Does the economic case for a third runway stack up?

Posted by christian - 15 January 2009 at 12:31pm - Comments

Climate Emergency, no 3rd Runway - the banner held above a jumbo jet by Greenpeace campaigns.

In the next few hours we're expecting the government to annouce they're going ahead with the third runway. The aviation industry likes to suggest that building a third runway at Heathrow has become vital to Britain's future economic wellbeing and the government may use this as a justifcation. To listen to some of the more enthusiastic cheerleaders for aviation expansion, you might think that the entire UK economy is about to collapse, and only laying an enormous strip of tarmac through Sipson village will save it. But is it really that simple? We know aviation expansion is a sure-fire way to wreck the climate, but do we really have to choose between the climate and "jobs and prosperity"?

Well, not according to the experts. They reckon the economic benefits of a third runway have been exaggerated by the government. And we're not talking radical environmentalists here - we're talking about the Sustainable Development Commission, the government's own environment and economics advisory body. They say that the government are over-estimating the economic benefits of airport expansion at Heathrow, and under-estimating the carbon dioxide emissions that would result. Their commissioner Hugh Raven recently reckons that pressing ahead with Heathrow expansion is "highly irresponsible" given uncertainty about how useful aviation really is economically.


Or take the IPPR - apparently New Labour's favourite think tank. They're clear that there is an "overwhelming" environmental case against a third runway, but they also say that the economic advantages of the scheme have been "greatly overstated". environmental case against a third runway, but they also say that the economic advantages of the scheme have been "greatly overstated". WWF UK calculated the climate damages a third runway would cause, it would end up costing the UK economy £5 billion pounds. That figure is calculated using the government's own economic models, along with Sir Nicholas Stern's recommended carbon price from the Stern Review, commissioned by, er, the government. Not good, when the government's own methods end up highlighting the scale of the economic and climate disaster they're trying to create.

Even if the economics experts aren't buying the "third runway leads to economic prosperity" argument, maybe the business community is clamouring for it anyway? Not really. In a recent poll, just four percent of British businesses believed expanding Heathrow would benefit their business. (37% would like a fast rail link between London and the North.) Bob Ayling, the guy who used to run British Airways, and a man who you might expect to be fairly pro-aviation expansion, has said that a third runway is likely to prove a "costly mistake." And even if more passengers were passing through the airport, a chunk wouldn't be bringing much economic benefit to the UK anyway - a third are transfer passengers who might donate the price of a cup of tea to BAA, but little else.

Even worse for BAA, it seems that travellers aren't clamouring for more runways either. In these credit crunch times, the number of passengers travelling by plane in the UK is falling. Meanwhile, high-speed trains are taking off across the continent - in Spain domestic flights dropped by 20% over the past year, while high-speed train travel rose by 28%. This is a bit of a spanner in the works for Heathrow expansion - the number one destination from Heathrow is Paris, and as we know there's a train to Paris, with ticket sales up 10% over the past year. Over a 100,000 flights a year from Heathrow go to cities less than 300 miles away, easily do-able by train.

Really, it's the credit crunch which points the way forward. There's no way any money spent or short-term jobs created in Heathrow expansion can help us out of an economic downturn - construction on a third runway wouldn't start for a decade. The economy is in too turbulent a state for a distant, limited and economically-dubious scheme to have much of an effect.

If we want real economic stimulation, there's only one smart choice. The government could take the opportunity to lift us out of recession on the back of a green jobs revolution, much like the one planned by Barak Obama in the US. Spending on building green infrastructure, a high speed rail network and renewable power generating capacity could create the kind of skilled jobs and economic benefits we'll need to have a firm economic footing in the future.

The real economic question is why they aren't getting on with it...

