Another pollution paper

Stuart Lamble said:

On 2006-01-18, Theo Bekkers <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am also an immigrant but I came here by an efficient boat, rather
than an aircraft. The fact that I needed to be fed and bedded for
the 28 days of the journey probably detracts from the boat engine's
effective efficiency. :-)

Not as much as you might think. The food would have been eaten by you
anyway, so the only contributing factor it makes is to the amount of
energy needed to move the boat through the water.

Boats need to factor in cost of staff. My recent trip on the Virgo had 1
staff per two paying passengers.

Theo

Theo Bekkers said:

And they still do. My parents did, I did. But now most people in Perth live
too far from where they work to make cycling a viable proposition. We would
need to live closer (probably within 15 kms) to make cycling to work viable
for everyone. And that entails higher density living. I would imagine it is
worse in Syd/Melb.

Naah, we would get a REAL village for a change, with industrial areas
being spread all over the city. So instead of oceans of suburbia, it
would be all broken up.

Now that would be a real challenge for some town planners and local
government.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart Lamble" <[email hidden]>
Newsgroups: aus.bicycle
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Another pollution paper

Quoted message said:

Having said that, I seem to recall that the 747 (for example) uses less
fuel per passenger than a car carrying a single passenger, for a given
distance, assuming a full load of people. Let's see ... 450 passengers,
14,816 km, up to 227,600 litres of fuel ... that's 6,667,200 passenger
kilometres, at 29.3 km per litre. Not bad. In comparison, the A380 can
carry 555 passengers 15,000 km with a load of up to 310,000 litres of
fuel ... that's 8,325,000 passenger kilometres, at 26.8 km per litre.

To take things *way* off topic, I've heard that Emirates will be setting
up at least one 380 in the 800 passenger configuration (ie: all cattle
class) and flying it to London from Australia. Assuming from Perth,
that's 11,599,200 passenger km at 37.4 km per litre. Seriously
impressive.

All that's with jet turbines, though; internal combustion engines do
better when the speed varies.

Air travel is growing so rapidly (tripling in last 20 years) that the air
pollution/GH gas emission caused by aviation is becoming significant. Air
lines act as if growth can go on indefinitely but maybe demand for air
travel will have to be limited and airlines and passengers will have to pay
more for the environmental damage they cause, similar to the auto industry.
Seems they get off lightly at present. see
http://www.cfit.gov.uk/pn/030901/.

fractalbug

Quoted message said:

Theo beckers wrote

And they still do. My parents did, I did. But now most people in Perth live
too far from where they work to make cycling a viable proposition. We would
need to live closer (probably within 15 kms) to make cycling to work viable
for everyone. And that entails higher density living. I would imagine it is
worse in Syd/Melb.

Not sure where I saw the stat but in a city like Melbourne, a considerable percentage of workers live within @ 15 kms of their workplace.

Pat

[quote="Stuart Lamble"]On

Having said that, I seem to recall that the 747 (for example) uses less
fuel per passenger than a car carrying a single passenger, for a given
distance, assuming a full load of people. Let's see ... 450 passengers,
14,816 km, up to 227,600 litres of fuel ... that's 6,667,200 passenger
kilometres, at 29.3 km per litre. Not bad. In comparison, the A380 can
carry 555 passengers 15,000 km with a load of up to 310,000 litres of
fuel ... that's 8,325,000 passenger kilometres, at 26.8 km per litre.

To take things *way* off topic, I've heard that Emirates will be setting
up at least one 380 in the 800 passenger configuration (ie: all cattle
class) and flying it to London from Australia. Assuming from Perth,
that's 11,599,200 passenger km at 37.4 km per litre. Seriously
impressive.


Not sure how it compares, but a 747 flying round trip London-New York produces as much CO2 as does 80 large-engine vehicles over the course of a year. Each passenger is then responsible for @ 20% of the cars equivalent emissions. For around-the-world travellers, it would not be too difficult to exceed the cars emission levels in one overseas trip.


Pat

Terry Collins said:

Naah, we would get a REAL village for a change, with industrial areas
being spread all over the city. So instead of oceans of suburbia, it
would be all broken up.

Suburbs came into being because people got personal transport that enabled
them to live as far as they could from the factories they worked in. You
think they want ot move to (even a limited) industrial area?

Quoted message said:

Now that would be a real challenge for some town planners and local
government.

We'll probably have a clean replacement for the IC engine before that
happens.

Theo

Theo Bekkers said:

Quoted message said:

Giving the consumer more palatable alternatives which are greener
either by moving more pax per vehicle or encouraging non-polluting
means of transport such as walking or cycling should be encouraged
over private vehicle use.

Agreed. I will not go to the theatre any more. 1000 people turning up at a
movie theatre on a wet evening on bicycles would be interesting.

My opinion is that half the problem resides in a sweat adverse society.

