https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy87e72yg3o
The carbon footprint of a long-delayed new "green" ferry will be far
larger than the 31-year-old diesel ship that usually serves the route
between the Scottish mainland and the island of Arran.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy87e72yg3o
The carbon footprint of a long-delayed new "green" ferry will be far
larger than the 31-year-old diesel ship that usually serves the route
between the Scottish mainland and the island of Arran.
Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy87e72yg3o
The carbon footprint of a long-delayed new "green" ferry will be far
larger than the 31-year-old diesel ship that usually serves the route
between the Scottish mainland and the island of Arran.
It is somewhat larger. You need to scale the emissions up for the
smaller ferry or down for the larger ferry. Otherwise you are comparing apples to grapefruit.
It's still a fuckton over budget and late though due to gerrymandering politicians.
mm0fmf wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy87e72yg3o
The carbon footprint of a long-delayed new "green" ferry will be far
larger than the 31-year-old diesel ship that usually serves the route
between the Scottish mainland and the island of Arran.
It is somewhat larger. You need to scale the emissions up for the
smaller ferry or down for the larger ferry. Otherwise you are
comparing apples to grapefruit.
Is it likely to make full use of the higher capacity?
I presume a half-empty ferry uses fuel at close to the same rate as a
full one?
It's still a fuckton over budget and late though due to gerrymandering
politicians.
On 30/12/2024 10:30, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy87e72yg3oDid you expect otherwise?
The carbon footprint of a long-delayed new "green" ferry will be far
larger than the 31-year-old diesel ship that usually serves the route
between the Scottish mainland and the island of Arran.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 11:11:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 30/12/2024 10:30, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy87e72yg3oDid you expect otherwise?
The carbon footprint of a long-delayed new "green" ferry will be far
larger than the 31-year-old diesel ship that usually serves the route
between the Scottish mainland and the island of Arran.
It just goes to show that calculating the contribution to global
warming from all sources of emission (CO2, CH4, N2O, water vapour etc)
from mining the raw materials to scrapping and recycling them at their
end of life, is an almost impossible task. Results from such
calculations are quite meaningless.
Perhaps they should have powered it with a nuclear reactor as per a
nuclear submarine. That would really have given them something to
boast about.
In article <c4c5njdoe4lg81br4tm7lvdu7kd8lnv562@4ax.com>,
Chris Hogg <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 11:11:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 30/12/2024 10:30, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy87e72yg3oDid you expect otherwise?
The carbon footprint of a long-delayed new "green" ferry will be far
larger than the 31-year-old diesel ship that usually serves the route
between the Scottish mainland and the island of Arran.
It just goes to show that calculating the contribution to global
warming from all sources of emission (CO2, CH4, N2O, water vapour etc)
from mining the raw materials to scrapping and recycling them at their
end of life, is an almost impossible task. Results from such
calculations are quite meaningless.
Perhaps they should have powered it with a nuclear reactor as per a
nuclear submarine. That would really have given them something to
boast about.
but it's in Scotland. There "nuclear" means 'bombs'.
Perhaps they should have powered it with a nuclear reactor as per a+100
nuclear submarine. That would really have given them something to
boast about.
On 30/12/2024 15:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
Perhaps they should have powered it with a nuclear reactor as per a+100
nuclear submarine. That would really have given them something to
boast about.
It will come, because it has to. But a sealed small reactor isn't here yet. >You only need a couple of MW.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 17:12:41 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 30/12/2024 15:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
Perhaps they should have powered it with a nuclear reactor as per a+100
nuclear submarine. That would really have given them something to
boast about.
It will come, because it has to. But a sealed small reactor isn't here yet. >> You only need a couple of MW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah .
On 30/12/2024 10:30, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy87e72yg3oIt is somewhat larger. You need to scale the emissions up for the
The carbon footprint of a long-delayed new "green" ferry will be far
larger than the 31-year-old diesel ship that usually serves the route
between the Scottish mainland and the island of Arran.
smaller ferry or down for the larger ferry. Otherwise you are comparing >apples to grapefruit.
It's still a fuckton over budget and late though due to gerrymandering >politicians.
The best politicians can do is not make things worse than they already
are.
mm0fmf wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy87e72yg3o
The carbon footprint of a long-delayed new "green" ferry will be far
larger than the 31-year-old diesel ship that usually serves the route
between the Scottish mainland and the island of Arran.
It is somewhat larger. You need to scale the emissions up for the
smaller ferry or down for the larger ferry. Otherwise you are comparing
apples to grapefruit.
Is it likely to make full use of the higher capacity?
I presume a half-empty ferry uses fuel at close to the same rate as a
full one?