Find out more about Airplot, our little bit of Heathrow »
The case against Heathrow expansion (pdf) »

Article tagged as: aviation, climate change, economy, heathrow expansion
  • share
Comments Commenting is now closed
The following have been sent to EU and Sir Alan Sugar. No replies at all as yet. None of this is patentable and uses existing technology. It creates s a ZERO FUEL COST CAR. Of course many electric cars exist not so developed. The "bi directional" power transfer idea is mine, but entirely open to others.: My own ideas. Not confidential or Patentable. For those in the US, this would work there fine too, but as your journeys are often longer and you have multi car households you would probably have one, retain normal car for long journeys. Would greatly help employment in present circumstances. Sent to European Commision. Runs with NO fuel cost and part pays for part of household electricity. From calculation average yearly miles will be covered by generation plus so will 15 to 30 percent of household electricity usage. Electricityl cost alone (charging) 1.2 pence per mile. Assumes 20 percent overcharge for heating/aircon etc. 9000 miles, same journeys, speed, duration as petrol (gas) car. Currently available panel and wind turbine, and all other parts are existant technology. Electric Car for the new age Discussion document by Louis Vaisey The available viable world supply of oil is due to reduce fairly soon, Peak oil (see note) is in about five years. Environmental pressures and the vulnerability to volatile oil cost changes beyond the control of individuals and Governments mean there is an urgency to change from the internal combustion engine as a power source for cars, and other vehicles. One cannot say which alternative will eventually be the ascendant. It may be electric, hydrogen, or some other as yet not invented. Or nuclear, unlikely on safety grounds. Electric cars do of course already exist, though not yet highly developed. The problem has always been batteries, creating them so that they give a high power to charge ratio, but low weight. This project uses present day technology, developed, which goes some way to obviating this problem. The proposed car is a 2 + 2 seat vehicle with the design brief to achieve 70 mph, good acceleration, and with a minimum range of 100 miles per charge. There will be provision for longer journeys, also an associated but optional alternative charge system which would mean for most uses fuel cost would be zero, or indeed negative. This latter is covered in the second part. Since the development costs are high for this project, and since it is possible there would be active opposition or even obstruction from Oil interests to high volume production of such a car, it is suggested a multi - national Company is set up funded by Governments of countries within the European Union who wish to participate. Thus a "Eurocar". This Company would operate conventionally for profit, both from home sales within their respective countries, and worldwide by export. It is possible also later that Production Licenses could be awarded to conventional existing Motor Companies who were interested. These would also apply to the associated optional charging system. In the UK at present (and it will not change) all electric cars pay no Road Tax (Excise Duty). The only running overheads for electric cars are Insurance, and if more than 3 years old, the MOT test. Of course battery replacement is a long term cost factor, but see later how this cost can be minimised. Design The car would not draw on any existing design. It would concentrate on achieving the highest efficiency of electric power usage and running economy. The car body and structure would be built of rust free components, and styling would be entirely defined by extensive wind tunnel testing. The aim is to get the lowest possible Drag Coefficient or Cd and much time would be taken to achieve this. The car would normally be driven with windows shut, meaning heating or aircon were efficient and drag losses are minimised. Great attention would be paid to thermal insulation, this meaning heating and /or aircon would run with minimum losses. The car would have specially developed very low rolling resistance (VLRR) tyres. Crash resistance would equal or exceed existing legal standards. Throughout the design it is anticipated that additional loads on the electrics will be present dependant on use. Heating and/or aircon, lights, and so on. The design brief is still to achieve 100 mile range with the maximum normal use of these, range would increase if they are used less. Some ideas which could be used if testing shows viable are the following: The entire roof (and possibly the "bonnet" or engine cover too) would be very high efficiency solar panels under a tough transparent polycarbonate panel. These would gain charge power even under street lighting, the total gain would partially charge the batteries at most