Greta Thunberg

[Gelsons Dad]

Just got to this thread.
Thanks Damo, no need for me to add anything.

 

[2sheikhs]

I work in the industry that makes this "eco friendly" yacht that she's sailed on. I know the resources and energy needed to get from raw material to finished product. It would have been much kinder to the planet if Greta and the crew would have chartered a private jet.

 

[1.618034]

I work in the industry that makes this "eco friendly" yacht that she's sailed on. I know the resources and energy needed to get from raw material to finished product. It would have been much kinder to the planet if Greta and the crew would have chartered a private jet.

If you know the resources and energy needed then you'll be able to supply us with the numbers. I'd be interested to see them.

Also, did they scrap the boat after it got to NY? Or can it be used multiple times?

 

[2sheikhs]

If you know the resources and energy needed then you'll be able to supply us with the numbers. I'd be interested to see them.

Also, did they scrap the boat after it got to NY? Or can it be used multiple times?

It can be used multiple times, as can a private jet.
What we do with the product is just one part of the process and our utility bills are horrific. I doubt that my employer would appreciate me taking copies of the bills and posting them on a public forum. In fact I'd probably be sacked as we have to sign confidentiality agreements ( assuming that you're not going to believe me unless I offer forensic details to the penny).
Think about the whole process. The carbon is mined by machinery. It's made into thread by machinery and put onto spools. It's then sent to the weavers who loom it into roll form. It's then sent to the impregnator who coats it in resin (which has also been through a mining and extraction process). It's then cooked in a gas fired tower, with electric fans to blow the heat and electric fans to extract the resulting fumes. It's then sent to the formers who use machinery to cut the product to shape and then it's put in a heated press for lamination. Between each process, the product is transported by land, sea or air.
It's not the raw material that makes carbonfibre/ kevlar products so expensive, it's the amount of labour and energy resources needed to reach the end product.

 

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

It can be used multiple times, as can a private jet.
What we do with the product is just one part of the process and our utility bills are horrific. I doubt that my employer would appreciate me taking copies of the bills and posting them on a public forum. In fact I'd probably be sacked as we have to sign confidentiality agreements ( assuming that you're not going to believe me unless I offer forensic details to the penny).
Think about the whole process. The carbon is mined by machinery. It's made into thread by machinery and put onto spools. It's then sent to the weavers who loom it into roll form. It's then sent to the impregnator who coats it in resin (which has also been through a mining and extraction process). It's then cooked in a gas fired tower, with electric fans to blow the heat and electric fans to extract the resulting fumes. It's then sent to the formers who use machinery to cut the product to shape and then it's put in a heated press for lamination. Between each process, the product is transported by land, sea or air.
It's not the raw material that makes carbonfibre/ kevlar products so expensive, it's the amount of labour and energy resources needed to reach the end product.

Carbon uses on average 14 times more energy to produce than steel. This is ignoring all the travel that is involved during the process too, like you have mentioned.

 

[1.618034]

It can be used multiple times, as can a private jet.
What we do with the product is just one part of the process and our utility bills are horrific. I doubt that my employer would appreciate me taking copies of the bills and posting them on a public forum. In fact I'd probably be sacked as we have to sign confidentiality agreements ( assuming that you're not going to believe me unless I offer forensic details to the penny).
Think about the whole process. The carbon is mined by machinery. It's made into thread by machinery and put onto spools. It's then sent to the weavers who loom it into roll form. It's then sent to the impregnator who coats it in resin (which has also been through a mining and extraction process). It's then cooked in a gas fired tower, with electric fans to blow the heat and electric fans to extract the resulting fumes. It's then sent to the formers who use machinery to cut the product to shape and then it's put in a heated press for lamination. Between each process, the product is transported by land, sea or air.
It's not the raw material that makes carbonfibre/ kevlar products so expensive, it's the amount of labour and energy resources needed to reach the end product.

