The largest Civic Type R club forum

[Gravy]

Sheep often get supplementary feeding - "sheep nuts".

... that is cruel and inhumane ... nasty, horrible Kiwis ... I'm boycotting their hairy green fruit from now on, as a protest

Farmers sometimes use artificial fertilisers on grazing land - this makes the grass grow faster, providing more food for the sheep.

Sheep aren't usually treated to electric heating and lighting, but farm buildings, slaughterhouses, offices and the rest of the infrastructure needed to support a farming industry are.

I was just having a laugh really mate, but I do find it difficult to accept that shipping lamb from NZ produces less CO2 than rearing it in a big field in Wales ... unless they are shipping it over here in sailing ships.
I wouldn't mind seeing the maths behind that conclusion ...

Interesting post though, seriously. :thumbup:

[Ali]

Polar bear populations are rising. Just thought I'd mention it.

Even with all the ones Ali is killing? :scratch:

I can't run the f**kers over fast enough. Think I need snow tyres.

[mc36155]

Pray, enlighten, do!

it was being said that mining is the way of the future, as if it isnt here now and has been for, on a large scale, decades. as if to imply that the writter was unaware of where the every day products in thier house came from, or does not like to think to much a bout this.

bring on the leg of lamb statement and i hope you understand where i was coming from.

[Gravy]

Pray, enlighten, do!

it was being said that mining is the way of the future, as if it isnt here now and has been for, on a large scale, decades. as if to imply that the writter was unaware of where the every day products in thier house came from, or does not like to think to much a bout this.

bring on the leg of lamb statement and i hope you understand where i was coming from.

I think so ... I had a bit of a political debate with Papillon before and it has messed with my head :vconf:
Might take some time to recover.

Gravy likes lamb!!

[mc36155]

If specifically advertising your cars as having low emissions isn't environmentalism, then what is? Because if Honda and Toyota accept these cars are no better for the environment, then they are ill conceived, cynical marketing exercises.

As for the comment about mining. The majority of parts in cars are mined from readily available mineral sources found in concentrated regions and requiring relatively small mining enterprises for very large amounts of raw ore. Iron is the 4th most abundant element on Earth and aluminium THE most abundant metallic element in the Earth's crust, after all. Lithium, Nickel and Cadmium are far rarer and less concentrated elements requiring massively greater destruction of the surface of the planet for much smaller amounts.Lithium actually involves greater expendature of energy to retrieve than it can ever hope to release in a battery as it's never found in a pure state, only in compounds that require splitting, and it only occurs at an average occurence in rock of 50ppm. Nickel is only abundant in the Earth's core and is almost as rare to find on the surface as Lithium, hence the gigantic strip mines required to reclaim them.

And we all know that the plastics involved in cars are oil based so don't require mining, just drilling.

So it's a very fair point, IMO, that encouraging the mining of rare and widespread scattered elements is far more damaging to the environment than any theoretical benefit these hybrids will ever offer.

the rarer elements that you speak of are usually produced as a by product of an operation who's main purpose is the mining of the abundant metals and hence the destruction caused in their extraction could be said to be smaller as the destruction would be present anyway due to the extraction of the main stay metal of the process, by one get one free. in some situations these rarer minerals are the only or the main stay material of the mine site, however for this to be the case they have to be concentrated in the earths crust to such levels that their extraction methods are akin to what would be employed for more common base metals i.e. copper, zinc ect. yes on average these metals are rare in the earths crust, which is why there are not many sites mining them as places where they are concentrated enough to mine them are similarly rare. you cannot just go dig up some random ground and process it to get every element under the sun. so i do not see the development of every last spot of land to a strip mine.
Also the methods that you describe as harmful will be a variation on a theme, i.e. basically the same process used to process a vast number of other metals. in many cases it is just a case of varying the pH at which the process is conducted. so if we are to ditch these processes for the sake of lithium then you will find that the majority of electrical items that we currently take for granted will not exist or at least not at their current prices because the whole extractive industry will have taken a big leap back to the early 70s. besides all of the above can be easily conducted without harming the environment/planet, and is done so as we speak.

with the plastics comment i was assuming that your transient "save the world" mentality would have included this industry under the umbrella of harmful activities.

i am slightly bemused as your current stance is slightly at odds with your signature.

[Ali]

You mistake me for an environmentalist, which couldn't be further from the truth, but I see absolutely no point in idiotic hybrid bullsh1t cars when there is no evidence that they're any better for the environment, and a hell of a lot of evidence to suggest they are, in fact, significantly worse.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=27

http://www.journalstar.com/business/art ... 244b1.html

http://www.newcarpark.com/blog/?p=68

And if lithium is merely mined as an additional mineral, why are there specific lithium mines springing up across South America, specifically in the Atacama in Chile & Salar De Uyuni in Bolivia, as well as dozens across Zimbabwe, pouring money into Mugabe's foul regime? These mine nothing but lithium, and the increased requirement for lithium that hybrids will result in will only make the situation worse, as well as the exploitation of poorly regulated third world mining and Chinese refinement plants all the more dangerous. But hey, don't let that stop all the hybrid fans from polishing their halos in the Western world, safely ensconsed in their own smugness and underpowered, overcomplicated automotive white elephant. They are pointless, media centric, showroom bullsh1t cars with no future and certainly not the next step in an oil, and let's face the real facts, Middle East free, energy rich future.

