Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Sparrows are back
The sparrow family continue to visit the garden, with the two youngsters sticking close together. Here are some photo's of them.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Timex weather station
Disgruntled of Bradley Stoke purchased a Timex rain gauge with built in thermometer earlier this year to complement his manual rain gauge, but recently it has been giving some very odd figures, claiming a minimum temperature of -8.5C, when temperatures haven't been below 10C for some weeks, and it was claiming last night that there had been 30mm of rain when there had only been 1-2mm. Time to take it back and complain.
However, on reflection, the entire design is flawed. The rain gauge is a cylindrical plastic device which you put into the garden with an electronic device kept indoors which reads the values. The problem is that for most accurate readings, the rain gauge needs to be in an open area to avoid rain shadow effects from fences and buildings. However, this means that it is in direct sunlight. The plastic absorbs the heat from the sun, and heats up internally, giving artifically high maximum temperature readings (adding 10C to the temperature in April when working this problem out). So you then move the gauge into a shady area, but then you have the rain shadow....
A traditional weather station uses a Stephenson's Screen, which is effectively a white wooden box with louvred sides into which the thermometers are placed. The white paint reflects the sun, and the louvred sides allows any hot air internally to escape, and for outside air to get in. The Timex gauge doesn't have any of this. It is a nice idea, but the execution is flawed. Buy separate temperature and rain gauge devices - then you can site them separately as each requires without having to compromise on one of the readings.
However, on reflection, the entire design is flawed. The rain gauge is a cylindrical plastic device which you put into the garden with an electronic device kept indoors which reads the values. The problem is that for most accurate readings, the rain gauge needs to be in an open area to avoid rain shadow effects from fences and buildings. However, this means that it is in direct sunlight. The plastic absorbs the heat from the sun, and heats up internally, giving artifically high maximum temperature readings (adding 10C to the temperature in April when working this problem out). So you then move the gauge into a shady area, but then you have the rain shadow....
A traditional weather station uses a Stephenson's Screen, which is effectively a white wooden box with louvred sides into which the thermometers are placed. The white paint reflects the sun, and the louvred sides allows any hot air internally to escape, and for outside air to get in. The Timex gauge doesn't have any of this. It is a nice idea, but the execution is flawed. Buy separate temperature and rain gauge devices - then you can site them separately as each requires without having to compromise on one of the readings.
Government Energy Policy
While listenining to the news this morning, it was announced that the government was going to release yet another white paper on energy policy, with yet more incentives for renewables, after comments by the Royal Academy. But there is one thing lacking from all of the talk right now which the government could easily implement, and would have a big effect on how much energy we use. It could use the building codes to mandate the use of renewable energy.
I'm not talking windmills here - the mini windmills which were fashionable a couple of years ago and which David Cameron had fitted to his house are too small to be useful, and generate more CO2 during manufacture than they are every likely to save during their lifetime. What I am referring to is either underground earth heating or solar water heaters, which should be fitted to each new house/building constructed.
A typical solar water heating installation cost is something like £5000 or more, but most of this cost is the cost of retrofitting it to an existing building, and is the cost of labour for roofing and plumbing. Strip these costs out, because you would now be fitting the systems during construction and they can be planned in, and the costs would be much lower, and by mandating their use (with the resulting increase in numbers), economies of scale would come into play which would reduce their cost even further. And even if the cost was still £2000, are you really going to notice the difference when the average house cost is upwards of £158,000?
If such systems were fitted, the energy costs for most homes would be considerably lower, as the largest source of energy usage would have been removed. It would be easy for the government to do, as it could be mandated by legislation, yet wouldn't need subsidising or cost them anything. But they don't do it. Until they come up with such schemes, government ideas on trying to save energy don't really amount to very much and don't really address the problems.
I'm not talking windmills here - the mini windmills which were fashionable a couple of years ago and which David Cameron had fitted to his house are too small to be useful, and generate more CO2 during manufacture than they are every likely to save during their lifetime. What I am referring to is either underground earth heating or solar water heaters, which should be fitted to each new house/building constructed.
A typical solar water heating installation cost is something like £5000 or more, but most of this cost is the cost of retrofitting it to an existing building, and is the cost of labour for roofing and plumbing. Strip these costs out, because you would now be fitting the systems during construction and they can be planned in, and the costs would be much lower, and by mandating their use (with the resulting increase in numbers), economies of scale would come into play which would reduce their cost even further. And even if the cost was still £2000, are you really going to notice the difference when the average house cost is upwards of £158,000?
