Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Stop tornadoes now: buy a Prius or a Volt!
79 views
Skip to first unread message
prawnster
Apr 6, 2012, 7:18:43 PM4/6/12
to
<Sen. Dick Durbin reacts to the tornadoes in Dallas, Texas earlier
this week. Durbin calls for more laws regulating carbon output while
he sends a dire warning that we must convert to hybrid cars or lose
our life. Durbin says we must spend money now to fix the problem.
"It's your money or your life," he said a press conference. "We are
either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet
and accept the initial investment necessary or we're going to pay a
heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs
associated with it.">
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/06/durbin_on_spending_to_fight_global_warming_its_your_money_or_your_life.html
Yes, I know the debate is over and Western Civ has gone all in for the
suicidal and unwinnable War on Bad Weather.
But riddle me this: how is the WBW anything other than a neo-Pagan
mystery cult when America's august leaders say utterly unprovable
things like the above?
And for those who are inclined to rigorous math, riddle me this: how
many Prii and/or Volts must be purchased to stop one tornado? What's
the exchange rate? And, as always, please show all your work.
Thank you.
this week. Durbin calls for more laws regulating carbon output while
he sends a dire warning that we must convert to hybrid cars or lose
our life. Durbin says we must spend money now to fix the problem.
"It's your money or your life," he said a press conference. "We are
either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet
and accept the initial investment necessary or we're going to pay a
heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs
associated with it.">
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/06/durbin_on_spending_to_fight_global_warming_its_your_money_or_your_life.html
Yes, I know the debate is over and Western Civ has gone all in for the
suicidal and unwinnable War on Bad Weather.
But riddle me this: how is the WBW anything other than a neo-Pagan
mystery cult when America's august leaders say utterly unprovable
things like the above?
And for those who are inclined to rigorous math, riddle me this: how
many Prii and/or Volts must be purchased to stop one tornado? What's
the exchange rate? And, as always, please show all your work.
Thank you.
*Hemidactylus*
Apr 6, 2012, 9:32:26 PM4/6/12
to
Probably depends a lot on the energy grid that produces the power that
the consumer plugs into. Out of sight...out of mind. If the carbon
footprint for electric cars is lower than internal combustion cars,
that's the way things should eventually go. But don't think the carbon
footprint of that car is anywhere near zero, unless the power plant
energy comes from nuclear or solar sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#Air_pollution_and_carbon_emissions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicle#Air_pollution_and_greenhouse_gas_emissions
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10231102-54.html
There could be cases where electric cars have a larger carbon footprint
than internal combustion, like with a dirty coal source of plant
generated energy. In that scenario people would be all smug (see South
Park episode) about how seemingly green they are since they do not see
the emissions they are producing at the power plant (vs. the missing
tailpipe).
Nonetheless, converting over to better energy sources at the power plant
would make the carbon footprint of electric cars drop and make them
greener than internal combustion cars. Overall electric cars should have
a smaller footprint, but it ain't zero by any stretch of the imagination.
--
*Hemidactylus*
William Hughes
Apr 6, 2012, 9:44:20 PM4/6/12
to
On Apr 6, 8:18 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> <Sen. Dick Durbin reacts to the tornadoes in Dallas, Texas earlier
> this week. Durbin calls for more laws regulating carbon output while
> he sends a dire warning that we must convert to hybrid cars or lose
> our life. Durbin says we must spend money now to fix the problem.
>
> "It's your money or your life," he said a press conference. "We are
> either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet
> and accept the initial investment necessary or we're going to pay a
> heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs
> associated with it.">
>
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/06/durbin_on_spending_...
> <Sen. Dick Durbin reacts to the tornadoes in Dallas, Texas earlier
> this week. Durbin calls for more laws regulating carbon output while
> he sends a dire warning that we must convert to hybrid cars or lose
> our life. Durbin says we must spend money now to fix the problem.
>
> "It's your money or your life," he said a press conference. "We are
> either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet
> and accept the initial investment necessary or we're going to pay a
> heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs
> associated with it.">
>
>
> Yes, I know the debate is over and Western Civ has gone all in for the
> suicidal and unwinnable War on Bad Weather.
>
> But riddle me this: how is the WBW anything other than a neo-Pagan
> mystery cult when America's august leaders say utterly unprovable
> things like the above?
You seem to have a strange belief that the statements of stupid
> Yes, I know the debate is over and Western Civ has gone all in for the
> suicidal and unwinnable War on Bad Weather.
>
> But riddle me this: how is the WBW anything other than a neo-Pagan
> mystery cult when America's august leaders say utterly unprovable
> things like the above?
Americans are somehow determinative for international debates.
- William Hughes
*Hemidactylus*
Apr 6, 2012, 11:12:25 PM4/6/12
to
commie (in which case it would hate Nobama for being a right-winger)
instead of a devoted Fox News viewer.
But methinks given that this is a global debate, we need to assess the
actual carbon footprint of electric cars versus at least hybrids.
Hybrids, by definition, use gas and wouldn't leave one stranded for lack
of a plug-in source. And how clean is that plug-in source. Given my
cursory glance at the data on wikipedia, electrics aren't that bad and
probably better in many cases than internal combustion. But plugged into
a bad source of power the could be at least pretty bad offenders
themselves.
I'd rather buy a hybrid than a plug-in, just because at least I am
assured I can easily fuel up and the hybrid magic (substituting for my
lack of knowledge of the rigorous details) makes them better from the
standpoint of petrol usage. But I have a nagging feeling that electrics
are far from a panacea, at least at this early stage of the technology
and available sources of grid energy.
The ubershrimp's argument against the war against bad weather is both
humorous and sad. Anthropogenic pumping of carbon into the atmosphere
cannot be a good thing in my opinion. Any step taken toward CO2 output
amelioration is a positive. The steps taken to reduce energy usage at
home can also reduce monetary expenditures and be a matter of personal
budgeting, that can allow for spending on the necessities of life or
even some luxuries.
--
*Hemidactylus*
jillery
Apr 7, 2012, 6:06:30 AM4/7/12
to
lack of same. It's also about the carbon footprint of their
construction. There are several elements to the construction of an
electric car which don't apply to an equivalent standard gas-powerred
car. The real issue then is the comparison of the total carbon
footprint of the two types of vehicles, from both their initial
construction and their expected lifetime emissions, which includes the
emissions from the typical electric power plant to recharge the
batteries.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Apr 7, 2012, 9:12:24 AM4/7/12
to
I have a default position of incredulity as
to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
road vehicles being at all significant compared
to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
the Use that they're meant for.
I think I've heard that the energy in burning
gasoline to move a vehicle comes out as
one-third "work" and two-thirds waste heat.
Other alternatives include making journeys shorter
or not going at all, and using a bicycle.
to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
road vehicles being at all significant compared
to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
the Use that they're meant for.
I think I've heard that the energy in burning
gasoline to move a vehicle comes out as
one-third "work" and two-thirds waste heat.
Other alternatives include making journeys shorter
or not going at all, and using a bicycle.
Steven L.
Apr 7, 2012, 11:24:44 AM4/7/12
to
"prawnster" <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote in message
news:4a8ad74f-12b2-43a6...@z5g2000pbu.googlegroups.com:
Buying a Chevy Volt doesn't do anything to slow global warming. It's a
way of making a *social statement* that the owner cares about the
environment. It's like a bumper sticker but much more expensive.
The Volt costs $40,000 (and is likely to depreciate more rapidly than
gasoline powered cars). Anybody who can afford to pay that much, can
easily afford to pay a little more for gasoline. So Volt owners aren't
motivated by the cost of gasoline. They're advertising their social
beliefs.
The latest info I've seen is that the global temperature rise will
likely come in on the low end of forecasts (about 2.4 deg C). And
that's not going to be stopped by a bunch of affluent progressives
buying Chevy Volts to show their concern for the environment. In fact,
it's not going to be stopped.
-- Steven L.
Arkalen
Apr 7, 2012, 11:35:31 AM4/7/12
to
profitable to the company, which makes it more likely for that company
and the industry in general to focus more on environmentally-friendly
cars, which might result in cars that are even better for the
environment than the Volt is, or cheaper so they can make up a higher
percentage of the car population, or even both.
Message has been deleted
Earle Jones
Apr 7, 2012, 5:49:26 PM4/7/12
to
In article <RPWdnTJjC7rQwR3S...@earthlink.com>,
*
Last I heard is no one is buying Chevy Volts. Production has stopped to
allow lowering of inventory.
Now the Prius, on the other hand...
earle
*
Last I heard is no one is buying Chevy Volts. Production has stopped to
allow lowering of inventory.
Now the Prius, on the other hand...
earle
*
Earle Jones
Apr 7, 2012, 6:53:01 PM4/7/12
to
In article
<25744777.2107.1333804344805.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbhy13>,
"Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
*
I suspect that the overall efficiency is not as high as your example
(33%) but is probably closer to 15 or 20%.
Electrical devices (motors, generators, transformers) are much more
efficient than that internal combustion engine. Especially high-power
electrical devices. A 100 hp electric motor could have an efficiency
greater than 90%.
earle
*
<25744777.2107.1333804344805.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbhy13>,
"Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> I have a default position of incredulity as
> to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
> road vehicles being at all significant compared
> to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
> the Use that they're meant for.
>
> I think I've heard that the energy in burning
> gasoline to move a vehicle comes out as
> one-third "work" and two-thirds waste heat....
> I have a default position of incredulity as
> to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
> road vehicles being at all significant compared
> to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
> the Use that they're meant for.
>
> I think I've heard that the energy in burning
> gasoline to move a vehicle comes out as
*
I suspect that the overall efficiency is not as high as your example
(33%) but is probably closer to 15 or 20%.
Electrical devices (motors, generators, transformers) are much more
efficient than that internal combustion engine. Especially high-power
electrical devices. A 100 hp electric motor could have an efficiency
greater than 90%.
earle
*
Free Lunch
Apr 7, 2012, 7:07:22 PM4/7/12
to
On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 15:53:01 -0700, Earle Jones
<earle...@comcast.net> wrote in talk.origins:
How efficient is the motor that generates the electricity in the first
place? How efficient is the transmission grid?
<earle...@comcast.net> wrote in talk.origins:
place? How efficient is the transmission grid?
*Hemidactylus*
Apr 7, 2012, 7:22:37 PM4/7/12
to
nagged at me for so long. Is it better to produce energy in the internal
combustion engine and spew C02 at the tailpipe or is it better to
produce energy at the power plant and spew C02 there instead. Given a
decent energy grid and better overall efficiency from plant to plug than
from internal combustion motor, the answer is the the power plant.
Would a hybrid be better or worse than plug-in? I think from the POV of
confidence in not running out of stored battery power, the hybrid would
be better. But what about compartive carbon footprints on grids not
using nuclear or solar sources?