times, with a very high charge in bright sun. The motor would be of the existent technology brushless outrunner (rotary linear) type. This would have blown zero friction air bearings. Efficiency is very high approaching 100 percent. The motor would be encased in a cover, heat produced being drawn away and partially providing heat energy input to heating, or by heat transfer technology, the aircon, thus reducing the load on batteries. The motor unit would be regenerative, feeding charging power back to batteries in braking and going down hills (trailing throttle conditions). Drive would be to front wheels via conventional CVJs. Brakes would be accepted hydraulic disk technology to all wheels, but with one important difference. All brake units would be encased as per for the motor, again all heat being drawn away to supplement heating or aircon. By these and other means the drive train would not only be very efficient and sparing of battery usage but provide incidentally thermal gains to partially power heating and /or aircon or reduce battery usage for those. Now moving to batteries. This has always been a problem for electric cars. Battery technology is slow to evolve. Thus the thermal efficiency of batteries lags the internal combustion engine, this really is the only reason that the latter has sustained. Because of this a particular kind of design philosophy would be adopted. A standard size tray or tray would house the batteries. Initially this tray is designed for the initial type of batteries, later trays could be developed for any later emergent superior type of battery design. These would still fit the car as retrospective enhancements. It would be a good idea if the tray design was standardised across the electric car industry. This would mean all such trays fit all electric cars, and allow "swaps" (see later). A good initial type of battery design is the existent technology Lithium Polymer (LiPo) type. These are highly efficient, long lived, quick to charge, and have an excellent charge to weight ratio. Further a large capacity battery pack of this type would naturally consist of many cells, interlinked, each of which could be electrically monitored. Any battery cells failing after a long life would indicate via sensors, and could be individually replaced, meaning periodic replacement costs are a minimum, just a fraction of the total battery costs. LiPo batteries are maintenance free. As to charging as has been shown part of this is achieved by the on board solar, it is only the remaining energy to meet the electrical duty cycle that has to be externally applied. It is envisaged, as is already slowly happening, that paid charging points will appear widely in car parks, and motorway service areas. These will serve all electric cars, not just that which is the subject here. The ratio of onboard to external charging will vary widely dependant on usage. Charging points will be conventional metered 240v 50 c/s (or as local standards) power points, or of course existing home power sockets. If the design brief is 100 miles minimum range this probably fulfils between 85 and 100 percent, depending on user, of present day conventional fossil fuel car usage. There are ways to address any shortfall for longer journeys, which see later. Charging Unit The overall design concept of this project moves further as regards to charging. This involves an additional optional unit. It is possible this could be sold with the car, and also as a separate item, but the car of course operates fine at greater cost on its own. This unit consists firstly of a composite solar panel and wind turbine unit. Both are to be well developed and highly efficient, and in one unit are fixed on dwelling or garage roofs or similar. A cable feeds away to a control unit. This contains a microprocessor which controls all the functions. Provision on the unit would allow both further solar panels and turbines. These could be added as finance permits each time increasing the output of the system. Also one at an option could add a Rain Turbine (see note) to obtain another intermittent charge feed from the local environment. When at home ("docked") the car remains plugged into a socket fed from the control unit at all times. This socket may be in the garage, or outside including if required at a post on road edge, these latter places being locked. At times power from the solar and wind unit is fed to the car, charging it, this is variable as to timing and charge rate. It may at times be augmented by mains power also connected to the control unit. However this depends on the usage of the car. For some users, mains power may never be needed, power from the solar/wind composite generation and the onboard solar may be sufficient to charge it for their particular use. In that case fuel (electricity) cost for the car is zero. If the batteries are fully charged, power from solar/wind units feeds the other way into the house mains electricity supply via