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in news:ltfe08FfklcU2 @mid.individual.net:
mm0fmf wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy87e72yg3o
The carbon footprint of a long-delayed new "green" ferry will be far
larger than the 31-year-old diesel ship that usually serves the route
between the Scottish mainland and the island of Arran.
It is somewhat larger. You need to scale the emissions up for the
smaller ferry or down for the larger ferry. Otherwise you are comparing
apples to grapefruit.
Is it likely to make full use of the higher capacity?
I presume a half-empty ferry uses fuel at close to the same rate as a
full one?
The Arran route is a busy one so I imagine they commissioned a greater capacity vessel due to greater demand.
It's a vessel with a 41% increased capacity with only a 35% increse in emissions so I fail to see the justification for the knee jerk negative reaction from the o/p.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 11:11:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 30/12/2024 10:30, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy87e72yg3oDid you expect otherwise?
The carbon footprint of a long-delayed new "green" ferry will be far
larger than the 31-year-old diesel ship that usually serves the route
between the Scottish mainland and the island of Arran.
It just goes to show that calculating the contribution to global
warming from all sources of emission (CO2, CH4, N2O, water vapour etc)
from mining the raw materials to scrapping and recycling them at their
end of life, is an almost impossible task. Results from such
calculations are quite meaningless.
Perhaps they should have powered it with a nuclear reactor as per a
nuclear submarine. That would really have given them something to
boast about.
On 30/12/2024 15:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 11:11:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 30/12/2024 10:30, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy87e72yg3oDid you expect otherwise?
The carbon footprint of a long-delayed new "green" ferry will be far
larger than the 31-year-old diesel ship that usually serves the route
between the Scottish mainland and the island of Arran.
It just goes to show that calculating the contribution to global
warming from all sources of emission (CO2, CH4, N2O, water vapour etc)
from mining the raw materials to scrapping and recycling them at their
end of life, is an almost impossible task. Results from such
calculations are quite meaningless.
Perhaps they should have powered it with a nuclear reactor as per a
nuclear submarine. That would really have given them something to
boast about.
With some lateral thinking they could have come up with a chain ferry -
leave the power source on land.
In article <bOAeP.19$_V_2.9@fx08.ams1>,
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 30/12/2024 15:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 11:11:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 30/12/2024 10:30, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy87e72yg3oDid you expect otherwise?
The carbon footprint of a long-delayed new "green" ferry will be far >>>>> larger than the 31-year-old diesel ship that usually serves the route >>>>> between the Scottish mainland and the island of Arran.
It just goes to show that calculating the contribution to global
warming from all sources of emission (CO2, CH4, N2O, water vapour etc)
from mining the raw materials to scrapping and recycling them at their
end of life, is an almost impossible task. Results from such
calculations are quite meaningless.
Perhaps they should have powered it with a nuclear reactor as per a
nuclear submarine. That would really have given them something to
boast about.
With some lateral thinking they could have come up with a chain ferry -
leave the power source on land.
The Firth of Clyde is a major shipping route. A 25km chain could be quite a hazard
Don't chain ferries usually still have the power on board, just pull themselves along the chain?
Pulling the ferry across from the land side must be more difficult with
one side pulling in and the other paying out lots of wet cable or chain.
On 2025-01-05 20:15, charles wrote:
In article <bOAeP.19$_V_2.9@fx08.ams1>,
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 30/12/2024 15:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 11:11:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 30/12/2024 10:30, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy87e72yg3oDid you expect otherwise?
The carbon footprint of a long-delayed new "green" ferry will be far >>>>>> larger than the 31-year-old diesel ship that usually serves the route >>>>>> between the Scottish mainland and the island of Arran.
It just goes to show that calculating the contribution to global
warming from all sources of emission (CO2, CH4, N2O, water vapour etc) >>>> from mining the raw materials to scrapping and recycling them at their >>>> end of life, is an almost impossible task. Results from such
calculations are quite meaningless.
Perhaps they should have powered it with a nuclear reactor as per a
nuclear submarine. That would really have given them something to
boast about.
With some lateral thinking they could have come up with a chain ferry -
leave the power source on land.
The Firth of Clyde is a major shipping route. A 25km chain could be quite a >> hazard
Don't chain ferries usually still have the power on board, just pull themselves along the chain?
Pulling the ferry across from the land side must be more difficult with
one side pulling in and the other paying out lots of wet cable or chain.
nib
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy87e72yg3o
The carbon footprint of a long-delayed new "green" ferry will be far
larger than the 31-year-old diesel ship that usually serves the route
between the Scottish mainland and the island of Arran.
nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
On 2025-01-05 20:15, charles wrote:
In article <bOAeP.19$_V_2.9@fx08.ams1>,
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 30/12/2024 15:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 11:11:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 30/12/2024 10:30, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy87e72yg3oDid you expect otherwise?
