• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: Bio-diesel 159

"David Hansen" <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3413a415muno9bvgec155kq4g8oo7kfach@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 05:31:51 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Matt
> Forbes <MJForbes@gmail.com> wrote this:-
>
>>Just spotted this - http://tinyurl.com/5fhtoc (text reproduced below)
>>- the Daily Mail reporting on the fact that SWT have followed in
>>Virgin's footsteps and modified a 159 to run on the fossil-fuel-
>>friendly diesel derivative.
>
> "A mixture of soya, rape seed and diesel" sounds to me like an
> agrofuel, rather than a biofuel. See
> <http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/index.php> for some of the concerns
> about agrofuels.
>
> If they were planning to run this train on used chip shop oil that
> would be a different matter, but if they want to be green they
> should be working out how to electrify the line all the way to
> Exeter. Then the train could be powered by a variety of sources
> which don't involve shafting the poor around the world,
> deforestation and increased greenhouse gas emissions.
>
But is electrification any more environmentally friendly?
At the source of traction its certainly cleaner, and can produce more power
to weight, but its just moved the pollution from the train to the power
station. Plus there's all the transmission losses to consider which, when
generating electricity from fossil fuels, makes this less efficient and
creates more pollution.
However if the generation is to be from hydro or nuclear sources then
electric trains become more viable in terms of efficiency and certainly
pollution. Admittedly nuclear will leave a legacy but what other viable
alternatives to a "clean" source of power other than hydro? With wind power
the whole country would have to be covered with the blot on the landscape
turbines and still wouldn't be able to produce enough power for our needs.

Antworten