Off the back foot
18 Sep 2007
A recent example of this came when the BBC binned its planned Planet Relief programme amid concerns that it would undermine its status as an impartial broadcaster.
Could it be that the climate change debate is entering a new, more intelligent phase that values input from those who understand and can make a positive difference to factors impacting the environment?
If so, this is a signal for industry -- not least the process industries -- to get off the back foot and start setting the environmental agenda, rather than leaving it to the a-scientfic elements of the carbon-footprint brigade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
READER REPLIES:
Dr Brian Morris
Couldn’t agree more, the Green lobby are out of touch with the real solution, and the Government still believing its own hype. Even the UN backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seem oblivious of what its own conclusions indicate.
From a scientific stand point the only viable solution is a reduction in the world population, it’s currently estimated that the planet in the long term can only sustain about 20% of today’s population.
Maybe scientist and engineers have to shout louder and stop being politically correct, world population growth has to be stopped and turned into a gradual decline. It won’t be easy with social, political, and religious hurdles to overcome. The consequences of not reducing are just too horrific to think about.
Energy conservation and a move from carbon fuels has a place, but it cannot even remotely save the planet (literally). It’s just a good idea in its own right (as any one in our profession knows) and it might buy us a few more years if done correctly. Pushing the use of energy efficient light bulbs, banning standby modes or plasma TV’s just doesn’t cut it.
Will governments act? Who knows – in the meantime here’s a hot property investment tip, buy property at least 12-metres above sea level and learn to swim!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Robst, Technical Services Manager, Thermocable(F.E.)Ltd
Wow, a brave man with common sense!
Well done!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Porter, BSc, CEng, MIET
Principal Circuit Design Engineer
Ultra Electronics Limited
Controls Division
Cambridge
With reference to the issue of the 'green lobby' in the UK, there are many issues that are, at best, partially understood, with recommendations made that are indicative of that poor understanding. Sadly, this leads to many people pursuing issues in the fallacious belief that they are pursuing the correct approach. For example: -
a) Cars fitted with catalytic converters and associated electronic engine management systems burn more fuel. This is necessary for the catalytic converter to work correctly, where a richer fuel air mixture is required. This means that the engine is producing more Carbon Monoxide than is necessary. This means that when processed through the catalytic converter, the Carbon Monoxide is converted into Carbon Dioxide, the major green house contributor. Cars, such as my 1.8 litre VW Golf GTI from early 1986 does not have a catalytic converter fitted, nor does it have any form of electronic engine management. This means that it can, and has been tuned for maximum fuel efficiency, thereby returning 53 to 54 mpg to and from work, and better on longer journeys. As to Carbon Monoxide levels, 0.1ppm maximum.
Conclusion A: The use of electronic engine management systems and catalytic converters adds to the considerable levels of Carbon Dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. When such cars are run for the first ten minutes, the toxic pollution is significantly higher than a car without a catalytic converter fitted, and the optimum fuel air ratio for maximum fuel efficiency and minimum Carbon Dioxide levels is not possible, regardless of whether the engine is at full operating temperature of not.
b) Bring in electric cars as this surely this must be the answer? WRONG! The largest emitted of Carbon Dioxide in the UK are the electricity generating stations, noting that most in the UK consume fossil fuels. This means that even though a pure electric car may appear to be 'green,' this is far from the truth as the electricity generated results in considerable Carbon Dioxide being dumped into the atmosphere. It is only when environmentally sound electricity generation becomes dominant, that electric cars will be green.
Conclusion B: Electric cars are green themselves, but the present generation of electric energy means that the issue of Carbon Dioxide emissions is shifted, not solved. It is only when non-polluting generation of electrical energy is present, that the green issue can be instigated.
c) Fluorescent lighting is another solution being proposed, but once again several issues have been missed. These include the use of mercury in such lighting, where disposal imparts a toxic waste product. As to being green being using less electrical energy, not quite as good as many people believe, as there is a problem with Power Factor. As filament light bulbs are effectively a pure resistive load, there is no phase shift between Current and Voltage. Having no phase shift means a perfect Power Factor of 1. Having a perfect Power Factor of 1 means minimum loss at the power station. Bring in a device, such as a Fluorescent lamp, and the power factor becomes anything but perfect. Without a Power Factor of 1, the level of power wasted at the Power Station now increases. In other words, the problem is shifted, not solved. In addition, most fluorescent lamps are not suitable for use with dimmer switches, thereby encouraging more light to be used than necessary.
Conclusion C: The fact or mercury being used in fluorescent lamps, and the lack of Power Factor correction, at least in domestic supplies, means that several issues of significance have been ignored. Those rushing out to purchase fluorescent lamps for use in their domestic lighting system are unaware that what they are doing is less than perfect.
d) Traffic calming is becoming increasingly common, especially in residential and other built up areas. These are presented in the form of chicanes and speed hubs. The result is not so much traffic calming, but increased stop start motoring and congestion. This means slower journeys by car, bus, etc., more pollution, more Carbon Dioxide emissions, etc. In other words, it does not matter whether you travel by public transport, or personally owned car, the result is always the same, more Carbon Dioxide emission. This is exacerbated, as noted above, by the use of road vehicles with catalytic converters fitted.
Conclusion D: The use of traffic calming measures makes Carbon Dioxide emissions worse, not better. This is especially true with the use of road chicanes, as you do not know when you will be able to pass through. This means waiting with the engine running, polluting, for as long as the wait. In some cases, with chicanes, this can be as long as ten minutes of pure pollution.
Overall Conclusions: Most of what is being promoted as being 'green' is clearly aimed at giving the impression that something is being done, with the hope that most people will not see through the fact that it is mostly a political stance, not a practical solution. In some cases, as I have personally observed, many of the 'green' lobby have grasped on to fallacious conclusions regarding 'green' solutions and promote their fallacious recommendations. For personal experience, they have been surprised when I have needed to correct their ideas, where in every case it was clear that they had partial knowledge only. For this reason, many members of the public are actively pursuing what they think are environmentally sound ideas, without realising that they are pursuing a false recommendation or recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please email your views on this or any other aspect of Process Engineering to:
Your feedback is much appreciated
Patrick Raleigh
Editor
Process Engineering