The carbon footprint of a long-delayed new "green" ferry will be far >>>>>>> larger than the 31-year-old diesel ship that usually serves the route >>>>>>> between the Scottish mainland and the island of Arran.
It just goes to show that calculating the contribution to global
warming from all sources of emission (CO2, CH4, N2O, water vapour etc) >>>>> from mining the raw materials to scrapping and recycling them at their >>>>> end of life, is an almost impossible task. Results from such
calculations are quite meaningless.
Perhaps they should have powered it with a nuclear reactor as per a
nuclear submarine. That would really have given them something to
boast about.
With some lateral thinking they could have come up with a chain ferry - >>>> leave the power source on land.
The Firth of Clyde is a major shipping route. A 25km chain could be quite a >>> hazard
Don't chain ferries usually still have the power on board, just pull
themselves along the chain?
Pulling the ferry across from the land side must be more difficult with
one side pulling in and the other paying out lots of wet cable or chain.
nib
And the chain / cable rises up from the sea or riverbed to the ferry and drops down again after it as it pulls itself along so other vessels can
pass over the chain though not too closely.
NPs idea of having the power plant on shore and pulling the ferry would
see a taught line 25km long at its fullest extent . Thats a lot of drag
and weight to haul , what would 25km of chain strong enough to do that
weigh ? Possibly more than a ferry of a suitable size for the traffic to support.
Chains that get wound around the shaft mechanism on the chain ferries because of the environment of being in sea water and picking up material from the sea bed wear out fairly quickly and one dragged onto land would be pulled in the same environment so would likely wear as well.
The ones on the Sandbanks Ferry across the entrance to Poole Harbour need replacing about every 18 months. at around £70.000 for a crossing around 1200 ft long, what would 25km cost?
A nuclear power plant would be the greenest solution, but hey!
On 05/01/2025 22:10, Marland wrote:
nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
On 2025-01-05 20:15, charles wrote:
In article <bOAeP.19$_V_2.9@fx08.ams1>,
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 30/12/2024 15:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 11:11:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 30/12/2024 10:30, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy87e72yg3oDid you expect otherwise?
The carbon footprint of a long-delayed new "green" ferry will be far >>>>>>>> larger than the 31-year-old diesel ship that usually serves the route >>>>>>>> between the Scottish mainland and the island of Arran.
It just goes to show that calculating the contribution to global
warming from all sources of emission (CO2, CH4, N2O, water vapour etc) >>>>>> from mining the raw materials to scrapping and recycling them at their >>>>>> end of life, is an almost impossible task. Results from such
calculations are quite meaningless.
Perhaps they should have powered it with a nuclear reactor as per a >>>>>> nuclear submarine. That would really have given them something to
boast about.
With some lateral thinking they could have come up with a chain ferry - >>>>> leave the power source on land.
The Firth of Clyde is a major shipping route. A 25km chain could be quite a
hazard
Don't chain ferries usually still have the power on board, just pull
themselves along the chain?
Pulling the ferry across from the land side must be more difficult with
one side pulling in and the other paying out lots of wet cable or chain. >>>
nib
And the chain / cable rises up from the sea or riverbed to the ferry and
drops down again after it as it pulls itself along so other vessels can
pass over the chain though not too closely.
NPs idea of having the power plant on shore and pulling the ferry would
see a taught line 25km long at its fullest extent . Thats a lot of drag
and weight to haul , what would 25km of chain strong enough to do that
weigh ? Possibly more than a ferry of a suitable size for the traffic to >> support.
Chains that get wound around the shaft mechanism on the chain ferries
because of the environment of being in sea water and picking up material
from the sea bed wear out fairly quickly and one dragged onto land would be >> pulled in the same environment so would likely wear as well.
The ones on the Sandbanks Ferry across the entrance to Poole Harbour need
replacing about every 18 months. at around £70.000 for a crossing around >> 1200 ft long, what would 25km cost?
Perhaps a power cable could supply green power that rests on the sea
floor and connected to the boat would be a way forward? It would then
snake on the sea floor as the ferry goes to and from the mainland port.
A nuclear power plant would be the greenest solution, but hey!
On Mon, 1/6/2025 10:09 AM, Fredxx wrote:
A nuclear power plant would be the greenest solution, but hey!
The solution is right on the Internet.
https://www.marinelog.com/news/worlds-largest-battery-electric-vessel-is-set-for-2025-delivery/
"With more than 40 MWh of energy storage"
Would that cost something ? I expect it would :-)
That would be the reason it was not done. Cost.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 22:21:35 |
| Calls: | 9,788 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,749 |
| Messages: | 6,187,959 |