a DC to AC inverter and a Power Factor synthesizer. This reduces electricity usage in the house, effectively making the cost relative to car energy usage a negative. There may be alternatively a means whereby energy is sold out to the mains electricity grid. This is already done now. By this means the actual operating costs of the car are very low, or even in total possibly zero for all costs bar purchase, many magnitudes of cost lower than any fossil fuel car. Both these types of batteries and solar panels have never ever been specifically developed purely for vehicle uses, it is likely with time designs will vastly improve in efficiency. This is particularly true for batteries. Complete new technologies may appear. The above design utilising the universal tray mounting allows for this. The design brief (i.e. 70 mph/ 100 mile minimum range) is carefully chosen. As to speed 70 mph or close to that is the maximum legal speed in many countries, in fact whilst acceleration is important, speeds above 70 mph are really of no importance. Indeed electric cars are still governed by a universal car truth that maximum efficiency, and minimum energy use at speed, is at 56 mph. It is very likely in any event that existing fossil fuel cars and emergent renewable source cars will co-exist for a considerable time. One cannot tell whether the latter will ever suit the very high daily mileage user. But most car usage, indeed the vast majority, is within the performance envelope of the car detailed here, without any alteration or enhancement. If greater mileages are required it would be possible to carry at a weight penalty, extra batteries. Another probably better idea is that of "swaps". If a standardised battery pack was in use widely this could be swapped in seconds for another fully charged pack at Motorway Services and similar, or garages. This could mean indefinite daily mileages. This would be a paid service essentially the electricity used for charging plus a charge for the service. Other ideas may emerge. Traditionally electric vehicles exhibit several other proved advantages over fossil fuel vehicles over and above zero pollution and as shown zero fuel cost. They are very quiet, though none have so far proved totally silent. This may be very valuable in environmental noise terms for quiet urban areas and for those living close to such as Motorways, etc. Additionally historically they have proved very long lived. And reliable, and cheap to service. One can mention such as milk floats as examples, still serviceable after several decades. It is likely they would, for a rustless vehicle, far outlast fossil fuel cars resulting in much reduced problems of scrap disposal, build material usage and associated environmental costs, and, as a result of a very long service life, much reduced vehicle depreciation. The car would be designed as mostly recyclable. All other aspects of the vehicle draw on existing vehicle technology. The car would be very quiet both inside and out. For production in large quantities economy of scale would be very evident, and use of many such cars would reduce emissions and global warming. The reduction of imported oil would improve individual countries balance of payments which is but one reason why Government involvement would be valid. Such a new industry would provide many jobs and as, as is likely, conventional fossil fuel car production inevitably decreases, provide employment opportunities for many displaced from there, skills mainly being similar. Cars are the greatest number of vehicles on any road, but there is no reason why such technologies should not extend to commercial vehicles and motorcycles later. Louis Vaisey - October 2008 Notes Peak Oil - this is the point at which oil starts to rise in price due to the fact that the economic cost of exploration for new sources is such that returns on investment are rapidly failing, and oil is running out. There are oil tar reserves but these will be very expensive to produce oil from. This point is thought to be about 2013, from which time on oil will become gradually more expensive outside of any demand or market conditions. Rain Turbine - Technology where in a property rain downpipe, a small device containing an impellor wheel is driven by rainwater flow. This feeds a generator which in turn gives an additional electrical input to the charge unit. Other Notes Vehicle structure to be formed of galvanised steel cage (similar to race car roll cage) Front end of cage draws from Formula 1 experience in designing cars to withstand frontal crashes in excess of 200 mph. Structure would thus be far stronger than present day cars. Onto cage would be fixed stabilised self coloured body panels, also floor is large plastic panel. With seals body is totally proof against rust. Doors would have side impact bars fitted. Thus structure is rust free, incredibly strong in crash situations yet light. .
By louisofengland - 15 January 2009 at 2:15pm