If such systems were fitted, the energy costs for most homes would be considerably lower, as the largest source of energy usage would have been removed. It would be easy for the government to do, as it could be mandated by legislation, yet wouldn't need subsidising or cost them anything. But they don't do it. Until they come up with such schemes, government ideas on trying to save energy don't really amount to very much and don't really address the problems.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
More on fuel efficiency and emissions
If you think that the answer to the Toyota Prius of VW Polo Bluemotion is an electric vehicle, consider the following figures:-
Figures from IET Engineering & Technology magazine, 6th-19th June 2009, pg 22
How green your electric vehicle is will depend very much on the generation source of its power, not taking into account the battery technology used, and if it is Lithium Ion batteries, then it will suffer in the same way as the Toyota Prius. Green cars either need a whole new power source, or a much greener source for the electricity generating stations. Without either of them, then the "green revolution" in motoring will be all hype and no substance.
| Electricity source | CO2 emissions (g/km) |
| Coal | 122.07 |
| Oil | 85.54 |
| Gas | 52.65 |
| Nuclear & Renewable | 0 |
Figures from IET Engineering & Technology magazine, 6th-19th June 2009, pg 22
How green your electric vehicle is will depend very much on the generation source of its power, not taking into account the battery technology used, and if it is Lithium Ion batteries, then it will suffer in the same way as the Toyota Prius. Green cars either need a whole new power source, or a much greener source for the electricity generating stations. Without either of them, then the "green revolution" in motoring will be all hype and no substance.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Sparrows
Disgruntled of Bradley Stoke is not always disgruntled. This week he has been particularly charmed by this family of house sparrows in his garden. Note the young shaking their wings for attention and food, and gaping with their beaks.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The Toyota Prius
One thing that does annoy Disgruntled from Bradley Stoke is the Toyota Prius. Don’t get me wrong, it is an impressive technical tour de force and extremely innovative. What really annoys me is what it represents. There are far too many people buying it to make a statement, saying “look at me, I’m environmentally conscious.” But that’s just it – it isn’t.
There are six cars to consider here, all of a similar size. You can see than the Prius has very good urban cycle figures, although the VW is better, which means that it is good around towns. Get outside of town though and the Ford Focus diesel becomes better, and the VW is even better. So if you are going to do a lot of out of town driving, the Prius scores relatively badly against a turbo diesel. If you do a lot of town driving, the Prius is not a bad option, but it is not the best – the VW beats it hands down, and is £5000 cheaper!
And this is before you consider the life cycle of the car. The Prius uses Lithium ion batteries, and Lithium is a rare metal which requires an energy intensive process to extract it. The battery cells will not last the lifetime of the car and will need replacing, and the recycling of the cells is also energy intensive. This means that taking into account the whole lifecycle of the car, all of the non-hybrid vehicles in the table above are in fact more environmentally friendly and cause less emission of CO2 and other pollutants. If you are purchasing a Prius, all you are doing is making a fashion statement. If you really wanted to be environmentally friendly when driving a car, you would buy the VW and save yourself five grand in the process.
First of all, let’s consider some technical specifications:
| Ford Focus ECOnetic 1.6 TDCi 5 door manual | Ford Focus Zetec 1.6 5 door manual | Ford Focus Zetec 1.8 door manual | Honda Civic 1.8i VTEC SE 5 door | Toyota Prius T4 Hybrid 1.5 VTTi 5 door | Volkswagen Polo 1.4 TDI Bluemotion 5 door | |
| CO2 Emissions | 115 g/km | 159 g/km | 167 g/km | 150 g/km | 104 g/km | 99 g/km |
| Fuel consumption urban cycle | 50.4 mpg | 32.5 mpg | 29.7 mpg | 33.6 mpg | 56.5 mpg | 57.6 mpg |
| Fuel consumption extra urban cycle | 78.4 mpg | 51.4 mpg | 50.4 mpg | 55.4 mpg | 67.3 mpg | 88.3 mpg |
| Fuel consumption combined cycle | 65.7 mpg | 42.2 mpg | 40.3 mpg | 44.8 mpg | 65.7 mpg | 74.3 mpg |
| Kerb Weight | 1357 kg | 1249 kg | 1307 kg | 1251 kg | 1300 kg | 1084 kg |
| List Price (at 22nd June 2009) | - | - | - | - | £18370 | £13315 |
There are six cars to consider here, all of a similar size. You can see than the Prius has very good urban cycle figures, although the VW is better, which means that it is good around towns. Get outside of town though and the Ford Focus diesel becomes better, and the VW is even better. So if you are going to do a lot of out of town driving, the Prius scores relatively badly against a turbo diesel. If you do a lot of town driving, the Prius is not a bad option, but it is not the best – the VW beats it hands down, and is £5000 cheaper!
And this is before you consider the life cycle of the car. The Prius uses Lithium ion batteries, and Lithium is a rare metal which requires an energy intensive process to extract it. The battery cells will not last the lifetime of the car and will need replacing, and the recycling of the cells is also energy intensive. This means that taking into account the whole lifecycle of the car, all of the non-hybrid vehicles in the table above are in fact more environmentally friendly and cause less emission of CO2 and other pollutants. If you are purchasing a Prius, all you are doing is making a fashion statement. If you really wanted to be environmentally friendly when driving a car, you would buy the VW and save yourself five grand in the process.
Why Public Transport Policy Will Not Work
When quoting the costs of transport, the government frequently quotes from figures compiled by the AA which give an average figure per mile for each different type of car taking into account the costs of ownership, depreciation and the like. A typical figure for an average car is something like 40 pence per mile. This is then compared against the cost of taking public transport to try and show that public transport is cheaper.