[mc36155]

You mistake me for an environmentalist, which couldn't be further from the truth, but I see absolutely no point in idiotic hybrid bullsh1t cars when there is no evidence that they're any better for the environment, and a hell of a lot of evidence to suggest they are, in fact, significantly worse.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=27

http://www.journalstar.com/business/art ... 244b1.html

http://www.newcarpark.com/blog/?p=68

And if lithium is merely mined as an additional mineral, why are there specific lithium mines springing up across South America, specifically in the Atacama in Chile & Salar De Uyuni in Bolivia, as well as dozens across Zimbabwe, pouring money into Mugabe's foul regime? These mine nothing but lithium, and the increased requirement for lithium that hybrids will result in will only make the situation worse, as well as the exploitation of poorly regulated third world mining and Chinese refinement plants all the more dangerous. But hey, don't let that stop all the hybrid fans from polishing their halos in the Western world, safely ensconsed in their own smugness and underpowered, overcomplicated automotive white elephant. They are pointless, media centric, showroom bullsh1t cars with no future and certainly not the next step in an oil, and let's face the real facts, Middle East free, energy rich future.

lithium is not solely mined as a bi-product but often is, and clearly as the demand for the metal increases then the price of the material will rise, consequently sites that were once uneconomic due to the grade or mineralogical factors now become an economic prospect. there are mines springing up everyday for all sorts of minerals using the exact same methods, some company's conduct there practices responsibly generally the larger well established ones which have reputations to uphold (though not in all cases), and it is generally the junior mining companies that take risks and do not check every base. also the manner in which the companies conduct their practices is dictated by the laws of the countries in which they operate. Countries with lax laws tend to be underdeveloped countries who are keen to attract large operations, so they can tax/bribe the hell out of them and earn some needed cash and companies that enter in to these environments tend to be the smaller companies who then do not need to conduct practices by the book. but this is the case for every metal that is produced, and has been for decades. but no one seems to pick upon this in a major way, it is merely the irony of the situation with lithium and nickel that gets every one on their high horse. additionally this point is also relevant for oil and gas with which we all currently use. so what ever fuel we use we will come up against this situation in terms of funding "foul regimes". so if mining is to be blamed and stopped in this case then it should be stopped in every case, then where will we be. you'll have no type r thats for sure.

on the point of hybribs in the big picture being just or less economical, i agree, for the moment. but that is down to the technology behind the batteries and their current manufacture process and is not down to mining companies. if it costs a set amount to extract from the ground then it is the task of the designers of the power cells to make them cheap, just like any other product that requires certain materials. if they cannot it will not be a success. The fact that more lithium mines are in development suggests that they can or are near to. every new product starts out expensive at first and are made using methods that are far from sreamlined, take todays top end computers, they can cost upwards of 2 grand, but give it 3 years and you can pick up the equvelent for 1/3 of that. neccesity is the mother of invention and mass production makes it cheap.

also yes these vheicles are targeted at people who are concious of how they are percived and the marketing campaigns paint a rather blue sky image of the situation, but if this is the vhecile to drive clean transprt forward so that a truely green vheicle is realised then so be it. we could just sit here doing nothing and carry on pumping out CO2 into the atmosphere from the fear that to reach the goal we seek some dirty work needs doing.

[Ali]

CO2 is not the problem. Never has been. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

[smartie]

No Type R version just a rip off Mugen one which will most likely be all mouth and no trousers.

[mc36155]

:roflmao:

CO2 is not the problem. Never has been. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

lol

[Papillon]

:roflmao:

CO2 is not the problem. Never has been. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

lol

Um, if you disagree with a statement of pure fact, I can only conclude you don't understand. CO2 is not a pollutant, without it we'd all be dead.

[mc36155]

:roflmao:

CO2 is not the problem. Never has been. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

lol

Um, if you disagree with a statement of pure fact, I can only conclude you don't understand. CO2 is not a pollutant, without it we'd all be dead.

"substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants."

lol, yes, i understand perfectly what a pollutant is, just like all the other pollutants that occur which no one argues with are also required in our bodys for them to function properly i.e. "we'd all be dead", this is fact, the statement that CO2 is not a pollutant can be true, but given the context under which it was being discussed, i.e. the artificial concentration of this substance within the earths atmosphere, then it is clear that the statement that CO2 is a pollutant, in this context, is pure fact. understand??

[Papillon]

:roflmao:

CO2 is not the problem. Never has been. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

lol

Um, if you disagree with a statement of pure fact, I can only conclude you don't understand. CO2 is not a pollutant, without it we'd all be dead.

"substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants."

lol, yes, i understand perfectly what a pollutant is, just like all the other pollutants that occur which no one argues with are also required in our bodys for them to function properly i.e. "we'd all be dead", this is fact, the statement that CO2 is not a pollutant can be true, but given the context under which it was being discussed, i.e. the artificial concentration of this substance within the earths atmosphere, then it is clear that the statement that CO2 is a pollutant, in this context, is pure fact. understand??

