Daylight Running Lights (DRLs) – Are they a complete waste of energy.

I have just read a bog where some guy asked how much energy do Daylight Running Lighst (DRLs) use. Another guy (nunchuck I assume) criticizes the first guy for evening asking the question. Yet another nunchuck joins the party and states why if you keep your tyres at the right pressure this will save more energy than turning off your DRLs. Are people really that stupid?

For the first guy who asked the question – DRLs on average are rated around 10 watts per car. If you have every car in the world (over 1 billion now) using DRLs for 1 hour in a day (365 days a year) that is 3.65 TWh over the year. Now if that is not a lot of energy then nunchucks really should rule the world as they obviously can afford to pay a lot more than most for running their party lights in what ever fairy world they live in.

The reason I am a bit scaving here is that it is right to question everything AND not everyone replying to the answer is right as my nunchuck example shows.

DRLs have not been proven to do anything other than waste energy. Yes if you keep your tyres inflated and don’t run your car engine while waiting for your partner to come out of the shop you will perhaps save just as much energy. BUT the point is that doing everything will save more energy. It is not an IF/ OR option it is do ALL of the things mentioned including getting rid of your DRLs.

I know safety campaigners will have something to say here but before saving it please do consider this – isn’t it safer NOT to use the car. AND if DRLs do save lives then where are the stats?

PLEASE NOTE IF YOU HAVE NUNCHUCK STATEMENT AND YOU WANT TO MAKE IT THEN DON’T DO IT HERE BECAUSE IT WILL BE DELETED.

H2O not CO2

When we burn fossil fuels we generate both H2O and CO2 as by products of combustion. Think about climate change, is the problem that there is too much water in our atmosphere and we are therefore suffering from hydrometeorological natural disasters OR is it that we cannot breath because there is too much carbon in the air?

Not to leave you hanging, carbon in the air causes Global Cooling while water in the air causes Global Warming. So why are we so focused on carbon?

If you want to know more about the science behind the above then read the book: CLIMATE CHANGE – Our hidden addiction.

Two Types of Air Pollution – Dry & Wet

There are two types of air pollution in this world and these two types have equal and opposite effects on our environment and our health. Dry (particle based air pollution – smoke, dust, smog etc) this type of air pollution sits low in our atmosphere and can cause health problems. Particles in our lungs can cause all manner of issues, the simplest is that we simply cannot breath, the worse is that the stuff entering our lungs is carcinogenic and therefore may cause the onset of cancer. Tackling dry air pollution should be done to help prevent health issues BUT it has to be made clear that tackling dry air pollution is not a Global Warming solution as particles in the air actually cause Solar Dimming which helps create Global Cooling.

Wet air pollution (liquids) is the thing that causes an increase in humidity and as a result can help promote the carrying of disease over wide distances. Water itself is a good carry of disease (incubates bacteria). Unlike dry air pollution, liquid air pollution does impact on Global Warming as water is know to be the main Greenhouse Gas that traps heat in our atmosphere. So the next time you are arguing about why we should get ride of coal remember coal produces dry air pollution so it a helping to keep our planet cool, the reason to get ride of coal isn’t because or Global Warming but more to do with the fact that it is causing us all breathing problems.