There is nothing wrong with fresh sweat. It doesn't smell, it performs a vital function yet modern society shys away from sweat like it's scurvy or something.

There's a few at the office who would like to cycle but they have to meet clients at different premises to the office as part of their working day. Suit and tie are the order of the day and that just isn't compatible with cycling around the city in a 35 degree plus day.

Can't comment myself, not tried it. I'm lucky, I'm a tech so get to wear comfy stuff :-) Well stuff I'm comfortable in anyway.

EuanB said:

My opinion is that half the problem resides in a sweat adverse society.

There is nothing wrong with fresh sweat. It doesn't smell, it performs a vital function yet modern society shys away from sweat like it's scurvy or something.

There's a few at the office who would like to cycle but they have to meet clients at different premises to the office as part of their working day. Suit and tie are the order of the day and that just isn't compatible with cycling around the city in a 35 degree plus day.

Can't comment myself, not tried it. I'm lucky, I'm a tech so get to wear comfy stuff :-) Well stuff I'm comfortable in anyway.

Not to mention that riding a bike in a suit and tie tends to make people think you're a Mormon :eek:

Get rid of the suit & tie mentality I reckon - would make everything so much easier...

Theo Bekkers said:

Terry Collins wrote:

Quoted message said:

Suburbs came into being because people got personal transport that enabled
them to live as far as they could from the factories they worked in. You
think they want ot move to (even a limited) industrial area?

That was the point I was making; the available technology is a factor in
the form.

Quoted message said:

......

Quoted message said:

We'll probably have a clean replacement for the IC engine before that
happens.

We have it (electric), just a slight problem with "clean"
greenhouse gases or nuclear waste seems to be the options.

I guess it doesn't make the oil/other companies millions either.

The modern trick is to sell them something that they have to keep paying
for. We were discussing this the other day when yet another helpful
reminder letter turned up about time to "replace your filters, but we
think you should replace the whole unit".

eddiec said:

EuanB said:

My opinion is that half the problem resides in a sweat adverse society.

There is nothing wrong with fresh sweat. It doesn't smell, it
performs a vital function yet modern society shys away from sweat like
it's scurvy or something.

There's a few at the office who would like to cycle but they have to
meet clients at different premises to the office as part of their
working day. Suit and tie are the order of the day and that just isn't
compatible with cycling around the city in a 35 degree plus day.

Can't comment myself, not tried it. I'm lucky, I'm a tech so get to
wear comfy stuff :-) Well stuff I'm comfortable in anyway.

Not to mention that riding a bike in a suit and tie tends to make
people think you're a Mormon :eek:

Get rid of the suit & tie mentality I reckon - would make everything so
much easier...

God has blessed me with a PhD scholarship...

Tam*likes running all over the campus and doesn't mind the sweat*

EuanB said:

I'm a tech

That explains a lot! :-)

I used to be tech and had to wear a suit, fortunately we had showers and
change rooms at work. Now that I'm a "Director" I can wear whatever I want.

Theo

Terry Collins said:

Theo Bekkers wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We'll probably have a clean replacement for the IC engine before that
happens.

We have it (electric), just a slight problem with "clean"
greenhouse gases or nuclear waste seems to be the options.

I guess it doesn't make the oil/other companies millions either.

We burn coal instead, but we don't want to give that up because we are the
world's largest exporter of coal. The news mentioned this week that we have
40% of the world's uranium and a very large part of the Beauxite.

Theo

EuanB said:

My opinion is that half the problem resides in a sweat adverse society.

There is nothing wrong with fresh sweat. It doesn't smell, it performs a vital function yet modern society shys away from sweat like it's scurvy or something.

There's a few at the office who would like to cycle but they have to meet clients at different premises to the office as part of their working day. Suit and tie are the order of the day and that just isn't compatible with cycling around the city in a 35 degree plus day.

Can't comment myself, not tried it. I'm lucky, I'm a tech so get to wear comfy stuff :-) Well stuff I'm comfortable in anyway.

Sweat = manual labour as performed by the working classes. And we wouldn't want to be part of the sweaty classes, would we.

I wear a suit and tie year round in Perth. I cycle to work year round. My office is on the fringe of the Perth CBD. If I have meetings outside my office building, I walk, catch a free CAT (Central Area Transit) bus which stops outside the door, catch a cab or borrow an office car if the meeting is further afield.

Neither wearing a suit nor going to meetings during the day stops me riding to and from work.

SteveA

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:04:25 +0800

Theo Bekkers said:

EuanB said:

I'm a tech

That explains a lot! :-)

I used to be tech and had to wear a suit, fortunately we had showers and
change rooms at work. Now that I'm a "Director" I can wear whatever I want.

as long as the sleeves tie in the back.

Zebee

Theo Bekkers said:

We would
need to live closer (probably within 15 kms) to make cycling to work viable
for everyone. And that entails higher density living.