--
*Hemidactylus*
chris thompson
Apr 7, 2012, 9:58:55 PM4/7/12
to
On Apr 7, 5:49 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <RPWdnTJjC7rQwR3SnZ2dnUVZ_omdn...@earthlink.com>,
> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "prawnster" <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote in message
Much of the New York City government fleet (excepting police vehicles)
is made up of Prius's.
Chris
> In article <RPWdnTJjC7rQwR3SnZ2dnUVZ_omdn...@earthlink.com>,
> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "prawnster" <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote in message
> >news:4a8ad74f-12b2-43a6...@z5g2000pbu.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > <Sen. Dick Durbin reacts to the tornadoes in Dallas, Texas earlier
> > > this week. Durbin calls for more laws regulating carbon output while
> > > he sends a dire warning that we must convert to hybrid cars or lose
> > > our life. Durbin says we must spend money now to fix the problem.
>
> > > "It's your money or your life," he said a press conference. "We are
> > > either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet
> > > and accept the initial investment necessary or we're going to pay a
> > > heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs
> > > associated with it.">
>
> > >http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/06/durbin_on_spending_...
>
> > > <Sen. Dick Durbin reacts to the tornadoes in Dallas, Texas earlier
> > > this week. Durbin calls for more laws regulating carbon output while
> > > he sends a dire warning that we must convert to hybrid cars or lose
> > > our life. Durbin says we must spend money now to fix the problem.
>
> > > "It's your money or your life," he said a press conference. "We are
> > > either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet
> > > and accept the initial investment necessary or we're going to pay a
> > > heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs
> > > associated with it.">
>
is made up of Prius's.
Chris
chris thompson
Apr 7, 2012, 10:01:12 PM4/7/12
to
On Apr 7, 6:53 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <25744777.2107.1333804344805.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbhy13>,
> "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org"
> In article
> <25744777.2107.1333804344805.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbhy13>,
>
> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > I have a default position of incredulity as
> > to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
> > road vehicles being at all significant compared
> > to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
> > the Use that they're meant for.
>
> > I think I've heard that the energy in burning
> > gasoline to move a vehicle comes out as
> > one-third "work" and two-thirds waste heat....
>
> *
> I suspect that the overall efficiency is not as high as your example
> (33%) but is probably closer to 15 or 20%.
>
> Electrical devices (motors, generators, transformers) are much more
> efficient than that internal combustion engine. Especially high-power
> electrical devices. A 100 hp electric motor could have an efficiency
> greater than 90%.
>
> earle
> *
And of course another alternative is to use existing non-CO2 emitting
> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > I have a default position of incredulity as
> > to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
> > road vehicles being at all significant compared
> > to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
> > the Use that they're meant for.
>
> > I think I've heard that the energy in burning
> > gasoline to move a vehicle comes out as
> > one-third "work" and two-thirds waste heat....
>
> *
> I suspect that the overall efficiency is not as high as your example
> (33%) but is probably closer to 15 or 20%.
>
> Electrical devices (motors, generators, transformers) are much more
> efficient than that internal combustion engine. Especially high-power
> electrical devices. A 100 hp electric motor could have an efficiency
> greater than 90%.
>
> earle
> *
transport. Most of the electricity used by mass transit in the
northeast US is generated by hydroelectric or nuclear power, and they
don't emit much of anything.
Chris
Robert Camp
Apr 7, 2012, 10:42:22 PM4/7/12
to
On Apr 7, 8:24 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "prawnster" <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote in message
are, isn't it? Their motivations are so easy to unmask it almost seems
too simplistic, as if there might be more nuance and depth to the
issue than your little diatribe implies.
> The latest info I've seen is that the global temperature rise will
> likely come in on the low end of forecasts (about 2.4 deg C).
Cite, please.
RLC
> "prawnster" <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4a8ad74f-12b2-43a6...@z5g2000pbu.googlegroups.com:
>
> > <Sen. Dick Durbin reacts to the tornadoes in Dallas, Texas earlier
> > this week. Durbin calls for more laws regulating carbon output while
> > he sends a dire warning that we must convert to hybrid cars or lose
> > our life. Durbin says we must spend money now to fix the problem.
>
> > "It's your money or your life," he said a press conference. "We are
> > either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet
> > and accept the initial investment necessary or we're going to pay a
> > heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs
> > associated with it.">
>
> >http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/06/durbin_on_spending_...
> news:4a8ad74f-12b2-43a6...@z5g2000pbu.googlegroups.com:
>
> > <Sen. Dick Durbin reacts to the tornadoes in Dallas, Texas earlier
> > this week. Durbin calls for more laws regulating carbon output while
> > he sends a dire warning that we must convert to hybrid cars or lose
> > our life. Durbin says we must spend money now to fix the problem.
>
> > "It's your money or your life," he said a press conference. "We are
> > either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet
> > and accept the initial investment necessary or we're going to pay a
> > heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs
> > associated with it.">
>
>
> > Yes, I know the debate is over and Western Civ has gone all in for the
> > suicidal and unwinnable War on Bad Weather.
>
> > But riddle me this: how is the WBW anything other than a neo-Pagan
> > mystery cult when America's august leaders say utterly unprovable
> > things like the above?
>
> > And for those who are inclined to rigorous math, riddle me this: how
> > many Prii and/or Volts must be purchased to stop one tornado? What's
> > the exchange rate? And, as always, please show all your work.
>
> You're right about one thing--and wrong about the rest.
>
> Buying a Chevy Volt doesn't do anything to slow global warming. It's a
> way of making a *social statement* that the owner cares about the
> environment. It's like a bumper sticker but much more expensive.
>
> The Volt costs $40,000 (and is likely to depreciate more rapidly than
> gasoline powered cars). Anybody who can afford to pay that much, can
> easily afford to pay a little more for gasoline. So Volt owners aren't
> motivated by the cost of gasoline. They're advertising their social
> beliefs.
Amazing how shallow and self-centered those so-called "progressives"
> > Yes, I know the debate is over and Western Civ has gone all in for the
> > suicidal and unwinnable War on Bad Weather.
>
> > But riddle me this: how is the WBW anything other than a neo-Pagan
> > mystery cult when America's august leaders say utterly unprovable
> > things like the above?
>
> > And for those who are inclined to rigorous math, riddle me this: how
> > many Prii and/or Volts must be purchased to stop one tornado? What's
> > the exchange rate? And, as always, please show all your work.
>
> You're right about one thing--and wrong about the rest.
>
> Buying a Chevy Volt doesn't do anything to slow global warming. It's a
> way of making a *social statement* that the owner cares about the
> environment. It's like a bumper sticker but much more expensive.
>
> The Volt costs $40,000 (and is likely to depreciate more rapidly than
> gasoline powered cars). Anybody who can afford to pay that much, can
> easily afford to pay a little more for gasoline. So Volt owners aren't
> motivated by the cost of gasoline. They're advertising their social
> beliefs.
are, isn't it? Their motivations are so easy to unmask it almost seems
too simplistic, as if there might be more nuance and depth to the
issue than your little diatribe implies.
> The latest info I've seen is that the global temperature rise will
> likely come in on the low end of forecasts (about 2.4 deg C).
RLC
jillery
Apr 8, 2012, 1:17:19 AM4/8/12
to
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 06:12:24 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>I have a default position of incredulity as
>to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
>road vehicles being at all significant compared
>to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
>the Use that they're meant for.
That would be an interesting point to actually back up.
talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>I have a default position of incredulity as
>to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
>road vehicles being at all significant compared
>to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
>the Use that they're meant for.
>I think I've heard that the energy in burning
>gasoline to move a vehicle comes out as
>one-third "work" and two-thirds waste heat.
another point worth backing up.
>Other alternatives include making journeys shorter
>or not going at all, and using a bicycle.
Perhaps we can buy them from China, which is replacing its bicycles
with automobiles.
Ernest Major
Apr 8, 2012, 3:00:19 AM4/8/12
to
In message <44i1o75avhtu8hfrt...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
<lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes
Fide Wikipedia conventional thermal power plants have an efficiency in a
range of 33-48%; nuclear power plants are less efficient, but have lower
carbon footprints.
An electric vehicle is not obviously less efficient overall than an
internal combustion one. However, firstly carbon sequestration at a
power station is more practicable than carbon capture from a vehicle,
and secondly building an infrastructure for electric vehicles would
facilitate switching transportation away from fossil carbon after
generation has been switched..
--
alias Ernest Major
<lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes
range of 33-48%; nuclear power plants are less efficient, but have lower
carbon footprints.
An electric vehicle is not obviously less efficient overall than an
internal combustion one. However, firstly carbon sequestration at a
power station is more practicable than carbon capture from a vehicle,
and secondly building an infrastructure for electric vehicles would
facilitate switching transportation away from fossil carbon after
generation has been switched..
--
alias Ernest Major
Vend
Apr 8, 2012, 4:29:37 AM4/8/12
to
On 8 Apr, 07:17, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 06:12:24 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
>
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 06:12:24 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
>
> talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> >I have a default position of incredulity as
> >to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
> >road vehicles being at all significant compared
> >to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
> >the Use that they're meant for.
>
> That would be an interesting point to actually back up.
>
> >I think I've heard that the energy in burning
> >gasoline to move a vehicle comes out as
> >one-third "work" and two-thirds waste heat.
It's actually about 15 - 20%.
> >I have a default position of incredulity as
> >to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
> >road vehicles being at all significant compared
> >to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
> >the Use that they're meant for.
>
> That would be an interesting point to actually back up.
>
> >I think I've heard that the energy in burning
> >gasoline to move a vehicle comes out as
> >one-third "work" and two-thirds waste heat.
> And how does that apply to efficiency of the electric system? Yet
> another point worth backing up.
Most power plants are heat engines with a 30 - 50% efficiency, hence
the total efficiency is in the same ballpark.
However, electric cars could have, at least in principle, a number of
advantages both in terms of reduced pollution and decreased depletion
of oil.
The main issue with electric cars is energy storage: batteries have a
much smaller energy storage density than gasoline and diesel fuel.
Without a technologic breakthrough, this may casue full-sized electric
cars to be ultimately unviable.
> >Other alternatives include making journeys shorter
> >or not going at all, and using a bicycle.
>
> It would be rather ironic to see this country convert to bicycles.
> Perhaps we can buy them from China, which is replacing its bicycles
> with automobiles.
and a full size, 1.5 tons, five-seats car.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Apr 8, 2012, 5:25:40 AM4/8/12
to
On Sunday, April 8, 2012 6:17:19 AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 06:12:24 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >I have a default position of incredulity as
> >to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
> >road vehicles being at all significant compared
> >to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
> >the Use that they're meant for.