u suck greenpeace

By redwar - 15 January 2009 at 4:53pm

Offcourse it will be stacked up because of recession.Instead of investing on third runway the U.K government should invest on a high speed rail network and renewable power generating capacity could create the kind of skilled jobs.

---------------------------------------------------

bruce

By bruce.ebp - 20 February 2009 at 12:33am
The following have been sent to EU and Sir Alan Sugar. No replies at all as yet. None of this is patentable and uses existing technology. It creates s a ZERO FUEL COST CAR. Of course many electric cars exist not so developed. The "bi directional" power transfer idea is mine, but entirely open to others.: My own ideas. Not confidential or Patentable. For those in the US, this would work there fine too, but as your journeys are often longer and you have multi car households you would probably have one, retain normal car for long journeys. Would greatly help employment in present circumstances. Sent to European Commision. Runs with NO fuel cost and part pays for part of household electricity. From calculation average yearly miles will be covered by generation plus so will 15 to 30 percent of household electricity usage. Electricityl cost alone (charging) 1.2 pence per mile. Assumes 20 percent overcharge for heating/aircon etc. 9000 miles, same journeys, speed, duration as petrol (gas) car. Currently available panel and wind turbine, and all other parts are existant technology. Electric Car for the new age Discussion document by Louis Vaisey The available viable world supply of oil is due to reduce fairly soon, Peak oil (see note) is in about five years. Environmental pressures and the vulnerability to volatile oil cost changes beyond the control of individuals and Governments mean there is an urgency to change from the internal combustion engine as a power source for cars, and other vehicles. One cannot say which alternative will eventually be the ascendant. It may be electric, hydrogen, or some other as yet not invented. Or nuclear, unlikely on safety grounds. Electric cars do of course already exist, though not yet highly developed. The problem has always been batteries, creating them so that they give a high power to charge ratio, but low weight. This project uses present day technology, developed, which goes some way to obviating this problem. The proposed car is a 2 + 2 seat vehicle with the design brief to achieve 70 mph, good acceleration, and with a minimum range of 100 miles per charge. There will be provision for longer journeys, also an associated but optional alternative charge system which would mean for most uses fuel cost would be zero, or indeed negative. This latter is covered in the second part. Since the development costs are high for this project, and since it is possible there would be active opposition or even obstruction from Oil interests to high volume production of such a car, it is suggested a multi - national Company is set up funded by Governments of countries within the European Union who wish to participate. Thus a "Eurocar". This Company would operate conventionally for profit, both from home sales within their respective countries, and worldwide by export. It is possible also later that Production Licenses could be awarded to conventional existing Motor Companies who were interested. These would also apply to the associated optional charging system. In the UK at present (and it will not change) all electric cars pay no Road Tax (Excise Duty). The only running overheads for electric cars are Insurance, and if more than 3 years old, the MOT test. Of course battery replacement is a long term cost factor, but see later how this cost can be minimised. Design The car would not draw on any existing design. It would concentrate on achieving the highest efficiency of electric power usage and running economy. The car body and structure would be built of rust free components, and styling would be entirely defined by extensive wind tunnel testing. The aim is to get the lowest possible Drag Coefficient or Cd and much time would be taken to achieve this. The car would normally be driven with windows shut, meaning heating or aircon were efficient and drag losses are minimised. Great attention would be paid to thermal insulation, this meaning heating and /or aircon would run with minimum losses. The car would have specially developed very low rolling resistance (VLRR) tyres. Crash resistance would equal or exceed existing legal standards. Throughout the design it is anticipated that additional loads on the electrics will be present dependant on use. Heating and/or aircon, lights, and so on. The design brief is still to achieve 100 mile range with the maximum normal use of these, range would increase if they are used less. Some ideas which could be used if testing shows viable are the following: The entire roof (and possibly the "bonnet" or engine cover too) would be very high efficiency solar panels under a tough transparent polycarbonate panel. These would gain charge power even under street lighting, the total gain would partially charge the batteries at most times, with a very high charge in bright sun. The motor would be of the existent