英國樂隊披頭四成員Paul McCartney係一個務實嘅環保分子，成日都叫人盡量唔好浪費。佢一向以嚟都係日本Toyota車廠Lexus部門嘅「大好友」，因為佢覺得Lexus生產嘅車能源效益做得好。
高壓管治終惹笑柄
最近，Lexus出咗最新型號LS600H，係一架hybrid vehicle混合汽車，當你踩break嘅時候會變成電流，將電流傳送到電池度，咁架車就有足夠電力去作低速或者起動，而毋須用電油，咁就可以增加每公升電油可行走里數。
新車既然咁乎合能源效益，於是Lexus諗住送一部畀Paul McCartney，以多謝佢一路以嚟咁支持Lexus嘅車。點之送到去英國之後，Paul McCartney見到架車就叫咗一聲：「What？」原來，部車係經空運過去，排放出嚟嘅二氧化碳比用船運多出100倍。連貨運公司Swissport 都話，雖然好開心有生意做，但係二氧化碳嘅排放真係多好多。
呢個Lexus公關PR一定係好受公司重用，對下屬要求做嘢要「快狠準」及要有效率。今次送禮畀Paul McCartney，就算唔係個PR自己親自落order要空運，又或者佢長期同下屬講做嘢要「爽手啲」，結果員工條件反射咁選擇用空運，佢嘅高壓管治都有問題。最後成為國際公關界笑柄，呢個PR，炒得。
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
孫公，
ReplyDelete小弟有疑問。
依家用空運，二氧化碳排放多100倍。借問呢100倍包唔包括，船員既CO2排放呀，船員所需糧食原本既CO2產量呀，甚至呢100倍係只係以運輸一部車作比較，定係成架飛機同船既比較？小弟仲有樣唔明，點解空氣個friction比海水細，所需能量（就當等同CO2產量）點解仲要多d？而且飛機直線距離比船隻左兜右兜短好多個播。有冇咩數據參考可以介紹？
ummm gee... I dunno...
ReplyDeleteJust quoted from source.
孫公，
ReplyDelete啊，有一個可能就是Vertical displacement！飛機需要很多燃料才能達到一個高度，而船就不用，只需要用於horizontal displacement。
（燃料...）
Well, the vertical displacement is only 15km
ReplyDeleteWhile horizontal is 100000000000km
Maybe you can ask hkmediabuster.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteBut he is currently growing mold over there.
c.m., Ha Ha. It's a very good question.
ReplyDeleteI'm a fan of hkmediabuster. He's so busy, let me guest the reason and explain.
your direction of thinking's more or less correct.
W=FS (Work = Force X Distant) which is related to friction of water.
But you have to consider the wasted part too. It's HEAT. Image that the energy of High Temperature & High Speed air come out from turbine engines is totally wasted (or heat up the atmosphere!).
The above explanation's made by me after i found your question. It's not proved by any authorities. believe it or not.
你o甘多o野問,如果不是知你有兩件細路,真替你擔心。 Ha Ha.
孫公：
ReplyDelete多謝你，佢真有一手。不過呢，我怕打搞人，人地好似忙緊。（嘩，horizontal displacement 個零頭好似多得好緊要）
VC：
嘿，你係咪想話我似problematic child（自褒），會教壞佢地先...
關於heat，其實我都諗過，但船用引擎（係咪應該叫渦輪機？）所發出黎既熱，咪又係用唔著... 嗯...或者你既意思係，噴射引擎效率無渦輪機咁高，所以噴好多多餘既熱能，咁睇落就合情合理勒。
多謝！
c.m., 好學好問當然不會教壞子女。
ReplyDelete只是,o甘多o野問,怕你似好多香港男人o甘(太多野做/玩),忙到忘了生兒育女。
又或者就因為我咁多野問（多咩？唔係化），所以先至生遮。唔問，我點知點生同點養呀。
ReplyDeleteI must say it just a F.5 physic and chemistry question...
ReplyDeleteThe differences of energy consumption between plane and cargo ship were....The plan has gained potential energy while in flight but the ship doesn't.
The plane has to constantly consume enormous amount of fuel to against the G-force.
Plane=kinetic engergy (displacement and friction)+potential energy(keep the tons-weight plane in the sky)
Ship=kinetic energy only
When the fuel used in most efficiently, there only 3 things produce only Energy(heat), CO2 and H2O. Heat is essential to drive any motor. I don't thing turbine is much efficient than jet engine, I just concern more energy has been used more CO2 produced, just that simple...
I think the aurthor is talking about the carbon dioxide concetration instead of the absolute volume.
ReplyDeleteI would answer this question macroscopically rather than dig my head into physics and chemistry (I am a science faculty graduate and eligible to discuss this question in the view of physics and chemistry, but I think it is too massive.)
The problem results from power and workdone.
If you want to hit the target in shorter period of time, you need more power (energy/unit time), it is true in energy conservations, and the CO2 emission per unit time will increase in ratio associated with the shortened time. The increased concentration will harm to environment, as exhausted too much CO2 in short period of time will cause plants in planet without enough time to convert the exhausted CO2 into oxygen and energy by photosynthesis.
多謝兩位匿名善長賜教！
ReplyDelete