*Higher* density, but not necessarily *high* density. I was very surprised
when I first came to Perth how big most house blocks were, even in the
poorer areas. Back in Edinburgh I lived in a small (but fairly standard
sized) flat in a block of six. It took up less floor space than house I'm
living in at the moment. My parents live in one of the nicer suburbs
(considered low density) of Edinburgh, and their block would probably only
be about 500-600sq.m. which is about the size where people in Perth start
asking how you can live on such a tiny block. Mind you, for the price of
that, you could probably buy one of the nicer river front properties in
Applecross :-\

If we ever (ha!) go down the route of using far fewer cars, then we'd
probably see massive changes in working patterns. Probably just a reversal
of the ones that the car has enabled (i.e. big commutes). I think that
would be the bigger stumbling block rather than housing density.

Graeme

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:43:13 +1100

SteveA said:

Neither wearing a suit nor going to meetings during the day stops me
riding to and from work.

whereas if you were in the humid city of Sydney (or worse, Brisbane)
with expensive public transport....

Zebee

quote='Graeme Dods'On Wed said:

We would
need to live closer (probably within 15 kms) to make cycling to work viable
for everyone. And that entails higher density living.

*Higher* density, but not necessarily *high* density. I was very surprised
when I first came to Perth how big most house blocks were, even in the
poorer areas. Back in Edinburgh I lived in a small (but fairly standard
sized) flat in a block of six. It took up less floor space than house I'm
living in at the moment. My parents live in one of the nicer suburbs
(considered low density) of Edinburgh, and their block would probably only
be about 500-600sq.m. which is about the size where people in Perth start
asking how you can live on such a tiny block. Mind you, for the price of
that, you could probably buy one of the nicer river front properties in
Applecross :-\

If we ever (ha!) go down the route of using far fewer cars, then we'd
probably see massive changes in working patterns. Probably just a reversal
of the ones that the car has enabled (i.e. big commutes). I think that
would be the bigger stumbling block rather than housing density.

Graeme[/QUOTE]

Tell that to the 'save our suburbs' mob.... bloody wealthy inner-east melbourne lawyers with the 'not in my backyard' syndrome.... 🙄 I remember once in a class we did a quick show of hands about Melbourne's density. Most said 'medium' overall, to be very surprised that it's low to very low on average.

I've actually been pleased to see an increase in density in the inner-middle suburbs of Melbourne as it's been a long-time coming - it's just a shame that at the same time we're also getting the outspread of even more far-flung new housing developments, and still a resistance for organisations to take on a village mentality and set themselves up outside the CBD... but maybe that's starting to happen with various technology parks and so on - i'm not sure.

I agree that the biggest stumbling block probably isn't town planners (having trained as one myself in a past life!) who would probably like higher density and thus more efficient suburbs, but encouraging people to change their cultural habits about how we live (not helped by bloody Delphin ads promoting qtr acre blocks out in the paddocks), and for business to rethink how/where they operate.

Whatever happened to this high-technology telecommuting lifestyle we were supposed to have by now? 🙄 Guess it's in the same category as jetpacks and monorails...

Graeme Dods said:

*Higher* density, but not necessarily *high* density. I was very
surprised when I first came to Perth how big most house blocks were,
even in the poorer areas. Back in Edinburgh I lived in a small (but
fairly standard sized) flat in a block of six. It took up less floor
space than house I'm living in at the moment. My parents live in one
of the nicer suburbs (considered low density) of Edinburgh, and their
block would probably only be about 500-600sq.m. which is about the
size where people in Perth start asking how you can live on such a
tiny block.

I live in a semi-rural estate of 650 blocks where the minimum size allowed
is 2 hectares (20,000 metres) and the minimum size house you can build is
150 metres. :-)

I like the stillness, the space, the vegy garden, the chooks. But it is too
far to ride the treadly to work. We've had the 11 yo grandson staying and
went for a ride around the block last evening. My 'block' is 3.5kms around.
The only problem is the 50 metre elevation in the first 800 metres from
home.

Theo

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:43:13 +1100

SteveA said:

Neither wearing a suit nor going to meetings during the day stops me
riding to and from work.

whereas if you were in the humid city of Sydney (or worse, Brisbane)
with expensive public transport....

Zebee

Brisbane CBD also has a free loop bus, and all the buses are air
conditioned. In addition, concession fares are offered to all
pensioners, school and university students (not just school OR
university as in some cities.) So perhaps stick with Sydney as your
example.

Tam

Theo Bekkers said:

I live in a semi-rural estate of 650 blocks where the minimum size allowed
is 2 hectares (20,000 metres) and the minimum size house you can build is
150 metres. :-)

Oh we know, I think you've mentioned it once or twice 🙂

Quoted message said:

My 'block' is 3.5kms around.
The only problem is the 50 metre elevation in the first 800 metres from
home.

Sounds crappy, I'll take it off your hands for a couple of hundred 🙂

Graeme