Fair enough, I'm aware that there must be large energy costs, but an estimate would be good. I really don't expect copies of the bills to be posted online.

Like I said, I'm interested in the facts so I can have a more informed opinion. You said that you knew, so I asked you to share your knowledge on the subject.

The boat wasn't made just for that trip. It had already been made, just like the aircraft that she apparently should've used.

Surely the point is that the boat doesn't burn any fuel during it's lifetime and dump the waste products in the upper atmosphere.

Carbon uses on average 14 times more energy to produce than steel. This is ignoring all the travel that is involved during the process too, like you have mentioned.

Thanks for the info. Having numbers to work with is a bonus.

Now to find out how much carbon is in the boat vs steel in the aircraft and its engines.

We've still got the aviation fuel per trip to factor in, but we're getting there.

 

[2sheikhs]

Fair enough, I'm aware that there must be large energy costs, but an estimate would be good. I really don't expect copies of the bills to be posted online.

Like I said, I'm interested in the facts so I can have a more informed opinion. You said that you knew, so I asked you to share your knowledge on the subject.

The boat wasn't made just for that trip. It had already been made, just like the aircraft that she apparently should've used.

Surely the point is that the boat doesn't burn any fuel during it's lifetime and dump the waste products in the upper atmosphere.




Thanks for the info. Having numbers to work with is a bonus.

Now to find out how much carbon is in the boat vs steel in the aircraft and its engines.

We've still got the aviation fuel per trip to factor in, but we're getting there.

Because we have multiple machines, it's difficult to specify the cost of one machine to run. The energy cost for a years production though is roughly £100k in gas and electricity for 2 high heat burners and 6 electric turbines.
Also we should add into the equation,recycling and longevity. Steel can be repaired and reformed after minor damage and is recyclable. Once carbonfibre is damaged it's splintered and loses it's structural integrity. It's also non recyclable. It's used in specific sports and pastimes where strength and weight are paramount.
Obviously this girl can't be expected to know the back story of what is probably a well meaning gesture. I'm not blaming her. However, I view the motives of the people promoting and lauding her through a prism of scepticism.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

If you know the resources and energy needed then you'll be able to supply us with the numbers. I'd be interested to see them.

Also, did they scrap the boat after it got to NY? Or can it be used multiple times?

It's an IMOCA 60. Carbon race boat designed for a once every 4 year round the world race for 1 person. Use it for what?

 

[Nails]

Climate Change is a political movement, not just a scientific one. There's all sorts of reasons why scientists are bigging up the issue - peer pressure; funding pressure; desire to see action; career opportunity... as well as genuine beliefs of course. I am not saying all scientists are bent. And then you have the issue of how does the very complex scientific data get translated into a format which the layman can understand? By jounalists and politicians, all with their own agendas, and many of whom who have no scientific background whatsoever.

Here's the Earth's temperature record, going back millions of years, courtesy of the British Geological Survey:

https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/climateThroughTime/map.html

Note the Permian period, 298.9-252.2 million years ago, when temperatures were much higher than they are now. Note the Cretaceous, 145-66 million years ago, when sea levels were much higher. Much higher in fact than they are event predicted to rise under the current IPCC predictions.

And yet I read the other day that the IPCC is suggest all coral reefs will be destroyed unless we constrain temperature rises to 1.5C or less. (And 90% will be lost at 1.5C). Really? I wonder where the present day coral reefs have come from given they must have all been wiped out previously?

Fuck me, are there STILL twats denying the science of climate warming? Fuck you all, from my six-year-old twin daughters whose future your conspiracy theory-atrophied brains are destroying. Assholes.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Fuck me, are there STILL twats denying the science of climate warming? Fuck you all, from my six-year-old twin daughters whose future your conspiracy theory-atrophied brains are destroying. Assholes.

LOL!
I think people are more worried about the eco based genocide young Greta is promoting. Of course if she gets her way there will be enough deaths in 3rd world and developing countries that the rest of us could probably scrape by.