IainCam

[QUOTE=Blueblaster;7687948]While that may be true, you need to remember that petrol and diesel are made from the same stuff, if the requirement for petrol virtually vanishes then the oil companies would need to charge far more for diesel to keep their (ludicruisly high) profit margins.

It's one of the reasons that diesel is much dearer now than it was years ago, because there is a far larger requirement for it now. Used to just be vans/lorries and the odd family car, nowadays I'd say that the vast majority of family cars are TDi's. Part of it is down to the cost of motoring and partly 'cos the performance of the modern TDi is miles better than it was. They still haven't got it to the STi/Evo level yet (although I'd guess that won't take a huge amount of time to get there) but it's getting close to some of the hot hatches once you are on the move (standing start isn't as good though).


I have both, STi and Cupra TDi and the TDi can still be a fun drive, it's just a different style of driving to get the best from it. It isn't anywhere near as rapid as the STi though.

satancom

In work with me i was given a list of company cars I could have.. only two stipulations, diesel and 5 door.. Ended up with an MG ZS at the time as it was the quickest diesel that fitted my price bracket..

Next time around I could include the scooby in my list, so thats a good thing

Blueblaster

[QUOTE=IainCam;7690116]At the risk of sounding like a smart ****, the petrol companies don't actually make much money from selling petrol to us. And even if they did it is possible to argue that they would welcome a full-scale switch to diesel and I'll explain why if anyone really wants to know. I am sure there is a boredom limiter on Scoobynet and I am in danger of triggering it.

c_maguire

Anyone who tries to argue that the fumes chucked out the back of a diesel are less damaging to the environment than those from a petrol car is on a hiding to nothing. Plus, soup up a diesel and just watch the smoke show.
All this carbon footprint talk is mostly hot air and nonsense. Unless we go back to living in mud huts and killing our dinner with spears, the human race will always create waste products that will affect our environment. Sensible logic would suggest we apply the law of diminishing returns, which in the first instance would be to avoid any pointless emissions. Why worry about most European/Jap cars to the Draconian levels we seem to be headed when you have Yank motors with truck size engines and relatively appalling performance leaving a trail of neat petrol behind them? I've changed my lightbulbs where possible for low energy flourescents (no great hardship) but I've also now got a plasma TV (which has a power cable the same size as my kettle). I've saved energy with the bulbs without my life suffering in any way, whereas I'm probably using the energy I saved with the bulbs by watching the TV. The TV has most definitely improved my quality of life.
I can afford to put petrol in my car and driving it has a more positive effect on my well-being than driving some soul-less diesel and I will not be made to feel guilty when I use it.
Don't waste energy unnecessarily, but if we're not careful these environmental crusaders will sap every last drop of enjoyment out of everything.
So, ZX12R next before it's too late.
Kevin

scooby_diver

would probably go for the

Evo X Sportback Diesel !

Red_WRX_Paul

yeh but you stroke ****

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Kevin: don't forget, any time you have central heating on, the heat from your TV is warming the house, which means exactly the same amount of heat DOESN'T have to come from your boiler. You get a double benefit from the energy that goes into the TV; using any fuel only for heat is wasteful.

Conversely, "saving" energy with your fluorescent bulbs just means you burn more gas in your boiler to keep warm. Given that only around 0.5% of the UK's electricity output is used for domestic lighting anyway, that's why I don't plan on changing my filament bulbs any time soon.

David Harris

Diesel STi? STd? 22d? Diesels have come a long way for sure and will no doubt be beneficial to the wallet and perhaps environment but how did it come to this? RC, RB and C McR would be ashamed.

c_maguire

You make a persuasive argument, I'll fish those bulbs out of the trash
Kevin

Blueblaster

I do hope you're just trying to wind people up as everything you just said is so utterly wrong and misleading it is laughable.

1. A television is not a suitable way to heat your home. Even the most ancient of boilers is a million times more efficient.
2. Using filament light bulbs to heat your home is ludicrous and is costing you a fortune.
3. 0.5% of the UK's electicity output may well be used for domestic lighting, but a massive percentage of a family home's electicity bill comes from inefficient filament bulbs. An even bigger amount comes from using a TV as a heat source.

Now, I'm sure I have just risen to the bait, but if I haven't you have just confirmed yourself as the biggest idiot on the internet.

Blueblaster

.

gar

someone poison me, I don't believe this is real, are people really that brainwashed?

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Did you actually learn any science in school?

I'm guessing 'no', so here are a few questions to try and answer. Google the answers to these and we'll see who's the idiot.