technology brushless outrunner (rotary linear) type. This would have blown zero friction air bearings. Efficiency is very high approaching 100 percent. The motor would be encased in a cover, heat produced being drawn away and partially providing heat energy input to heating, or by heat transfer technology, the aircon, thus reducing the load on batteries. The motor unit would be regenerative, feeding charging power back to batteries in braking and going down hills (trailing throttle conditions). Drive would be to front wheels via conventional CVJs. Brakes would be accepted hydraulic disk technology to all wheels, but with one important difference. All brake units would be encased as per for the motor, again all heat being drawn away to supplement heating or aircon. By these and other means the drive train would not only be very efficient and sparing of battery usage but provide incidentally thermal gains to partially power heating and /or aircon or reduce battery usage for those. Now moving to batteries. This has always been a problem for electric cars. Battery technology is slow to evolve. Thus the thermal efficiency of batteries lags the internal combustion engine, this really is the only reason that the latter has sustained. Because of this a particular kind of design philosophy would be adopted. A standard size tray or tray would house the batteries. Initially this tray is designed for the initial type of batteries, later trays could be developed for any later emergent superior type of battery design. These would still fit the car as retrospective enhancements. It would be a good idea if the tray design was standardised across the electric car industry. This would mean all such trays fit all electric cars, and allow "swaps" (see later). A good initial type of battery design is the existent technology Lithium Polymer (LiPo) type. These are highly efficient, long lived, quick to charge, and have an excellent charge to weight ratio. Further a large capacity battery pack of this type would naturally consist of many cells, interlinked, each of which could be electrically monitored. Any battery cells failing after a long life would indicate via sensors, and could be individually replaced, meaning periodic replacement costs are a minimum, just a fraction of the total battery costs. LiPo batteries are maintenance free. As to charging as has been shown part of this is achieved by the on board solar, it is only the remaining energy to meet the electrical duty cycle that has to be externally applied. It is envisaged, as is already slowly happening, that paid charging points will appear widely in car parks, and motorway service areas. These will serve all electric cars, not just that which is the subject here. The ratio of onboard to external charging will vary widely dependant on usage. Charging points will be conventional metered 240v 50 c/s (or as local standards) power points, or of course existing home power sockets. If the design brief is 100 miles minimum range this probably fulfils between 85 and 100 percent, depending on user, of present day conventional fossil fuel car usage. There are ways to address any shortfall for longer journeys, which see later. Charging Unit The overall design concept of this project moves further as regards to charging. This involves an additional optional unit. It is possible this could be sold with the car, and also as a separate item, but the car of course operates fine at greater cost on its own. This unit consists firstly of a composite solar panel and wind turbine unit. Both are to be well developed and highly efficient, and in one unit are fixed on dwelling or garage roofs or similar. A cable feeds away to a control unit. This contains a microprocessor which controls all the functions. Provision on the unit would allow both further solar panels and turbines. These could be added as finance permits each time increasing the output of the system. Also one at an option could add a Rain Turbine (see note) to obtain another intermittent charge feed from the local environment. When at home ("docked") the car remains plugged into a socket fed from the control unit at all times. This socket may be in the garage, or outside including if required at a post on road edge, these latter places being locked. At times power from the solar and wind unit is fed to the car, charging it, this is variable as to timing and charge rate. It may at times be augmented by mains power also connected to the control unit. However this depends on the usage of the car. For some users, mains power may never be needed, power from the solar/wind composite generation and the onboard solar may be sufficient to charge it for their particular use. In that case fuel (electricity) cost for the car is zero. If the batteries are fully charged, power from solar/wind units feeds the other way into the house mains electricity supply via a DC to AC inverter and a Power Factor synthesizer. This reduces electricity usage in the house, effectively making the cost relative to car energy usage a negative. There may be alternatively a means whereby energy is sold out to the mains electricity grid. This is already done now. By this means the actual operating costs of