No, sorry, you're still wrong. CO2 is plant food, when it's in the atmosphere. It isn't a pollutant, any more than you can call water a pollutant.

[Ali]

For someone that [s]cuts and pastes articles[/s] seems to be intelligent, if deluded, his grasp of capital letters is sadly lacking.

the artificial concentration of this substance within the earths atmosphere

It's not artificial. See the funny glowing orb in the sky? The one that's 10,000 times larger than Earth? And a gigantic nuclear furnace? Think you might find that we have a culprit...

[Papillon]

Of course, the way people would carry on, you'd never guess that CO2 only makes up 0.038% of the atmosphere, or that 95% of that is completely natural.

[Ali]

Personally, I blame water vapour. Horrible stuff, far more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 could ever dream of. We must ban water, everywhere. People found using water will be flogged. But don't worry, Honda will save us all with a painfully slow hybrid car that looks strangely like a pig.

[Papillon]

Personally, I blame water vapour. Horrible stuff, far more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 could ever dream of. We must ban water, everywhere. People found using water will be flogged. But don't worry, Honda will save us all with a painfully slow hybrid car that looks strangely like a pig.

any more than you can call water a pollutant.

Wasn't accidental.

[mc36155]

:roflmao:

CO2 is not the problem. Never has been. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

lol

Um, if you disagree with a statement of pure fact, I can only conclude you don't understand. CO2 is not a pollutant, without it we'd all be dead.

"substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants."

lol, yes, i understand perfectly what a pollutant is, just like all the other pollutants that occur which no one argues with are also required in our bodys for them to function properly i.e. "we'd all be dead", this is fact, the statement that CO2 is not a pollutant can be true, but given the context under which it was being discussed, i.e. the artificial concentration of this substance within the earths atmosphere, then it is clear that the statement that CO2 is a pollutant, in this context, is pure fact. understand??

No, sorry, you're still wrong. CO2 is plant food, when it's in the atmosphere. It isn't a pollutant, any more than you can water a pollutant.

you really are making this very easy for me guys. The fact that we are burning fossil fuels that contained co2 that has been locked up for tens/hundreds of millions of years which is now being released into the atmosphere in a fraction of this means that its levels are being ARTIFICIALLY elevated (my unwillingness to use capitals is only surpassed by your unwillingness to read, Ali), i.e. it is human activity that is leading to these elevated levels not a natural phenomenon. you will also find that many things are plant food, and many things are food for other things too, yet these can also be pollutants. Yes carbon dioxide is a natural substance in that it exists in nature on planet earth. As do all the other pollutants, these are not shipped in from outer space for the spacial purpose to be considered a pollutant. additionally the notion that just because the atificailly generated CO2 finds its way into an environment containing naturally occurring CO2 i.e. the atmosphere, renders it not a pollutant is ill-founded. this would mean that if we contaminate soil with elevated levels of e.g. cadmium we would have to consider this to be not a pollutant because cadmium is found at some levels in the ground throughout the earth, which is clearly poppycock. on the matter of water this can be considered a pollutant if for example the nature and/or levels of dissolved salts within it are different to that to which it is being introduced. Also it can be considered a pollutant if the temperature of that water is different to that of the water to which it is being introduced. for example if we take the warm water dis-charge case, as cited in the definition quoted above this is a pollutant because as the temperature of water changes the solubility of oxygen within the water also changes. the colder water is the higher the solubility of oxygen. therefore via the introduction of warmer water to a course of water, i.e. a river, then the ecosystem in the river whos survival is dependant upon the naturally higher solubility of oxygen will be starved, i.e. they'd all be dead. any clearer? or shall i fetch the crayons?

And Ali, yes i cut and pasted that definition. If i wrote it myself this would be pure opinion, and in a discussion concerning pure fact its effectiveness would be non-existent, so i hope i can lay claim to your bestowal of intelligence. many thanks.

[Ali]

If i wrote it myself this would be pure opinion

If you wrote it yourself, you might realise what a lot of horsesh1t it is if you had an inkling about the real science behind it. And it's still opinion, regardless of who wrote it.

I could go through a quote by quote destruction of your delusion, but you're welcome to carry on worrying about the end of the world while driving a car that pretends to be the planet's saviour while being no better for the environment than any conventional car.

And we're not so much making it easy for you, as pitying you.

[mc36155]

If i wrote it myself this would be pure opinion

If you wrote it yourself, you might realise what a lot of horsesh1t it is if you had an inkling about the real science behind it. And it's still opinion, regardless of who wrote it.

I could go through a quote by quote destruction of your delusion, but you're welcome to carry on worrying about the end of the world while driving a car that pretends to be the planet's saviour while being no better for the environment than any conventional car.

And we're not so much making it easy for you, as pitying you.

lol, i am not concerned about the state of the environment nor the end of the world, but i am also not pig ignorant about it either. i would sooner drive a petrol fuelled car anyday of the week. ahh but you see your ignorance is making it easy for me, pity me as you will, but more fool you.