1) One of the fundamental principles in physics is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but that it can be converted from one form or another. If electrical power enters a domestic appliance, and is not stored by batteries, capacitors or similar, in what form does it all end up if the appliance is:

a) a television,
b) a light bulb,
c) a kettle?

2) A filament bulb draws 60W of electrical power from the supply. A small proportion is converted into visible light, what happens to the rest?

2b) (for extra credit) : When you turn the lights off, the room goes dark. What happens to the light energy?

3) A fan heater draws 1,000W of electrical power from the supply. With what efficiency does it typically convert that power into heat?

(and now we're getting the idea) :

4) Two rooms, identified as A and B, are identical. The temperature outside each room is the same.

Room A contains an electric fan heater rated at 1000W. Room B contains an audio-visual setup that also draws 1000W.

Which room is warmer?

Blueblaster

I love replies like yours. On the back of one basic fact you go on to talk complete nonsense. You are basically advising people to use the electrcial equipment in their homes to provide heat. The reason this equipment provides heat is because it is massively energy inefficient. An efficient light bulb/TV/whatever will not generate large amounts of heat while it performs the task for which it was orginally designed.

What is really tragic about this is that you are wasting so much money powering your home because you have tagged onto a basic piece of science and applied it incorrectly.

Playsatan

iTrader: (2)

While the economics may not stack up, in theory he is actually correct.

All of the energy will be ultimately converted into heat and this will reduce the amount you need to produce from your heating system. However it may be cheaper to buy that energy in the form of gas rather than electricity.

From a green point of view the only different is what method of producing the energy is more efficient.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Not at all, I'm just trying to make a point - namely, that not every 'energy saving' idea delivers quite the benefit that it may at first appear to do.

The simple fact is, if you're already using electricity to heat the room containing a TV, or a light bulb, there really is no saving by using an efficient appliance. Moreover, a room containing ten 100W bulbs really will get just as warm as one containing a 1000W electric heater - because that's exactly what it does contain.

If you're going to argue with me, at least pick on the part of my argument thus far that does have a hole in it you could drive a bus through, namely: heating a home electrically is hideously inefficient, and is MUCH better done by gas.

The best power stations have an efficiency (ie. useful electrical output / stored chemical energy input) approaching that of a reversible heat engine, somewhere around 40%.

Of this 40%, the best you can possibly do in terms of keeping your home warm is to turn all of it into heat - and that's easy, because it's what happens to all the electricity that's used by the appliances in your home. Nevertheless, the best efficiency you can achieve in terms of (heat in your home / heat released by fuel in power station) is 40%.

Your boiler can do much better. Because what you actually want for half the year is heat, you can just burn the gas directly where it's needed. Because the heat IS the useful product, you get much better efficiency.

All I'm trying to do is help people understand this basic science, and moreover, to understand that it applies to them. I'm not suggesting that you heat your home with televisions, but I do want you to understand that you ARE heating your home with one, and that the heat it produces is EXACTLY the same as heat delivered by a device that's sold for no OTHER purpose than to convert electricity to heat.

The other great, gaping hole in my argument, is that in summer you don't want the excess heat, so an 'energy-saving' bulb really is just that. There really is a benefit, and I wouldn't deny that for a moment. But it's a very small one compared to the amount of energy used for heating, and I for one like a cooked dinner even in summer.

1HENDO

I have driven a van for many years for work and can remember when diesel was a third of the price of petrol till the gov realised that people were buying diesel cars. Then they started putting the prices up via budget and tax rises which now makes it more expensive than petrol. If fuel is priced at £1 a litre roughly 66p of that is duty!
A friend of mine has a mondeo 200 st diesel it looks fairly smart inside is not too bad roomy enough but when i took it for a spin it wernt all that.
May feel nippy if you aint drove owt like a scooby but cant hide the fact it sounded like a transit van! Keep diesels out the wrx range, and agree the new one looks like a Daewoo sort it subaru!!!

1HENDO

Oh yeah another fact- a fully functioning power station burning fossil fuels for our electricity produces more harmful emissions per day than all the countrys cars per year!

Blueblaster

Playsatan and AndyC_772, you are just reinforcing my point. Everyone knows that electrical applicances give off heat and so, yes, that will reduce the amount of conventional heating required to heat your home. However, you are being massively misleading because you mention nothing about the relative efficiency of the electrical items versus a conventional gas boiler. You are giving the impression that, effectively, if you turn on enough lights and televisions you can dispense with your central heating system. I can't be bothered to do the sums but I bet most people on this site earn less money than would be required to heat your home using equipment that just happens to generate heat as a biproduct of it's primary purpose.