the car are very low, or even in total possibly zero for all costs bar purchase, many magnitudes of cost lower than any fossil fuel car. Both these types of batteries and solar panels have never ever been specifically developed purely for vehicle uses, it is likely with time designs will vastly improve in efficiency. This is particularly true for batteries. Complete new technologies may appear. The above design utilising the universal tray mounting allows for this. The design brief (i.e. 70 mph/ 100 mile minimum range) is carefully chosen. As to speed 70 mph or close to that is the maximum legal speed in many countries, in fact whilst acceleration is important, speeds above 70 mph are really of no importance. Indeed electric cars are still governed by a universal car truth that maximum efficiency, and minimum energy use at speed, is at 56 mph. It is very likely in any event that existing fossil fuel cars and emergent renewable source cars will co-exist for a considerable time. One cannot tell whether the latter will ever suit the very high daily mileage user. But most car usage, indeed the vast majority, is within the performance envelope of the car detailed here, without any alteration or enhancement. If greater mileages are required it would be possible to carry at a weight penalty, extra batteries. Another probably better idea is that of "swaps". If a standardised battery pack was in use widely this could be swapped in seconds for another fully charged pack at Motorway Services and similar, or garages. This could mean indefinite daily mileages. This would be a paid service essentially the electricity used for charging plus a charge for the service. Other ideas may emerge. Traditionally electric vehicles exhibit several other proved advantages over fossil fuel vehicles over and above zero pollution and as shown zero fuel cost. They are very quiet, though none have so far proved totally silent. This may be very valuable in environmental noise terms for quiet urban areas and for those living close to such as Motorways, etc. Additionally historically they have proved very long lived. And reliable, and cheap to service. One can mention such as milk floats as examples, still serviceable after several decades. It is likely they would, for a rustless vehicle, far outlast fossil fuel cars resulting in much reduced problems of scrap disposal, build material usage and associated environmental costs, and, as a result of a very long service life, much reduced vehicle depreciation. The car would be designed as mostly recyclable. All other aspects of the vehicle draw on existing vehicle technology. The car would be very quiet both inside and out. For production in large quantities economy of scale would be very evident, and use of many such cars would reduce emissions and global warming. The reduction of imported oil would improve individual countries balance of payments which is but one reason why Government involvement would be valid. Such a new industry would provide many jobs and as, as is likely, conventional fossil fuel car production inevitably decreases, provide employment opportunities for many displaced from there, skills mainly being similar. Cars are the greatest number of vehicles on any road, but there is no reason why such technologies should not extend to commercial vehicles and motorcycles later. Louis Vaisey - October 2008 Notes Peak Oil - this is the point at which oil starts to rise in price due to the fact that the economic cost of exploration for new sources is such that returns on investment are rapidly failing, and oil is running out. There are oil tar reserves but these will be very expensive to produce oil from. This point is thought to be about 2013, from which time on oil will become gradually more expensive outside of any demand or market conditions. Rain Turbine - Technology where in a property rain downpipe, a small device containing an impellor wheel is driven by rainwater flow. This feeds a generator which in turn gives an additional electrical input to the charge unit. Other Notes Vehicle structure to be formed of galvanised steel cage (similar to race car roll cage) Front end of cage draws from Formula 1 experience in designing cars to withstand frontal crashes in excess of 200 mph. Structure would thus be far stronger than present day cars. Onto cage would be fixed stabilised self coloured body panels, also floor is large plastic panel. With seals body is totally proof against rust. Doors would have side impact bars fitted. Thus structure is rust free, incredibly strong in crash situations yet light. .
By louisofengland - 15 January 2009 at 2:15pm

u suck greenpeace

By redwar - 15 January 2009 at 4:53pm

Offcourse it will be stacked up because of recession.Instead of investing on third runway the U.K government should invest on a high speed rail network and renewable power generating capacity could create the kind of skilled jobs. --------------------------------------------------- bruce

By bruce.ebp - 20 February 2009 at 12:33am

The info that you have given in this blog is really impressive..Iam very happy to visit your blog.. Australia Jobs

By sarahmark07 - 21 October 2010 at 11:00am

Comments

Follow Greenpeace UK