>
> That would be an interesting point to actually back up.
Not particularly. In terms of semiotics,
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 06:12:24 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >I have a default position of incredulity as
> >to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
> >road vehicles being at all significant compared
> >to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
> >the Use that they're meant for.
>
> That would be an interesting point to actually back up.
the claim that non-CO2-polluting vehicles
cause massive pollution in their manufacture
or disposal is clearly the transposition
of a similar claim that has been made for
years about solar power cells - that the
energy used to manufacture them exceeds
the energy that they actually deliver, and
of course the attendant CO2 emission
likewise. Therefore to calculate the
actual CO2 emissions in the lifetime of
an electric vehicle is redundant.
In the original case of solar cells, on the
face of it, a consequence of the thesis, if
true, is that for them to exist at all is
ridiculous, and indeed it's my impression
that people are not too stupid to notice that,
and so they infer that solar cells are a
fraud concocted by America's enemies, such as
Europe, the United Nations, and any country
with unnaturally small motor cars (Japan,
Brazil, ...) and of course China, since
that's where they're made, like everything
else nowadays.
> >I think I've heard that the energy in burning
> >gasoline to move a vehicle comes out as
> >one-third "work" and two-thirds waste heat.
>
> And how does that apply to efficiency of
> the electric system? Yet another point worth
> backing up.
may be useful, in cold weather. Otherwise, not.
It does seem to be not possible to make
an admittedly stupid argument that an
automobile heats up the environment around
it /directly/, contributing to global
warming, without an easy rebuttal about
fixed energy generation plants doing the
same thing - even nuclear.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Apr 8, 2012, 7:22:51 AM4/8/12
to
headline and the context of recent tornado
strikes, Senator Durbin reportedly claimed
that many kinds of dangerous weather are
increased in the U.S. (presumably) by the
current anthropogenic climate change process.
The video mentions blizzards and they aren't
excluded, although conter-intuitive if you
think of the issue as "global warming".
But it isn't Senator Durbin's voice saying it.
His web site doesn't appear to have his own
copy of the speech, but there's this:
http://durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=energy-environment-priorities#climate
"One of the most significant environmental crises we face is climate change. We are already witnessing some effects of a changing climate—melting glaciers, rising sea levels, extreme weather events, chronic floods and droughts, and accelerated erosion. Scientists predict that these events will occur more frequently in the future with negative repercussions for our economy and national security, in addition to our environment.
"I support updating the Clean Air Act to strengthen standards for air pollutants, such as mercury, smog, and carbon dioxide. Such standards protect public health and drive investment in the development of affordable, clean energy. I also am a strong advocate of mandatory fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, which can lessen our dependence on fossil fuels."
By casual investigation online I find that
there seems not to be scientific certainty
that tornado force or tornado numbers are
increased by the climate change. Yesterday
I was looking at a page that claimed "wind
shear" is increased because there are more
storms around. Here, last year and admittedly
just in a blog, I find the opposite.
http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-causing-more-tornadoes-not-so-fast-says-harold-brooks
And if cars cause tornadoes cause terrible
devastation, then so what?
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/two-cent-us-road-deaths-are-cyclists.html
says that "In 2009 almost 34,000 Americans died
on the roads", almost all presumably entirely
due to cars. (Two per cent also or instead
involving bicyles in some way.) And I believe that's less than previous years. Most people
don't think very often about ten 9/11s a year
on the roads, when by rights you ought to be
declaring war on somebody. Such as the
United Nations. (It doesn't have to make sense.
As thoughtful observers have already noticed.)
Compared to that, you could have ten times as
many tornadoes, and not notice that, either.
Frank J
Apr 8, 2012, 9:14:32 AM4/8/12
to
jillery
Apr 8, 2012, 9:24:56 AM4/8/12
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 01:29:37 -0700 (PDT), Vend <ven...@virgilio.it>
wrote:
By "electric system" I am referring to not just the vehicle itself,
but to the system which generates electricity and tranfers it to the
batteries.
>> >Other alternatives include making journeys shorter
>> >or not going at all, and using a bicycle.
>>
>> It would be rather ironic to see this country convert to bicycles.
>> Perhaps we can buy them from China, which is replacing its bicycles
>> with automobiles.
>
>There can be many intermediate alternatives between a plain bicycles
>and a full size, 1.5 tons, five-seats car.
Very true. It's odd Robert doesn't mention them.
wrote:
but to the system which generates electricity and tranfers it to the
batteries.
>> >Other alternatives include making journeys shorter
>> >or not going at all, and using a bicycle.
>>
>> It would be rather ironic to see this country convert to bicycles.
>> Perhaps we can buy them from China, which is replacing its bicycles
>> with automobiles.
>
>There can be many intermediate alternatives between a plain bicycles
>and a full size, 1.5 tons, five-seats car.
jillery
Apr 8, 2012, 9:31:27 AM4/8/12
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 02:25:40 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
actual point at least semiotically interesting?
And yet you mention it anyway.
>It does seem to be not possible to make
>an admittedly stupid argument that an
>automobile heats up the environment around
>it /directly/, contributing to global
>warming, without an easy rebuttal about
>fixed energy generation plants doing the
>same thing - even nuclear.
So what was your point?
talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, April 8, 2012 6:17:19 AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 06:12:24 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
>> talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I have a default position of incredulity as
>> >to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
>> >road vehicles being at all significant compared
>> >to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
>> >the Use that they're meant for.
>>
>> That would be an interesting point to actually back up.
>
>Not particularly. In terms of semiotics,
>the claim that non-CO2-polluting vehicles
>cause massive pollution in their manufacture
>or disposal
This is the opposite of your claim. Don't you think backing up your
>On Sunday, April 8, 2012 6:17:19 AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 06:12:24 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
>> talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I have a default position of incredulity as
>> >to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
>> >road vehicles being at all significant compared
>> >to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
>> >the Use that they're meant for.
>>
>> That would be an interesting point to actually back up.
>
>Not particularly. In terms of semiotics,
>the claim that non-CO2-polluting vehicles
>cause massive pollution in their manufacture
>or disposal
actual point at least semiotically interesting?
>It does seem to be not possible to make
>an admittedly stupid argument that an
>automobile heats up the environment around
>it /directly/, contributing to global
>warming, without an easy rebuttal about
>fixed energy generation plants doing the
>same thing - even nuclear.
Ron O
Apr 8, 2012, 9:35:19 AM4/8/12
to
one compared to a conventional car, maintain it and charge it's
battery? How much elelctrical energy is wasted getting the
electricity to the car battery? You also have to fill the tank. A
lot of electrical energy is lost transporting it from the power
plant. Is that factored into the energy use? As far as global
warming what is the difference between a Prius and a similar
horsepowered normal car if the electricity is generated by a coal
fired or oil burning power plant?
Is this a case like corn ethanol where it takes more energy to make
the ethanol that you can get out of the ethanol. The projections are
that there may be a positive net energy output from corn, but no one
has done it, yet. The scenarios that I have seen are that you need to
also make cellulosic alcohol and possibly capture methane generated by
feeding distillers waste to pigs and cattle. Right now corn ethanol
is mostly just pretending to be doing something. A lot of money was
wasted on ethanol subsidies when the money was needed working on the
biochemistry and horticulture. The free money was supposed to spawn
investment, but all most of the investment went into was building
plants that have a net negative energy output. There were no
stipulations that the producers had to try to make the system energy
positive.
Ron Okimoto
MarkA
Apr 8, 2012, 11:02:51 AM4/8/12
to
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 16:18:43 -0700, prawnster wrote:
>
>
> And for those who are inclined to rigorous math, riddle me this: how
> many Prii and/or Volts must be purchased to stop one tornado? What's
> the exchange rate? And, as always, please show all your work.
>
> Thank you.
Hah! Trick question! If the Panavia Tornado is parked on the tarmac,
>
>
> And for those who are inclined to rigorous math, riddle me this: how
> many Prii and/or Volts must be purchased to stop one tornado? What's
> the exchange rate? And, as always, please show all your work.
>
> Thank you.
only a single Prius or Volt could stop it, by crashing into its landing
gear. Once the Tornado is airborne, though, it would be much harder to
stop.
--
MarkA
If you can read this, you can stop reading now.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Apr 8, 2012, 11:24:43 AM4/8/12
to
On Sunday, April 8, 2012 2:35:19 PM UTC+1, Ron O wrote:
> Does a Prius really save energy? How much energy does it take to make
> one compared to a conventional car, maintain it and charge it's
> battery? How much elelctrical energy is wasted getting the
> electricity to the car battery? You also have to fill the tank.
Here's your answer:
> Does a Prius really save energy? How much energy does it take to make
> one compared to a conventional car, maintain it and charge it's
> battery? How much elelctrical energy is wasted getting the
> electricity to the car battery? You also have to fill the tank.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9750840-1.html
A study by CNW Marketing Research called
"Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles
From Concept to Disposal" makes a carefully
calculated argument that the lifecycle
"carbon footprint" of a Prius actually is
more than that of a Hummer.
This study is then exposed as a laughable
compilation of falsehoods.
Since evidently this is the best that the
enemies of Prius can do, there is logically
no honest analysis possible of the relative
merit of a Prius that fails to show it as
a far better citizen than a comparable
ordinary gasoline vehicle.
Again, it is not necessary to perform any
tedious calculation ourselves to reach this
conclusion. To make the Prius look bad, its
detractors were obliged to lie heavily;
therefore, the Prius looks good.
Unassailable logic, I think. And we can
probably see the Hummer as a clue: there is
a longstanding tradition that "people will
believe a big lie sooner than a little one".
(Look that one up if you don't recognise it.)
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Apr 8, 2012, 11:37:24 AM4/8/12
to
On Sunday, April 8, 2012 2:31:27 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 02:25:40 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, April 8, 2012 6:17:19 AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> >> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 06:12:24 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> >> talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I have a default position of incredulity as
> >> >to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
> >> >road vehicles being at all significant compared
> >> >to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
> >> >the Use that they're meant for.
> >>
> >> That would be an interesting point to actually back up.
> >
> >Not particularly. In terms of semiotics,
> >the claim that non-CO2-polluting vehicles
> >cause massive pollution in their manufacture
> >or disposal
>
> This is the opposite of your claim.
Yes, and I'm refuting it.
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 02:25:40 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, April 8, 2012 6:17:19 AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> >> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 06:12:24 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> >> talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I have a default position of incredulity as
> >> >to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
> >> >road vehicles being at all significant compared
> >> >to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
> >> >the Use that they're meant for.
> >>
> >> That would be an interesting point to actually back up.