By stating (correctly) that electrical appliances give off heat and then going on to say that you aren't going to change to low energy bulbs because it isn't worth it financially, you are giving totally the wrong impression. Low energy light bulbs pay for themselves in a year - that is a fact. You are clearly an educated individual and should think more carefully about writing misleading information which will cost less well-informed people who read this site a lot of money.

c_maguire

Do you think a plasma screen in every room will provide adequate heating in winter or should I invest in a number of additional toasters as backup?
Kevin

Playsatan

iTrader: (2)

Are you for real?

I went out of my way to mention this. Please get your facts straight.

Oh and for the record I was not reinforcing your point, I was pointing out that you were simply dismissing the facts that didn't suit your arguement.

Blueblaster

Having reread your post I see that you did offer some support to my argument and for that I thank you. However, you still added some weight to the opposing argument which is 99.99% flawed.

Do you watch Futurama on SKY? There is an episode where all of Earth's robots are gathered together on a small island and instructed to fart at the same time. The jet blast from their backsides is used to push the planet further from the sun, thereby reducing the sun's heating effect and consequently global warming. Moving the Earth further from the sun will cool the planet. That is a fact. But the idea has only marginally less common sense than suggesting that turning on a plasma TV is a viable way to reduce your heating bills.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

You should do the sums.

Efficiency of a good modern power station is around 40% (fuel -> useful electricity).

Efficiency of a good modern gas boiler is around 80% (fuel -> useful heat).

Efficiency with which ANY electrical appliance turns electricity into heat is almost exactly 100%.

Therefore:

- the best you can do in terms of keeping warm in winter, is to use a gas boiler to heat only the room you're in.

- gas central heating is all well and good, but in all likelihood will be heating rooms that are unoccupied. Heating two rooms needs twice the energy that it takes to heat just one (agreed?)

- light bulbs and TVs are, typically, only switched on when the room is occupied.

I therefore put it to you that electrically heating an occupied room requires about the same amount of fuel as having the central heating on.

Do you think that, somehow, a TV generates less 'warmth' per Watt it draws from the supply than any other device?

I've made a case and backed it up with hard science and actual figures. How can you possibly describe that as 'wrong'?

...but only if you define the heat produced by either bulb as unwanted. For half the year, when it's cold, that is a false assumption. For the other half of the year, I agree entirely that the extra heat generated by a conventional bulb is wasted energy. All I'm trying to do is point out that the situation isn't as simple as the media might have you believe.

Do you not believe it is the responsibility of well-educated people to present relevant facts and figures, even if (and indeed, especially if) they conflict with popular "wisdom"? If you're going to dispute what I'm saying, then at least please do so with equal scientific rigour.

Feffers

Jesus, bore off! Cant we just talk about Imprezas?

Blueblaster

Once again a few facts to make your posting look credible and then several paragraphs of dross. I tell you what, I'll keep heating my home using my 95% efficient Worcester-Bosch boiler powering brand new radiators with TRVs and I'll keep lighting my home with low energy lightbulbs that I never have to replace and which use a fraction of the energy of filament bulbs. And you can carry on living in one room, huddled round your plasma tele as you toast marshmellows on your lightbulbs . And who do you buy your electricity from? I feel this might be a good time to buy some shares.

borat52

The only thing that makes any sense in your argument is the bit about - "who do you buy your electricity from" as you seem to understand that electricity is more expensive per kwh than the gas equivilent. The means its cheaper to heat your house with gas than electricity for one simply reason, gas is much cheaper (about 1/3-1/4 of the cost of electricity from memory).

The bottom line is energy saving bulbs are helpfull, as they replace expensive electric with relatively cheap gas for heating and also outright save energy when you dont need the heating on. However every watt you take away with an energy saving lightbulb needs to be replaced by a watt from central heating when you need the place warmed up (which if you heat through gas will be a cheaper way of doing it).

Blueblaster

Precisely! Gas is much cheaper. And therefore only a total dipstick heats their home using electricity. I don't have issue with the science behind converting electrical energy into heat. What I do have an issue with is someone trying to be clever by using that piece of science to imply that it makes financial sense to use heat from electrical appliances to heat their home. This is dumb from a financial point of view and also from an environmental point of view as up to 75% of the electricity generated by power stations is lost getting that energy from the power station to your house. So gas is cheaper AND better for the environment.