vejlin Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 my point is that there are clearly people doing poor science on both sides of the fence. These are the people that get drawn out as an example when the debate turns political. Again both sides do this. Me view is that we ignore this and focus on the smart and talented people doing research (again on both sides of the fence). Because one person writes a junk article doesn't mean everyone else's results are faulty. I still feel the video is generally just a piece of political manipulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokingwreckage Posted March 21, 2007 Author Share Posted March 21, 2007 I agree totally that we need science, not politics on this issue. And we need A LOT of science, the amount we don't know about the carbon cycle is staggering, especially in light of what is being claimed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Wizard Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 My background is in science, specifically physics. I have read numerous peer-reviewed journals on climate change, taken courses on climate and the environment, and have attended many seminars at universities and national laboratories on climate change. Having examined the data and analysis myself, I am in the "yes-it's-real" camp. I can also report, based on my own observations, that the scientific community is not divided on the issue. Climate scientists may not agree 100% with Al Gore, but those who are asked say he got it mostly right. You guys are all free to hold whatever position you want, and I respect that. I myself am not only convinced, but am trying to make lifestyle changes that reduce my own carbon output. One thing that frustrates me to no end is that I live in western Kansas, which is the Saudi Arabia of wind energy. I know of exactly two small-scale operations, and I know that the KS state legislature is being lobbied hard by the coal companies. So wind energy in KS will continue to be untapped potential. Just my two coppers.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokingwreckage Posted March 22, 2007 Author Share Posted March 22, 2007 Well, good luck with your carbon footprint, especially finding life-of-product analysis that will actually tell you whether you're reducing your carbon footprint or just displacing it one or two steps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Wizard Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I am not sure I understand your statement, but thank you for your wish of good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokingwreckage Posted March 24, 2007 Author Share Posted March 24, 2007 Ah, just that I've done limited research on product life-cycle and some other stuff along those lines; it's actually trickier to get it right, in terms of environmental friendliness, than you might think. My wish of good luck was genuine! To clarify: some items have such a large initial environmental cost that even though they run cleaner they're not necessarily better than an older item, especially if their expected lifespan is short. I've switched to the energy-efficient fluorescent lightbulbs, for example, but I don't know how much difference it makes, since they are more complex and have their own circuitry which in turn should, if I read aright, actually have quite a high initial cost. However they last for ages and are very convenient ;) , I guess that outlasting five or six regular lightbulbs probably puts them ahead at the manufacturing step, so the energy savings are "genuine". A Prius on the other hand, I severely doubt, given its complexity and short expected life, is of any net benefit to the environment- especially since it only reaches significant advantages over a regular car under certain operating conditions. This guy: Oasis Design seems to be a VERY serious greenie and he drives an old diesel- that idea works even better if you can get biodiesel. Anyway, I guess I don't mention that I'm a great believer in voluntarily reducing your own resource consumption. I'm skeptical of human-emission driven global warming, but frankly almost panicky about the slew of hamfisted, populist, and counter-productive legislation I am certain is coming; I already know of examples where clean industries are penalised in favour of polluting industries and I think, before the panic ends, that the situation in that regard will get much, much worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Snack Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Anyway, I guess I don't mention that I'm a great believer in voluntarily reducing your own resource consumption. I'm skeptical of human-emission driven global warming, but frankly almost panicky about the slew of hamfisted, populist, and counter-productive legislation I am certain is coming; I already know of examples where clean industries are penalised in favour of polluting industries and I think, before the panic ends, that the situation in that regard will get much, much worse. Amen. Too many of the "Earth-friendly" things people do are actually counter productive. In the Prius example, it's increased weight for the battery actually increases it's fuel consumption when the gas engine is doing it's work, making it a bad option for stop and go driving - which is, of course, how most people drive. We'll ignore the fact that they are an economically bad choice for the overwhelming majority of people as well (the $8-10k premium you pay for the increased gas mileage takes far too many years to recoup, if it ever is). Is ethanol going to catch on when it costs more to buy? Yet, it's now government mandated (a percentage of cars sold must be ethanol ready). Whatever side of the ethanol fence you're on (corn vs. sugar), you still have to pay a premium for it in the US. Yes, there are studies done stating that corn based Ethanol should be cheaper to produce than gasoline but we have yet to see that little utopia - the only truely successful ethanol programs are sugar based (in Brazil, were sugar is significantly cheaper). I can't -BY LAW- go out and buy a new diesel car in NY, yet my old diesel Jettas got over 45 MPG (they were rated at 60 MPG, but I don't know anyone who got that). There won't be too much work on the biodiesel front if nobody can buy a diesel car (while we're no CA, NY still represents a significant share of the US market). I miss my '87 Chevy Sprint, which got 47 MPG, gas powered (also rated at 60 MPG). Can't find anything like that today, not enough of us want the little cars (and judging by the glut of Prius' on local lots, most everyone who wanted one, at their increased price, is covered now). I live greener -by CHOICE- than a lot of people who want new laws to force people to live (their version of) "green". I wouldn't have to change a thing to take the pledge of using less energy than the average person, it could even go down some - and that was when I was a delivery driver putting 40k+ miles on my car every year! I don't think enough of the 'global warming is man-made' people actually walk the walk - and they don't realize what they're asking for... Every time I see an SUV plastered in global warming stickers I wish I had my camera. Not many "big oil" companies around these parts either, but wind power still faces stiff opposition. Our energy companies actually charge you MORE for using "green" energy - which was not only approved by NYS, they (actually we, the taxpayer) paid for advertising that fact. Then there's the global warming on planets we haven't been to yet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Wizard Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 Thank you Smokingwreckage and Dragonsnack. I didn't know that about the Prius, with the short life cycle. I will take a more critical look before I buy one. My wife and I have resolved to be a one-vehicle household, and we understand the drawbacks to that situation. Now that it's warm enough, I can start walking to work. I do, however, think this hybrid technology stuff has some potential. I've read some articles on the Green Goat and the other hybrid locomotives built by Motive Power(?). The early results look great as far as fuel consumption. I had a thought about ethanol. There is an ethanol plant in my town. It uses 3 times as much water as the town, and requires huge amounts of natural gas. Aside from the water issue, which has the local wheat and milo farmers is a tizzy, the natural gas issue presents a problem, in my view. This is because we are adding a net gain to the carbon cycle when we bring the fossil fuels. Adding to the carbon cycle is my chief concern. My own hare-brained scheme would be that, since the ethanol plant is in a rich wind-energy region, the ethanol plant heating elements could be electric and powered at least partially by windmills. At least then we're adding less carbon to the carbon cycle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokingwreckage Posted March 25, 2007 Author Share Posted March 25, 2007 Well, see what you need is a feedlot. Grain ethanol generates a heap of waste, much of which is useful feed. So, you feed it to feedlotted cows, which produce a heap of waste, much of which can be used in a "gassifier" which converts carbon based waste into syngas (a blend of hydrocarbons, methane, and hydrogen, which burns nicely!) plus stable charcoal-like stuff which in turn is an excellent soil conditioner for agriculture. You never get 100% efficiency, but you don't need it. In this plan your natural gas and water inputs produce ethanol, meat, and flammable gas for heating and drying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokingwreckage Posted March 25, 2007 Author Share Posted March 25, 2007 Also, the walking or riding to work is massively more effective than a hybrid car and way cheaper, as an added bonus you get fit. The trick to making any car "greener" is to leave it parked as much as you can and hold on to it as long as you can. If you keep your mileage low there's no way a new car will pay itself off in green terms. Remember also, the environmental cost of making your PC was close to the environmental cost of making a small car. Don't upgrade if you don't need to. Finally, agriculture and industry are always going to use a LOT of water. As long as there's still enough, don't sweat it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vejlin Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 If at all possible I recommend the bike for most short distance journeys. I know this doesn't work for people living in rural areas, but in cities bikes are good for more than 99% of my transport needs. The few times I have to transport something heavy I borrow a car. For inner city transport bikes are IMO preferable to cars. No hassle finding parking, no time spent on parking, no money spent on parking. Biking from here to my university takes 20 minutes everything included. With a car it'll be 15 minutes driving alone in with optimal conditions (no rush hour traffic, no road construction etc etc). Add to that the time it takes to park and the bike wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokingwreckage Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 A solar hot water unit replacing electric hot water can save roughly the same carbon emissions as taking your car off the road entirely. I kid you not (I may just possibly be perpetuating a myth unawares). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokingwreckage Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 Fast fact # arbitrary: Al Gore uses 20 times the energy of the average American, and offsets it with carbon credits he buys from his own company! I kid you not! Insulate your damn house. That's the last of the big-ticket electricity savers I can think of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Wizard Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 It is somehow fitting that Smokingwreckage is from Australia, and that his feed lot proposal is exactly like Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome! Solar hot water heaters are very popular in New Mexico. Even switching to an on-demand water heater will save lots of water and natural gas or electricity. These jewels have been in Europe for decades, but we are just now getting them in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vejlin Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Not exactly global warming related, but I still can't figure out why we're still (in denmark atleast) flushung our toilets with drinking water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.