> >
> >Not particularly. In terms of semiotics,
> >the claim that non-CO2-polluting vehicles
> >cause massive pollution in their manufacture
> >or disposal
>
> This is the opposite of your claim.
> Don't you think backing up your
> actual point at least semiotically interesting?
was told about solar power is now being told
about electric vehicles. I don't recognise an
obligation to perform a calculation because
I'm fairly certain that no /true/ calculation
has been performed to support the story.
> >I suppose in both cases the heat energy
> >may be useful, in cold weather. Otherwise, not.
>
> And yet you mention it anyway.
back and forth on it later.
> >It does seem to be not possible to make
> >an admittedly stupid argument that an
> >automobile heats up the environment around
> >it /directly/, contributing to global
> >warming, without an easy rebuttal about
> >fixed energy generation plants doing the
> >same thing - even nuclear.
>
>
> So what was your point?
something, it can be useful to make a stupid
argument. In this case, that would be to
challenge someone to explain why they don't
believe in electric vehicles as a cure for
"global warming" whilst resting their
unprotected hand on the hood of their car
after a long drive. Perhaps you remember
a scene in the 1980 film of _Flash Gordon_...
Mark Isaak
Apr 8, 2012, 12:27:57 PM4/8/12
to
On 4/7/12 7:42 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
> On Apr 7, 8:24 am, "Steven L."<sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> [...]
> On Apr 7, 8:24 am, "Steven L."<sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> The Volt costs $40,000 (and is likely to depreciate more rapidly than
>> gasoline powered cars). Anybody who can afford to pay that much, can
>> easily afford to pay a little more for gasoline. So Volt owners aren't
>> motivated by the cost of gasoline. They're advertising their social
>> beliefs.
>
> Amazing how shallow and self-centered those so-called "progressives"
> are, isn't it?
I don't follow you. Visibly supporting a worthy ideal, even at some
>> gasoline powered cars). Anybody who can afford to pay that much, can
>> easily afford to pay a little more for gasoline. So Volt owners aren't
>> motivated by the cost of gasoline. They're advertising their social
>> beliefs.
>
> Amazing how shallow and self-centered those so-called "progressives"
> are, isn't it?
extra cost to oneself, is "shallow and self-centered"? How?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Ernest Major
Apr 8, 2012, 12:59:05 PM4/8/12
to
In message <jlseaa$fmm$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> writes
>On 4/7/12 7:42 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 8:24 am, "Steven L."<sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> The Volt costs $40,000 (and is likely to depreciate more rapidly than
>>> gasoline powered cars). Anybody who can afford to pay that much, can
>>> easily afford to pay a little more for gasoline. So Volt owners aren't
>>> motivated by the cost of gasoline. They're advertising their social
>>> beliefs.
>>
>> Amazing how shallow and self-centered those so-called "progressives"
>> are, isn't it?
>
>I don't follow you. Visibly supporting a worthy ideal, even at some
>extra cost to oneself, is "shallow and self-centered"? How?
>
The context - "Amazing how shallow and self-centered those so-called
>> On Apr 7, 8:24 am, "Steven L."<sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> The Volt costs $40,000 (and is likely to depreciate more rapidly than
>>> gasoline powered cars). Anybody who can afford to pay that much, can
>>> easily afford to pay a little more for gasoline. So Volt owners aren't
>>> motivated by the cost of gasoline. They're advertising their social
>>> beliefs.
>>
>> Amazing how shallow and self-centered those so-called "progressives"
>> are, isn't it?
>
>I don't follow you. Visibly supporting a worthy ideal, even at some
>extra cost to oneself, is "shallow and self-centered"? How?
>
"progressives" are, isn't it? Their motivations are so easy to unmask it
almost seems too simplistic, as if there might be more nuance and depth
to the issue than your little diatribe implies." - suggests sarcasm.
almost seems too simplistic, as if there might be more nuance and depth
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron O
Apr 8, 2012, 1:16:56 PM4/8/12
to
On Apr 8, 10:24 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
It looks like they had up to a three fold over estimate for a lot of
things to make the Hummer look good, but the comparison isn't between
a Hummer and Prius. It is between a similarly powered car by
transport capability. This doesn't look good for a favorable outcome
for a Prius. Only 3 times comparing it to a Hummer that may get 12
miles to the gallon and carry a load more than 3 times a Prius?
Really? Only 3 fold? A Hummer H1 weighs 7500 lbs a Corolla weighs
around 2800 lbs and gets around 3 times the gas mileage. A Yaris 5
door weighs 2300 lbs.
What you need to do is take away the exaggerations and figure out what
the energy costs are.
The above analysis is about as dishonest as the original comparison
may have been, and doesn't answer the real question. If the real
answer is a negative gain, then that is the real answer no matter if
some bogus guys tried to make a joke out of it. From the numbers
stated in the article it looks bad for the Prius, no matter how badly
the other guys had to lie about it.
So does anyone have a real comparison?
Ron Okimoto
things to make the Hummer look good, but the comparison isn't between
a Hummer and Prius. It is between a similarly powered car by
transport capability. This doesn't look good for a favorable outcome
for a Prius. Only 3 times comparing it to a Hummer that may get 12
miles to the gallon and carry a load more than 3 times a Prius?
Really? Only 3 fold? A Hummer H1 weighs 7500 lbs a Corolla weighs
around 2800 lbs and gets around 3 times the gas mileage. A Yaris 5
door weighs 2300 lbs.
What you need to do is take away the exaggerations and figure out what
the energy costs are.
The above analysis is about as dishonest as the original comparison
may have been, and doesn't answer the real question. If the real
answer is a negative gain, then that is the real answer no matter if
some bogus guys tried to make a joke out of it. From the numbers
stated in the article it looks bad for the Prius, no matter how badly
the other guys had to lie about it.
So does anyone have a real comparison?
Ron Okimoto
Vend
Apr 8, 2012, 2:09:20 PM4/8/12
to
jillery
Apr 8, 2012, 2:24:32 PM4/8/12
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 06:35:19 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:
I do remember those excuses. IIRC in order to justify growing corn to
make fuel, you pretty much have to assume the conversion of the entire
plant, perhaps less its roots, into alternate forms of energy Without
that, fuel from corn is just another bait-and-switch.
wrote:
make fuel, you pretty much have to assume the conversion of the entire
plant, perhaps less its roots, into alternate forms of energy Without
that, fuel from corn is just another bait-and-switch.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Apr 8, 2012, 2:24:05 PM4/8/12
to
On Sunday, April 8, 2012 6:16:56 PM UTC+1, Ron O wrote:
> What you need to do is take away the exaggerations and figure out what
> the energy costs are.
Well, /I/ don't need to do it. I don't drive.
> What you need to do is take away the exaggerations and figure out what
> the energy costs are.
> The above analysis is about as dishonest as the original comparison
> may have been, and doesn't answer the real question. If the real
> answer is a negative gain, then that is the real answer no matter if
> some bogus guys tried to make a joke out of it. From the numbers
> stated in the article it looks bad for the Prius, no matter how badly
> the other guys had to lie about it.
>
> So does anyone have a real comparison?
to come out bad for the Prius anyway? And if
you accept that they were lying, why do you
want to still believe what they told you?
I expect there's an accurate analysis inside
CNW Marketing Research's shredding machine.
I suppose the clue is in the name.
Granted, /you/ want to compare the Prius to
other Toyota cars, not American-built steel
bricks - but first, Wikipedia indicates that
different Prius models came out in 1997, 2003,
and 2009. Yaris is a name slapped on various
Japanese models from Toyota; apparently there's
a Yaris hybrid version due this year.
jillery
Apr 8, 2012, 2:33:36 PM4/8/12
to
these studies show that the manufacturing energy/carbon footprint of
said vehicles are insignificant compared to the that of the products'
lifetime.
jillery
Apr 8, 2012, 2:34:19 PM4/8/12
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 08:37:24 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
Yes, you convinced me you know how to make a stupid argument. I
missed the part where you shows how I'm stupid. Perhaps you snipped
it out.
missed the part where you shows how I'm stupid. Perhaps you snipped
it out.
Mitchell Coffey
Apr 8, 2012, 3:04:17 PM4/8/12
to
On Apr 7, 10:01 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
We should be spending hundreds of billions replacing coal power plants
with 4th gen nuclear plants. Of course,
wrote:
with 4th gen nuclear plants. Of course,
Mitchell Coffey
Apr 8, 2012, 3:13:30 PM4/8/12
to
Mitchell
Ron O
Apr 8, 2012, 3:35:38 PM4/8/12
to
On Apr 8, 1:24 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>
> I expect there's an accurate analysis inside
> CNW Marketing Research's shredding machine.
> I suppose the clue is in the name.
>
> Granted, /you/ want to compare the Prius to
> other Toyota cars, not American-built steel
> bricks - but first, Wikipedia indicates that
> different Prius models came out in 1997, 2003,
> and 2009. Yaris is a name slapped on various
> Japanese models from Toyota; apparently there's
> a Yaris hybrid version due this year.
A Ford focus is 2700 lbs. A Prius actually weighs more for its class
probably because it needs the battery and electric motor along with
the fly wheel (around 3000 lbs)
Ron Okimoto
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 8, 2012 6:16:56 PM UTC+1, Ron O wrote:
> > What you need to do is take away the exaggerations and figure out what
> > the energy costs are.
>
> Well, /I/ don't need to do it. I don't drive.
>
> > The above analysis is about as dishonest as the original comparison
> > may have been, and doesn't answer the real question. If the real
> > answer is a negative gain, then that is the real answer no matter if
> > some bogus guys tried to make a joke out of it. From the numbers
> > stated in the article it looks bad for the Prius, no matter how badly
> > the other guys had to lie about it.
>
> > So does anyone have a real comparison?
>
> But why did they lie about it if it was going
> to come out bad for the Prius anyway? And if
> you accept that they were lying, why do you
> want to still believe what they told you?
Why do creationist lie about things? Why are there still IDiots?
> On Sunday, April 8, 2012 6:16:56 PM UTC+1, Ron O wrote:
> > What you need to do is take away the exaggerations and figure out what
> > the energy costs are.
>
> Well, /I/ don't need to do it. I don't drive.
>
> > The above analysis is about as dishonest as the original comparison
> > may have been, and doesn't answer the real question. If the real
> > answer is a negative gain, then that is the real answer no matter if
> > some bogus guys tried to make a joke out of it. From the numbers
> > stated in the article it looks bad for the Prius, no matter how badly
> > the other guys had to lie about it.
>
> > So does anyone have a real comparison?
>
> But why did they lie about it if it was going
> to come out bad for the Prius anyway? And if
> you accept that they were lying, why do you
> want to still believe what they told you?
>
> I expect there's an accurate analysis inside
> CNW Marketing Research's shredding machine.