However, this is a fallacy. Whether I use my car only once per year, or whether I use it every day, I still have to insure the car, I still have to tax it, I still have to get an MOT, and it will still depreciate. Thus when considering the cost of a journey, you don’t take these into account – they are sunk costs which I have to pay whether or not I take the journey by public transport or in my own car. What you take into account are the cost of fuel for the journey, the extra wear and tear caused, and the time. This is what public transport has to compete against, not the overall figure of the lifetime cost of the car. That lifetime cost is also somewhat artificial, as the more I drive my car, the smaller it gets as you can divide down the total cost by an increasing number of files until you hit a limit due to fuel and repair costs.
For further comparison, consider a journey I often make to the local regional shopping centre, a round trip of seven miles. At 40p per mile, that comes to a cost of £2.80. The local bus company wants £3.60 for the same journey, assuming that I can a return ticket (which you cannot buy at certain times). The journey typically takes 12 minutes each way by car, and 45 minutes by bus. That £2.80 is the same cost irrespective of how many people I have in the car, whereas the bus will charge for each passenger. Therefore per person it gets cheaper to take more in the car, whereas it gets more expensive by bus. If you are a family you take the car – it is quicker, and far, far cheaper. And this is just a short journey.
Long distance is no better. Consider a trip to London. If I suddenly find that I need to take a trip to London in the next couple of days, so that I cannot use a cheaper fare, I am likely to find that the ticket will cost something like £70-£80, and will take 1.5 hours. It is a 250 mile round trip. By car the time is 2 hours, and it costs £40 in petrol. If I take three people with me, that is £10 per person. If we went by train, it is still £70 per person, as we each have to pay the same fare. Thus if I go to London, I drive to Richmond, park in the car park next to the tube station (£13 for the day), and take the tube in and save myself a packet.
Thus the government is actually making it more cost effective for us to use the car due to faulty economics. Because the sunk costs are so large for having a car, the marginal cost of each journey is actually quite small, and works out cheaper than public transport. On short journeys it is often quicker (and certainly more reliable – busses may or may not turn up, may not even stop if they do…..), and on longer journeys the costs saved more than make up for the extra time taken, and with our inter-city trains being so slow, the time lost might not be that much either. You are penalised for taking public transport if you are a family, as you have to pay for each person individually, whereas you don’t when taking your car. Until the government realises this and makes it more economically attractive to use public transport, we will continue to use our cars and gridlock be damned. It’s simply not worth our while to change our behaviour.
However, this is a fallacy. Whether I use my car only once per year, or whether I use it every day, I still have to insure the car, I still have to tax it, I still have to get an MOT, and it will still depreciate. Thus when considering the cost of a journey, you don’t take these into account – they are sunk costs which I have to pay whether or not I take the journey by public transport or in my own car. What you take into account are the cost of fuel for the journey, the extra wear and tear caused, and the time. This is what public transport has to compete against, not the overall figure of the lifetime cost of the car. That lifetime cost is also somewhat artificial, as the more I drive my car, the smaller it gets as you can divide down the total cost by an increasing number of files until you hit a limit due to fuel and repair costs.
For further comparison, consider a journey I often make to the local regional shopping centre, a round trip of seven miles. At 40p per mile, that comes to a cost of £2.80. The local bus company wants £3.60 for the same journey, assuming that I can a return ticket (which you cannot buy at certain times). The journey typically takes 12 minutes each way by car, and 45 minutes by bus. That £2.80 is the same cost irrespective of how many people I have in the car, whereas the bus will charge for each passenger. Therefore per person it gets cheaper to take more in the car, whereas it gets more expensive by bus. If you are a family you take the car – it is quicker, and far, far cheaper. And this is just a short journey.
Long distance is no better. Consider a trip to London. If I suddenly find that I need to take a trip to London in the next couple of days, so that I cannot use a cheaper fare, I am likely to find that the ticket will cost something like £70-£80, and will take 1.5 hours. It is a 250 mile round trip. By car the time is 2 hours, and it costs £40 in petrol. If I take three people with me, that is £10 per person. If we went by train, it is still £70 per person, as we each have to pay the same fare. Thus if I go to London, I drive to Richmond, park in the car park next to the tube station (£13 for the day), and take the tube in and save myself a packet.
Thus the government is actually making it more cost effective for us to use the car due to faulty economics. Because the sunk costs are so large for having a car, the marginal cost of each journey is actually quite small, and works out cheaper than public transport. On short journeys it is often quicker (and certainly more reliable – busses may or may not turn up, may not even stop if they do…..), and on longer journeys the costs saved more than make up for the extra time taken, and with our inter-city trains being so slow, the time lost might not be that much either. You are penalised for taking public transport if you are a family, as you have to pay for each person individually, whereas you don’t when taking your car. Until the government realises this and makes it more economically attractive to use public transport, we will continue to use our cars and gridlock be damned. It’s simply not worth our while to change our behaviour.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Push The Button.....
I was listening to the radio this morning when on came the Sugababes and their ditty Push The Button. "My sexy ass has got him in the new dimension" they warbled. Really? Your ass is so big that it has warped space-time itself? You know that this can ultimately lead to gravitational collapse and a black hole. No, don't go there.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)