27, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Mas...(a)BP.com <Mas...(a)BP.com> wrote:
> > On 5 Dec, 18:38, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > mileburner <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > > While out on my bike today, I was thinking to myself, I wonder what the
> > > > vehicle emissions are on my bikes and what the VED would be if there was
> > > > any. I came to the conclusion that the emissions are nil and the VED would
> > > > be zero.
>
> > > <shrug> So you came to an erroneous conclusion. The Cycling and Health
> > > booklet produced by Cycling England gives a figure of 1200kcal/h for
> > > cycling. That's equivalent to burning 300g of sugar per hour, about one
> > > mol/hour. That's 144g of carbon per hour or about 500g CO2 per hour.
>
> > > You might think that's insignficant, however if you are cycling at 12
> > > miles per hour then your emissions are 26g CO2 per km. Again you might
> > > argue that is insignificant. However a car such as VW Polo Blue Motion
> > > can take five occupants and emits 100g CO2 per km. The same five people
> > > travelling by bicycle would emit 130g CO2 per km.
>
> > Only if the car's occupants held their breath all the way!
>
> I'd certainly like to see cyclists do more holding of their breath. But
> the cyclist-generated rag in question was talking about CO2 in excess of
> BMR.
>
> > Dear oh dear.
>
> Indeed dear. Oh dear.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So a driver shuffling along at walking pace getting more and more
irate would have a metabolism above BMR?

Yes, I'd go along with that, you can almost see the steam coming out
of their ears.

--
Simon Mason
From: Steve Firth on
MasonS(a)BP.com <MasonS(a)BP.com> wrote:

> Of course it makes a difference. My gaffers have made the same simple
> mistake in the past and we are building a massive bioethanol plant
> here!

Then you are part of the problem.

> They are PhDs and think that I emit more CO2 on my bike as I breathe
> more than them and therefore emit more CO2 than their 4.2 litre 4x4s -
> there's no hope is there?

I see, so you work for idiots so everyone who points out the flaws in
*your* argument must also be an idiot. Are you related to Ian "Whacko"
Jackson by any chance?
From: dan on
Ian Dalziel <iandalziel(a)lineone.net> writes:

> How does the plant growth know which carbon to suck out of the
> atmosphere?
> If you were ploughing up tarmac every year to plant sugar cane that
> might work - chopping down forests to do it emphatically does not.

Well, if more people are using bikes instead of cars, the land formerly
needed for tarmac will be less in-demand, thus cheaper. Deforestation I
can't really help with so much.

But this is all rather predicated on the assumption that people already
eat no more then they need to sustain their exertions, which the
growing(sic) problem of obesity suggests is not currently the case.


-dan
From: MasonS on
On 5 Dec, 19:50, Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <72d485a6-6a6e-477f-b740-
> 239f03483...(a)v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, Mas...(a)BP.com says...
>
> > That's another debate altogether. Even if true, it makes sense to make
> > whatever oil we have got left last as long as possible.
> > As someone said "When it's gone, it's gone".
>
> They've recently found a 2 billion barrel oilfield off the coast of
> Brazil in September which followed a 500 million barrel field they found
> in the Gulf of Mexico earlier that month. So in those two fields alone,
> there's roughly 79 years worth of oil in those two fields alone based on
> pre-recession global consumption rates.
>
> --
> Conorwww.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
>
> I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

Nice to see you are looking after our grandchildren.

Sadly though the world's current oil consumption is 86 million barrels
*a day", so your 2.5 billion barrels cited above will only last around
a *month* not 79 years.
The entire known world oil reserves will last about 36 years at
*current* consumption levels.

--
Simon Mason
From: PeterE on
<MasonS(a)BP.com> wrote in message
news:0c2f34b5-12b2-4ab8-84aa-756320ec18a5(a)v19g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
>
> The entire known world oil reserves will last about 36 years at
> *current* consumption levels.

Which is about the same ratio as it was at the time of the 1973 oil crisis.