> I suppose the clue is in the name.
>
> Granted, /you/ want to compare the Prius to
> other Toyota cars, not American-built steel
> bricks - but first, Wikipedia indicates that
> different Prius models came out in 1997, 2003,
> and 2009. Yaris is a name slapped on various
> Japanese models from Toyota; apparently there's
> a Yaris hybrid version due this year.
probably because it needs the battery and electric motor along with
the fly wheel (around 3000 lbs)
Ron Okimoto
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Apr 8, 2012, 3:39:28 PM4/8/12
to
On Sunday, April 8, 2012 7:33:36 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> So, even ignoring the obvious political/cultural slant, neither of
> these studies show that the manufacturing energy/carbon footprint of
> said vehicles are insignificant compared to the that of the products'
> lifetime.
I haven't read either, but, given we're
> So, even ignoring the obvious political/cultural slant, neither of
> these studies show that the manufacturing energy/carbon footprint of
> said vehicles are insignificant compared to the that of the products'
> lifetime.
comparing the manufacturing process, on the
one hand, to loading some hairless apes into
a metal cage and pushing it a distance well
over 100,000 miles, on the other hand, I'm
comfortable just assuming by default that
the pushing the apes around for a decade or
two is by far the greater part of the job.
Also, as I explained, the what-it-costs-
to-make-'em story arises directly from
the solar-panel version, and does not
require a basis of fact as /well/.
Earle Jones
Apr 8, 2012, 4:05:23 PM4/8/12
to
In article
<f326df68-3f57-4c9a...@z17g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
*
Ron: You should know better.
Get yourself a simple text on how the Prius works and you would not ask,
"How much elelctrical (sic) energy is wasted getting the electricity to
the car battery?"
The traction battery (the big one) is charged two ways. The IC engine
drives a generator (actually a motor/generator) that delivers current to
the battery. The other source is "regenerative braking", when the car
is slowing down, the wheels drive the generator that charges the
battery. For a lot of time the IC engine isn't even running. At a stop
light, the IC engine quits.
The onboard computer keeps the battery between about 30% and 70%
charged. It can never run out of charge nor be overcharged. The
battery is guaranteed for 150,000 miles (in California and other states
that use the California emission rules.)
There is another battery, the 12-volt battery that runs the computer and
some accessories. Since it never has to crank the engine, it looks like
a motorbike or golf-cart battery. I have never replace that on either.
The emissions are so low (SULEV) that we never have to get a smog check.
Never.
My '05 Prius now has 109,000 miles. I have never had a problem. The
regenerative braking saves the brakes also. I have never had a brake
job.
My long-term gas mileage, counting every gallon and every mile, is 49.4.
I have no comments on your attempted comparison of Prius with growing
corn for ethanol.
earle
*
<f326df68-3f57-4c9a...@z17g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Ron: You should know better.
Get yourself a simple text on how the Prius works and you would not ask,
"How much elelctrical (sic) energy is wasted getting the electricity to
the car battery?"
The traction battery (the big one) is charged two ways. The IC engine
drives a generator (actually a motor/generator) that delivers current to
the battery. The other source is "regenerative braking", when the car
is slowing down, the wheels drive the generator that charges the
battery. For a lot of time the IC engine isn't even running. At a stop
light, the IC engine quits.
The onboard computer keeps the battery between about 30% and 70%
charged. It can never run out of charge nor be overcharged. The
battery is guaranteed for 150,000 miles (in California and other states
that use the California emission rules.)
There is another battery, the 12-volt battery that runs the computer and
some accessories. Since it never has to crank the engine, it looks like
a motorbike or golf-cart battery. I have never replace that on either.
The emissions are so low (SULEV) that we never have to get a smog check.
Never.
My '05 Prius now has 109,000 miles. I have never had a problem. The
regenerative braking saves the brakes also. I have never had a brake
job.
My long-term gas mileage, counting every gallon and every mile, is 49.4.
I have no comments on your attempted comparison of Prius with growing
corn for ethanol.
earle
*
Earle Jones
Apr 8, 2012, 4:09:48 PM4/8/12
to
In article
<19913233.129.1333898683683.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbfj25>,
"Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
*
It turns out the original Prius/Hummer article was written by a graduate
student who later said he threw it together in 30 minutes.
earle
*
<19913233.129.1333898683683.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbfj25>,
"Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
It turns out the original Prius/Hummer article was written by a graduate
student who later said he threw it together in 30 minutes.
earle
*
Ron O
Apr 8, 2012, 4:16:28 PM4/8/12
to
On Apr 8, 1:24 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 06:35:19 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
They understood that the energy gain would be negative when they
created the subsidy, but the intention was supposed to fuel investment
into something that might actually produce a positive energy output.
The subsidy ended and it looks like it mostly accomplished making a
lot of ethanol plants that would not have been made without the
subsidy because most of the money went to making a quick profit. What
may keep the ethanol industry going (wasting energy to produce
ethanol) is that the gasoline companies are still required to use a
certain amount of ethanol in gasoline, and they will have to pay for
it without the subsidy. That means that the consumers will be paying
for the negative energy flow by higher gas prices instead of taxes.
Until the research that should have been done in the first place gets
done the US consumer will be paying for the opportunity to use more
oil than we would have otherwise.
I think it was an experiment in supply side economics or supply side
research. The strange thing is that an entity such as the Federal
government should be the one to take on long term projects with no
immediate economic return. A private company has to have very deep
pockets to do that type of research. It is a weird concept to force
the use of something before it is a viable alternative in the hopes
that it will somehow become viable when a capitalist system cares
about energy efficiency only in the bottom line. In our system if
someone can make money (produce ethanol for a profit) with a negative
enegy flow they will and they did.
Ron Okimoto
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 06:35:19 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
created the subsidy, but the intention was supposed to fuel investment
into something that might actually produce a positive energy output.
The subsidy ended and it looks like it mostly accomplished making a
lot of ethanol plants that would not have been made without the
subsidy because most of the money went to making a quick profit. What
may keep the ethanol industry going (wasting energy to produce
ethanol) is that the gasoline companies are still required to use a
certain amount of ethanol in gasoline, and they will have to pay for
it without the subsidy. That means that the consumers will be paying
for the negative energy flow by higher gas prices instead of taxes.
Until the research that should have been done in the first place gets
done the US consumer will be paying for the opportunity to use more
oil than we would have otherwise.
I think it was an experiment in supply side economics or supply side
research. The strange thing is that an entity such as the Federal
government should be the one to take on long term projects with no
immediate economic return. A private company has to have very deep
pockets to do that type of research. It is a weird concept to force
the use of something before it is a viable alternative in the hopes
that it will somehow become viable when a capitalist system cares
about energy efficiency only in the bottom line. In our system if
someone can make money (produce ethanol for a profit) with a negative
enegy flow they will and they did.
Ron Okimoto
Message has been deleted
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Apr 8, 2012, 4:37:32 PM4/8/12
to
Oh, wait. That was the other thing.
Still, I may - /may/ - need to withdraw the
claim that the "Dust to Dust" article represents
evil big business at its evil, cunningest best.
Then again, (1) see above, and (!) cite?, and
(3) the piece did the job.
Then again...
The other day I glanced at a trashy-looking,
sub-Dan Brown novel about the secret of
the resurrection (revival from death) of Jesus
Christ, a fundamental premise of Christianity.
If I followed, a team of Catholic priest
assassins were killing anyone who might find
evidence that Christians hid the body and
faked the resurrection.
Spoiler:
The secret revealed at the end is that the
Christians were all set to steal the extremely
body out of the tomb, when he got up and walked
out himself.
So, maybe the Prius cars /are/ a gigantic fraud
against well-meaning Americans!
Vend
Apr 8, 2012, 4:41:15 PM4/8/12
to
> and charge it's
> battery?
> How much elelctrical energy is wasted getting the
> electricity to the car battery?
configuration.
I've read that typical efficiency is about 90 %, yielding an overall
70 % from the power station to the wheels.
> You also have to fill the tank. A
> lot of electrical energy is lost transporting it from the power
> plant. Is that factored into the energy use? As far as global
> warming what is the difference between a Prius and a similar
> horsepowered normal car if the electricity is generated by a coal
> fired or oil burning power plant?
Coal fired and oil fired power plants are about 33% efficient, thus
you get a fuel-to-wheels efficiency of 20 - 25%, compared to the 15%
of gasoline cars and 20% of diesel cars.
Combined cycle natural gas fired power plants can reach an efficiency
of 50%, yielding a fuel-to-wheels efficiency of about 35%.
Electric cars get a few extra % in intense traffic conditions, since
they can use regenerative braking and the motor doesn't idle.
Ron O
Apr 8, 2012, 5:39:28 PM4/8/12
to
you do not charge the battery off the grid the miles per gallon would
be the the measure and you would have to compensate for the extra
energy to make the battery and the additional electrical generating
equipment the car needs. 49.4 miles per gallon for 100,000 miles
compared to 34 miles per gallon for 100,000 miles for a similarly
powered vehicle. We could cheat and say 200,000 miles and the Prius
would have to factor in a battery change. For 100,000 miles the
difference is 921 gallons of gas. My guess is that the battery and
electrical equipment cost more in energy to manufacture than that.
Ron Okimoto
Stuart
Apr 8, 2012, 5:15:34 PM4/8/12
to
Stuart
Robert Camp
Apr 8, 2012, 5:59:54 PM4/8/12
to
On Apr 8, 9:27 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:
said, laid on a bit thick. Steven L. is so predictably superficial in
his political commentary that I've taken to just answering with
content-free pique. Doesn't say anything good about me, I'll admit.
RLC
wrote:
> On 4/7/12 7:42 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>
> > On Apr 7, 8:24 am, "Steven L."<sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> The Volt costs $40,000 (and is likely to depreciate more rapidly than
> >> gasoline powered cars). Anybody who can afford to pay that much, can
> >> easily afford to pay a little more for gasoline. So Volt owners aren't
> >> motivated by the cost of gasoline. They're advertising their social
> >> beliefs.
>
> > Amazing how shallow and self-centered those so-called "progressives"
> > are, isn't it?
>
> I don't follow you. Visibly supporting a worthy ideal, even at some
> extra cost to oneself, is "shallow and self-centered"? How?
I suppose I could have been less abstruse. It was sarcasm, as E.M.
>
> > On Apr 7, 8:24 am, "Steven L."<sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> The Volt costs $40,000 (and is likely to depreciate more rapidly than
> >> gasoline powered cars). Anybody who can afford to pay that much, can
> >> easily afford to pay a little more for gasoline. So Volt owners aren't
> >> motivated by the cost of gasoline. They're advertising their social
> >> beliefs.
>
> > Amazing how shallow and self-centered those so-called "progressives"
> > are, isn't it?
>
> I don't follow you. Visibly supporting a worthy ideal, even at some
> extra cost to oneself, is "shallow and self-centered"? How?
said, laid on a bit thick. Steven L. is so predictably superficial in
his political commentary that I've taken to just answering with
content-free pique. Doesn't say anything good about me, I'll admit.
RLC
chris thompson
Apr 8, 2012, 6:08:46 PM4/8/12
to
man who founded Greenpeace started agitating for more nuclear power
plants. If we had listened to him then, we might not be in as bad a
shape as we are. Of course, he immediately became persona non grata
with the organization.
Chris
chris thompson
Apr 8, 2012, 6:22:26 PM4/8/12
to
Chris
chris thompson
Apr 8, 2012, 6:20:40 PM4/8/12
to
On Apr 8, 7:22 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
snip
>
> By casual investigation online I find that
> there seems not to be scientific certainty
> that tornado force or tornado numbers are
> increased by the climate change. Yesterday
> I was looking at a page that claimed "wind
> shear" is increased because there are more
> storms around. Here, last year and admittedly
> just in a blog, I find the opposite.http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-causing-more-tornadoes-not-s...
A few days ago, a guy from the National Weather Service was on radio
saying that the number of tornadoes that are touching down, and their
severity, have increased dramatically in recent years. That was the
rationale for some states testing a new tornado warning system. Gone
is the siren of yesterday; these days voice or text messages are sent
out. The new warnings include words like "catastrophic" and
"unsurvivable".
Chris
>
> And if cars cause tornadoes cause terrible
> devastation, then so what?http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/two-cent-us-road-deaths-are-cyclists....
> says that "In 2009 almost 34,000 Americans died
> on the roads", almost all presumably entirely
> due to cars. (Two per cent also or instead
> involving bicyles in some way.) And I believe that's less than previous years. Most people
> don't think very often about ten 9/11s a year
> on the roads, when by rights you ought to be
> declaring war on somebody. Such as the
> United Nations. (It doesn't have to make sense.
> As thoughtful observers have already noticed.)
>
> Compared to that, you could have ten times as
> many tornadoes, and not notice that, either.
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
snip
>
> By casual investigation online I find that
> there seems not to be scientific certainty
> that tornado force or tornado numbers are
> increased by the climate change. Yesterday
> I was looking at a page that claimed "wind
> shear" is increased because there are more
> storms around. Here, last year and admittedly
> just in a blog, I find the opposite.http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-causing-more-tornadoes-not-s...
A few days ago, a guy from the National Weather Service was on radio
saying that the number of tornadoes that are touching down, and their
severity, have increased dramatically in recent years. That was the
rationale for some states testing a new tornado warning system. Gone
is the siren of yesterday; these days voice or text messages are sent
out. The new warnings include words like "catastrophic" and
"unsurvivable".
Chris
>
> And if cars cause tornadoes cause terrible
> devastation, then so what?http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/two-cent-us-road-deaths-are-cyclists....
> says that "In 2009 almost 34,000 Americans died
> on the roads", almost all presumably entirely
> due to cars. (Two per cent also or instead
> involving bicyles in some way.) And I believe that's less than previous years. Most people
> don't think very often about ten 9/11s a year
> on the roads, when by rights you ought to be
> declaring war on somebody. Such as the
> United Nations. (It doesn't have to make sense.
> As thoughtful observers have already noticed.)
>
> Compared to that, you could have ten times as
> many tornadoes, and not notice that, either.
chris thompson
Apr 8, 2012, 6:12:06 PM4/8/12
to
you're charging your Prius off of a dirty coal plant, there's probably
not much difference. If you're charging it off of a hydro or nuclear
plant, it becomes more significant. The obvious answer is to quit
burning coal.
Chris
*Hemidactylus*
Apr 8, 2012, 8:16:27 PM4/8/12
to
--
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
Apr 8, 2012, 8:25:12 PM4/8/12
to
question is reworded to focus on electric cars (not hybrids) it becomes
more apt. And the issue with electric cars is dependant upon ultimate
energy source at the plant.
Now a better question is if we're getting away from a pure IC car, would
it be better CO2 wise to opt for a hybrid or for an electric. Again that
may be dependant upon ultimate power source that the electric would be
using.
--
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
Apr 8, 2012, 8:31:51 PM4/8/12
to
coal and/or oil plants mention above, how much CO2 and perhaps sulfur
and other bad emissions are put out vs. the emission put out of the IC
car's tailpipe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station#Environmental_impacts
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/t/deadly-power-plants-study-fuels-debate/
--
*Hemidactylus*
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Apr 8, 2012, 9:42:44 PM4/8/12
to
On Sunday, April 8, 2012 10:39:28 PM UTC+1, Ron O wrote:
> Earle says that you don't have to plug a Prius in to charge it, so if
> you do not charge the battery off the grid the miles per gallon would
> be the the measure and you would have to compensate for the extra
> energy to make the battery and the additional electrical generating
> equipment the car needs. 49.4 miles per gallon for 100,000 miles
> compared to 34 miles per gallon for 100,000 miles for a similarly
> powered vehicle. We could cheat and say 200,000 miles and the Prius
> would have to factor in a battery change. For 100,000 miles the
> difference is 921 gallons of gas. My guess is that the battery and
> electrical equipment cost more in energy to manufacture than that.
Well... can we look at the cost of the car itself, and estimate just from that the energy
> Earle says that you don't have to plug a Prius in to charge it, so if
> you do not charge the battery off the grid the miles per gallon would
> be the the measure and you would have to compensate for the extra
> energy to make the battery and the additional electrical generating
> equipment the car needs. 49.4 miles per gallon for 100,000 miles
> compared to 34 miles per gallon for 100,000 miles for a similarly
> powered vehicle. We could cheat and say 200,000 miles and the Prius
> would have to factor in a battery change. For 100,000 miles the
> difference is 921 gallons of gas. My guess is that the battery and
> electrical equipment cost more in energy to manufacture than that.
input into it?
What if we convert the cost into gasoline?
It may have been my fault to start talking about
chargeable electric cars instead. I gather that
one of the latest Priuses can be plugged in to
charge, but the charged driving range is quite
small.... so there isn't a very big battery.
jillery
Apr 9, 2012, 4:19:33 AM4/9/12
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:09:20 -0700 (PDT), Vend <ven...@virgilio.it>
wrote:
>On 8 Apr, 15:24, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 01:29:37 -0700 (PDT), Vend <ven...@virgilio.it>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 8 Apr, 07:17, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 06:12:24 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
>>
>> >> And how does that apply to efficiency of the electric system? Yet
>> >> another point worth backing up.
>>
>> >About 70% from the power plant alternator shaft to the car wheels.
>> >Most power plants are heat engines with a 30 - 50% efficiency, hence
>> >the total efficiency is in the same ballpark.
>> >However, electric cars could have, at least in principle, a number of
>> >advantages both in terms of reduced pollution and decreased depletion
>> >of oil.
>>
>> >The main issue with electric cars is energy storage: batteries have a
>> >much smaller energy storage density than gasoline and diesel fuel.
>> >Without a technologic breakthrough, this may casue full-sized electric
>> >cars to be ultimately unviable.
>>
>> By "electric system" I am referring to not just the vehicle itself,
>> but to the system which generates electricity and tranfers it to the
>> batteries.
>
>That's why I said "from the power plant alternator shaft"
Which is perhaps relevant to your assertion that the main issue with
electric cars is energy storage. However, you haven't established
that it's relevant wrt an automobile's impact on AGW.
wrote:
>On 8 Apr, 15:24, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 01:29:37 -0700 (PDT), Vend <ven...@virgilio.it>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 8 Apr, 07:17, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 06:12:24 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
>>
>> >> talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> >I have a default position of incredulity as
>> >> >to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
>> >> >road vehicles being at all significant compared
>> >> >to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
>> >> >the Use that they're meant for.
>>
>> >> talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> >I have a default position of incredulity as
>> >> >to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
>> >> >road vehicles being at all significant compared
>> >> >to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
>> >> >the Use that they're meant for.
>>
>> >> That would be an interesting point to actually back up.
>>
>>
>> >> >I think I've heard that the energy in burning
>> >> >gasoline to move a vehicle comes out as
>> >> >one-third "work" and two-thirds waste heat.
>>
>> >It's actually about 15 - 20%.
>> >> >gasoline to move a vehicle comes out as
>> >> >one-third "work" and two-thirds waste heat.
>>
>>
>> >> And how does that apply to efficiency of the electric system? Yet
>> >> another point worth backing up.
>>
>> >About 70% from the power plant alternator shaft to the car wheels.
>> >Most power plants are heat engines with a 30 - 50% efficiency, hence
>> >the total efficiency is in the same ballpark.
>> >However, electric cars could have, at least in principle, a number of
>> >advantages both in terms of reduced pollution and decreased depletion
>> >of oil.
>>
>> >The main issue with electric cars is energy storage: batteries have a
>> >much smaller energy storage density than gasoline and diesel fuel.
>> >Without a technologic breakthrough, this may casue full-sized electric
>> >cars to be ultimately unviable.
>>
>> By "electric system" I am referring to not just the vehicle itself,
>> but to the system which generates electricity and tranfers it to the
>> batteries.
>
>That's why I said "from the power plant alternator shaft"
Which is perhaps relevant to your assertion that the main issue with
electric cars is energy storage. However, you haven't established
that it's relevant wrt an automobile's impact on AGW.
jillery
Apr 9, 2012, 4:19:59 AM4/9/12
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 12:39:28 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, April 8, 2012 7:33:36 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>> So, even ignoring the obvious political/cultural slant, neither of
>> these studies show that the manufacturing energy/carbon footprint of
>> said vehicles are insignificant compared to the that of the products'
>> lifetime.
>
>I haven't read either, but, given we're
>comparing the manufacturing process, on the
>one hand, to loading some hairless apes into
>a metal cage and pushing it a distance well
>over 100,000 miles, on the other hand, I'm
>comfortable just assuming by default that
>the pushing the apes around for a decade or
>two is by far the greater part of the job.
Who is "we"?
talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, April 8, 2012 7:33:36 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>> So, even ignoring the obvious political/cultural slant, neither of
>> these studies show that the manufacturing energy/carbon footprint of
>> said vehicles are insignificant compared to the that of the products'
>> lifetime.
>
>I haven't read either, but, given we're
>comparing the manufacturing process, on the
>one hand, to loading some hairless apes into
>a metal cage and pushing it a distance well
>over 100,000 miles, on the other hand, I'm
>comfortable just assuming by default that
>the pushing the apes around for a decade or
>two is by far the greater part of the job.
>Also, as I explained, the what-it-costs-
>to-make-'em story arises directly from
>the solar-panel version, and does not
>require a basis of fact as /well/.
jillery
Apr 9, 2012, 4:23:34 AM4/9/12
to
>The traction battery (the big one) is charged two ways. The IC engine
>drives a generator (actually a motor/generator) that delivers current to
>the battery. The other source is "regenerative braking", when the car
>is slowing down, the wheels drive the generator that charges the
>battery. For a lot of time the IC engine isn't even running. At a stop
>light, the IC engine quits.
>
>The onboard computer keeps the battery between about 30% and 70%
>charged. It can never run out of charge nor be overcharged. The
>battery is guaranteed for 150,000 miles (in California and other states
>that use the California emission rules.)
>
>There is another battery, the 12-volt battery that runs the computer and
>some accessories. Since it never has to crank the engine, it looks like
>a motorbike or golf-cart battery. I have never replace that on either.
>
>The emissions are so low (SULEV) that we never have to get a smog check.
>Never.
>
>My '05 Prius now has 109,000 miles. I have never had a problem. The
>regenerative braking saves the brakes also. I have never had a brake
>job.
>
>My long-term gas mileage, counting every gallon and every mile, is 49.4.
>
>I have no comments on your attempted comparison of Prius with growing
>corn for ethanol.
>
>earle
>*
IIUC such sidesbars are SOP in T.O. topics.
jillery
Apr 9, 2012, 4:29:02 AM4/9/12
to
construction energy/emissions were insignificant to the total amount
from the vehicle's use during its lifetime.
Vend
Apr 9, 2012, 4:43:45 AM4/9/12
to
energy produced, natural gas is a little better.
Ernest Major
Apr 9, 2012, 5:36:45 AM4/9/12
to
In message
<f855f882-96b7-48ce...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, Vend
<ven...@virgilio.it> writes
To a first approximation
coal: C + O2 -> CO2
oil: CH2 + 1.5O2 -> CO2 + H2O
gas: CH4 +2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O
That fits with what I've read - gas has a smaller footprint than oil
which has a smaller footprint than coal. (But you have to add extraction
and transportation costs to the calculations. And, in the case of gas,
some people claim that with the loss of methane in production and
transport, gas is worse than oil in CO2 equivalents of climate forcing.)
--
alias Ernest Major
<f855f882-96b7-48ce...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, Vend
<ven...@virgilio.it> writes
coal: C + O2 -> CO2
oil: CH2 + 1.5O2 -> CO2 + H2O
gas: CH4 +2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O
That fits with what I've read - gas has a smaller footprint than oil
which has a smaller footprint than coal. (But you have to add extraction
and transportation costs to the calculations. And, in the case of gas,
some people claim that with the loss of methane in production and
transport, gas is worse than oil in CO2 equivalents of climate forcing.)
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron O
Apr 9, 2012, 7:34:38 AM4/9/12
to
On Apr 8, 8:42 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
The Prius should have everything a normal car has plus the extra
battery, generator and energy capture equipment.
There is no doubt that cars are energy expensive, but that is a
given. It is the difference that we are concerned with.
The estimate that I saw was that aluminum took over 40,0000 kilowatt
hrs of energy to smelt one ton of aluminum, that doesn't count the
cost of mining transport, casting etc.
It is cheaper in energy terms to make steel, but I do not have an
estimate for that.
It cost a lot in energy to make the battery.
My guess is that less than 1000 gallons in gas savings per 100,000
miles isn't going to cover the additional energy cost of a Prius.
>
> What if we convert the cost into gasoline?
It is likely better to use the cost in terms of energy. The web says
that it is around 1.3 X 10^8 J per gallon of gas.
A watt is joules per second, but you have to factor in the loss of
energy in the conversion to electricity.
>
> It may have been my fault to start talking about
> chargeable electric cars instead. I gather that
> one of the latest Priuses can be plugged in to
> charge, but the charged driving range is quite
> small.... so there isn't a very big battery.
I was just ignorant of the Prius. I thought that you plugged them in
and charged them up.
Ron Okimoto
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 8, 2012 10:39:28 PM UTC+1, Ron O wrote:
> > Earle says that you don't have to plug a Prius in to charge it, so if
> > you do not charge the battery off the grid the miles per gallon would
> > be the the measure and you would have to compensate for the extra
> > energy to make the battery and the additional electrical generating
> > equipment the car needs. 49.4 miles per gallon for 100,000 miles
> > compared to 34 miles per gallon for 100,000 miles for a similarly
> > powered vehicle. We could cheat and say 200,000 miles and the Prius
> > would have to factor in a battery change. For 100,000 miles the
> > difference is 921 gallons of gas. My guess is that the battery and
> > electrical equipment cost more in energy to manufacture than that.
>
> Well... can we look at the cost of the car itself, and estimate just from that the energy
> input into it?
You only have to deal with the component differences between cars.
> On Sunday, April 8, 2012 10:39:28 PM UTC+1, Ron O wrote:
> > Earle says that you don't have to plug a Prius in to charge it, so if
> > you do not charge the battery off the grid the miles per gallon would
> > be the the measure and you would have to compensate for the extra
> > energy to make the battery and the additional electrical generating
> > equipment the car needs. 49.4 miles per gallon for 100,000 miles
> > compared to 34 miles per gallon for 100,000 miles for a similarly
> > powered vehicle. We could cheat and say 200,000 miles and the Prius
> > would have to factor in a battery change. For 100,000 miles the
> > difference is 921 gallons of gas. My guess is that the battery and
> > electrical equipment cost more in energy to manufacture than that.
>
> Well... can we look at the cost of the car itself, and estimate just from that the energy
> input into it?
The Prius should have everything a normal car has plus the extra
battery, generator and energy capture equipment.
There is no doubt that cars are energy expensive, but that is a
given. It is the difference that we are concerned with.
The estimate that I saw was that aluminum took over 40,0000 kilowatt
hrs of energy to smelt one ton of aluminum, that doesn't count the
cost of mining transport, casting etc.
It is cheaper in energy terms to make steel, but I do not have an
estimate for that.
It cost a lot in energy to make the battery.
My guess is that less than 1000 gallons in gas savings per 100,000
miles isn't going to cover the additional energy cost of a Prius.
>
> What if we convert the cost into gasoline?
that it is around 1.3 X 10^8 J per gallon of gas.
A watt is joules per second, but you have to factor in the loss of
energy in the conversion to electricity.
>
> It may have been my fault to start talking about
> chargeable electric cars instead. I gather that
> one of the latest Priuses can be plugged in to
> charge, but the charged driving range is quite
> small.... so there isn't a very big battery.
and charged them up.
Ron Okimoto
Steven L.
Apr 9, 2012, 8:24:23 AM4/9/12
to
"Earle Jones" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-C0AC...@news.giganews.com:
> In article <RPWdnTJjC7rQwR3S...@earthlink.com>,
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "prawnster" <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4a8ad74f-12b2-43a6...@z5g2000pbu.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > <Sen. Dick Durbin reacts to the tornadoes in Dallas, Texas earlier
> > > this week. Durbin calls for more laws regulating carbon output while
> > > he sends a dire warning that we must convert to hybrid cars or lose
> > > our life. Durbin says we must spend money now to fix the problem.
> > >
> > > "It's your money or your life," he said a press conference. "We are
> > > either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet
> > > and accept the initial investment necessary or we're going to pay a
> > > heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs
> > > associated with it.">
> > >
> > > http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/06/durbin_on_spending_to_figh
> >
> > > <Sen. Dick Durbin reacts to the tornadoes in Dallas, Texas earlier
> > > this week. Durbin calls for more laws regulating carbon output while
> > > he sends a dire warning that we must convert to hybrid cars or lose
> > > our life. Durbin says we must spend money now to fix the problem.
> > >
> > > "It's your money or your life," he said a press conference. "We are
> > > either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet
> > > and accept the initial investment necessary or we're going to pay a
> > > heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs
> > > associated with it.">
> > >
pioneers--don't survive.
Look at personal computers. Altair is gone, Commodore is gone, Heathkit
is gone, etc.
I don't know if electric cars will have a bright future.
But even if they do, given the Chevy Volt's price point ($40,000 for a
car that has less interior room than the Chevy Cruze), I doubt that the
Chevy Volt will have a bright future. That model will be discontinued
quite early in this market.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
Apr 9, 2012, 8:26:15 AM4/9/12
to
"Ron O" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:f326df68-3f57-4c9a...@z17g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 7, 8:58 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 5:49 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article <RPWdnTJjC7rQwR3SnZ2dnUVZ_omdn...@earthlink.com>,
> > > "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >news:4a8ad74f-12b2-43a6...@z5g2000pbu.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > > > <Sen. Dick Durbin reacts to the tornadoes in Dallas, Texas earlier
> > > > > this week. Durbin calls for more laws regulating carbon output while
> > > > > he sends a dire warning that we must convert to hybrid cars or lose
> > > > > our life. Durbin says we must spend money now to fix the problem.
> >
> > > > > "It's your money or your life," he said a press conference. "We are
> > > > > either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet
> > > > > and accept the initial investment necessary or we're going to pay a
> > > > > heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs
> > > > > associated with it.">
> >
> > > > >http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/06/durbin_on_spending_...
> >
> > > > > <Sen. Dick Durbin reacts to the tornadoes in Dallas, Texas earlier
> > > > > this week. Durbin calls for more laws regulating carbon output while
> > > > > he sends a dire warning that we must convert to hybrid cars or lose
> > > > > our life. Durbin says we must spend money now to fix the problem.
> >
> > > > > "It's your money or your life," he said a press conference. "We are
> > > > > either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet
> > > > > and accept the initial investment necessary or we're going to pay a
> > > > > heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs
> > > > > associated with it.">
> >
> > > earle
> > > *
> >
> > Much of the New York City government fleet (excepting police vehicles)
> > is made up of Prius's.
> >
> > Chris
>
> Does a Prius really save energy? How much energy does it take to make
> one compared to a conventional car, maintain it and charge it's
> battery? How much elelctrical energy is wasted getting the
> electricity to the car battery? You also have to fill the tank. A
> lot of electrical energy is lost transporting it from the power
> plant. Is that factored into the energy use? As far as global
> warming what is the difference between a Prius and a similar
> horsepowered normal car if the electricity is generated by a coal
> fired or oil burning power plant?
>
> > > *
> >
> > Much of the New York City government fleet (excepting police vehicles)
> > is made up of Prius's.
> >
> > Chris
>
> Does a Prius really save energy? How much energy does it take to make
> one compared to a conventional car, maintain it and charge it's
> battery? How much elelctrical energy is wasted getting the
> electricity to the car battery? You also have to fill the tank. A
> lot of electrical energy is lost transporting it from the power
> plant. Is that factored into the energy use? As far as global
> warming what is the difference between a Prius and a similar
> horsepowered normal car if the electricity is generated by a coal
> fired or oil burning power plant?
>
> Is this a case like corn ethanol where it takes more energy to make
> the ethanol that you can get out of the ethanol. The projections are
> that there may be a positive net energy output from corn, but no one
> has done it, yet. The scenarios that I have seen are that you need to
> also make cellulosic alcohol and possibly capture methane generated by
> feeding distillers waste to pigs and cattle. Right now corn ethanol
> is mostly just pretending to be doing something. A lot of money was
> wasted on ethanol subsidies when the money was needed working on the
> biochemistry and horticulture. The free money was supposed to spawn
> investment, but all most of the investment went into was building
> plants that have a net negative energy output. There were no
> stipulations that the producers had to try to make the system energy
> positive.
The most energy efficient use of corn is to EAT IT, and use the calories
> the ethanol that you can get out of the ethanol. The projections are
> that there may be a positive net energy output from corn, but no one
> has done it, yet. The scenarios that I have seen are that you need to
> also make cellulosic alcohol and possibly capture methane generated by
> feeding distillers waste to pigs and cattle. Right now corn ethanol
> is mostly just pretending to be doing something. A lot of money was
> wasted on ethanol subsidies when the money was needed working on the
> biochemistry and horticulture. The free money was supposed to spawn
> investment, but all most of the investment went into was building
> plants that have a net negative energy output. There were no
> stipulations that the producers had to try to make the system energy
> positive.
thus generated by your metabolism to walk rather than drive a car.
-- Steven L.
jillery
Apr 9, 2012, 9:19:36 AM4/9/12
to
oxidation releases the same amount of energy per atom. However,
different sources include different contaminants, and some
contaminants are more of a challenge than others to the environment.
And some carbon sources are more challenging to burn completely.
Incomplete combustion results in smog, monoxides, and soot.
Coal remains incredibly cheap and abundant but is also the most
difficult to burn cleanly. A practical method to pre-treat mass
quantities of coal would be a very useful thing right now.
jillery
Apr 9, 2012, 9:20:14 AM4/9/12
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 13:16:28 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:
I hate to let this sidebar drop without at least mentioning Brazil's
efforts at converting sugarcane into fuel. According to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
"This means that for average conditions one unit of fossil-fuel energy
is required to create 8.3 energy units from the resulting ethanol."
I don't know if this is actually true, as opposed to the government's
PR. And of course, sugarcane doesn't grow well in most places in the
U.S. Still, if the claims are true, it suggests that it's possible to
have a net energy gain by growing biofuels.
wrote:
efforts at converting sugarcane into fuel. According to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
"This means that for average conditions one unit of fossil-fuel energy
is required to create 8.3 energy units from the resulting ethanol."
I don't know if this is actually true, as opposed to the government's
PR. And of course, sugarcane doesn't grow well in most places in the
U.S. Still, if the claims are true, it suggests that it's possible to
have a net energy gain by growing biofuels.
Ernest Major
Apr 9, 2012, 10:12:58 AM4/9/12
to
In message <1hn5o7pouboeihosn...@4ax.com>, jillery
<69jp...@gmail.com> writes
Firstly, it is not true that the same amount of energy is released
regardless of the source of the carbon. The same amount of energy is
released by the formation of C=O bonds, but first you have to break the
bonds of the carbon atoms first. For example it requires more energy to
break up graphite than diamond, by 1.9 kJ per mole. (That's not much
difference, but the differences between breaking carbon out of graphite,
and carbon out of methane, are larger.)
Secondly, when you burn oil and natural gas you're also oxidising
hydrogen, so you get energy both from the oxidation of carbon, and from
the oxidation of hydrogen.
To a rough approximation burning coal means breaking 1.5 C-C and 1 O=O
bond, and forming 2 C=O bonds, per molecule of CO2 produced.
Burning oil means breaking 2 C-C, 2 C-H and 1.5 O=O bonds, and forming 2
C=O and 2 O-H bonds.
Burning gas means breaking 4 C-H and 2 O=O bonds, and forming 2 C=O and
4 O-H bonds.
>
>Coal remains incredibly cheap and abundant but is also the most
>difficult to burn cleanly. A practical method to pre-treat mass
>quantities of coal would be a very useful thing right now.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
<69jp...@gmail.com> writes
regardless of the source of the carbon. The same amount of energy is
released by the formation of C=O bonds, but first you have to break the
bonds of the carbon atoms first. For example it requires more energy to
break up graphite than diamond, by 1.9 kJ per mole. (That's not much
difference, but the differences between breaking carbon out of graphite,
and carbon out of methane, are larger.)
Secondly, when you burn oil and natural gas you're also oxidising
hydrogen, so you get energy both from the oxidation of carbon, and from
the oxidation of hydrogen.
To a rough approximation burning coal means breaking 1.5 C-C and 1 O=O
bond, and forming 2 C=O bonds, per molecule of CO2 produced.
Burning oil means breaking 2 C-C, 2 C-H and 1.5 O=O bonds, and forming 2
C=O and 2 O-H bonds.
Burning gas means breaking 4 C-H and 2 O=O bonds, and forming 2 C=O and
4 O-H bonds.
>
>Coal remains incredibly cheap and abundant but is also the most
>difficult to burn cleanly. A practical method to pre-treat mass
>quantities of coal would be a very useful thing right now.
>
alias Ernest Major
jillery
Apr 9, 2012, 10:59:50 AM4/9/12
to
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:12:58 +0100, Ernest Major
Fair enough.
No thoughts on contaminants/incomplete combustion?
No thoughts on contaminants/incomplete combustion?
Steven L.
Apr 9, 2012, 11:26:45 AM4/9/12
to
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:19913233.129.1333898683683.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbfj25:
> On Sunday, April 8, 2012 2:35:19 PM UTC+1, Ron O wrote:
> > Does a Prius really save energy? How much energy does it take to make
> > one compared to a conventional car, maintain it and charge it's
> > battery? How much elelctrical energy is wasted getting the
> > electricity to the car battery? You also have to fill the tank.
>
> Here's your answer:
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9750840-1.html
>
> A study by CNW Marketing Research called
> "Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles
> From Concept to Disposal" makes a carefully
> calculated argument that the lifecycle
> "carbon footprint" of a Prius actually is
> more than that of a Hummer.
>
> This study is then exposed as a laughable
> compilation of falsehoods.
>
> Since evidently this is the best that the
> enemies of Prius can do,
Is that satire on your part???
No, I can do a lot better than comparisons with a Hummer--which is an
obvious strawman.
Try comparing a Prius to a gasoline-powered Honda Civic or Honda Accord
or Toyota Camry.
I drive a gasoline-powered Honda Civic myself.
How much would I be saving in gasoline costs--and how much less CO2
would my car be producing--if it were the hybrid Civic instead of the
gasoline-powered Civic?
-- Steven L.
news:19913233.129.1333898683683.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbfj25:
> On Sunday, April 8, 2012 2:35:19 PM UTC+1, Ron O wrote:
> > Does a Prius really save energy? How much energy does it take to make
> > one compared to a conventional car, maintain it and charge it's
> > battery? How much elelctrical energy is wasted getting the
> > electricity to the car battery? You also have to fill the tank.
>
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9750840-1.html
>
> A study by CNW Marketing Research called
> "Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles
> From Concept to Disposal" makes a carefully
> calculated argument that the lifecycle
> "carbon footprint" of a Prius actually is
> more than that of a Hummer.
>
> This study is then exposed as a laughable
> compilation of falsehoods.
>
> Since evidently this is the best that the
> enemies of Prius can do,
Is that satire on your part???
No, I can do a lot better than comparisons with a Hummer--which is an
obvious strawman.
Try comparing a Prius to a gasoline-powered Honda Civic or Honda Accord
or Toyota Camry.
I drive a gasoline-powered Honda Civic myself.
How much would I be saving in gasoline costs--and how much less CO2
would my car be producing--if it were the hybrid Civic instead of the
gasoline-powered Civic?
-- Steven L.
Walter Bushell
Apr 9, 2012, 11:52:26 AM4/9/12
to
In article <0Iudnb2F3oPHtx_S...@giganews.com>,
more expensive.
Now the LFTR people are *talking* about energy cheaper than coal with
other advantages, but you know this is a case of the devil being in
the *details*. Still it has to be orders of magnitude easier than
fusion and with with fusion releasing many more neutrons per erg
probably LFTR would be cleaner than fusion.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Of course electric or hybrid cars are only part of the solution. If
> > you're charging your Prius off of a dirty coal plant, there's probably
> > not much difference. If you're charging it off of a hydro or nuclear
> > plant, it becomes more significant. The obvious answer is to quit
> > burning coal.
>
> Excellent point.
The alternative sources all have their problems, not to mention being
> > Of course electric or hybrid cars are only part of the solution. If
> > you're charging your Prius off of a dirty coal plant, there's probably
> > not much difference. If you're charging it off of a hydro or nuclear
> > plant, it becomes more significant. The obvious answer is to quit
> > burning coal.
>
> Excellent point.
more expensive.
Now the LFTR people are *talking* about energy cheaper than coal with
other advantages, but you know this is a case of the devil being in
the *details*. Still it has to be orders of magnitude easier than
fusion and with with fusion releasing many more neutrons per erg
probably LFTR would be cleaner than fusion.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Walter Bushell
Apr 9, 2012, 12:12:09 PM4/9/12
to
In article <89GdnYzZz7_lSB_S...@earthlink.com>,
Bicycles are much more efficient than walking as well as faster. Not
compatible with cars though.
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The most energy efficient use of corn is to EAT IT, and use the calories
> thus generated by your metabolism to walk rather than drive a car.
s/walk/bicycle/
> The most energy efficient use of corn is to EAT IT, and use the calories
> thus generated by your metabolism to walk rather than drive a car.
Bicycles are much more efficient than walking as well as faster. Not
compatible with cars though.
Mitchell Coffey
Apr 9, 2012, 12:54:24 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 11:52 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <0Iudnb2F3oPHtx_SnZ2dnUVZ_jmdn...@giganews.com>,
virutally any price.
Mitchell Coffey
> In article <0Iudnb2F3oPHtx_SnZ2dnUVZ_jmdn...@giganews.com>,
>
> *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Of course electric or hybrid cars are only part of the solution. If
> > > you're charging your Prius off of a dirty coal plant, there's probably
> > > not much difference. If you're charging it off of a hydro or nuclear
> > > plant, it becomes more significant. The obvious answer is to quit
> > > burning coal.
>
> > Excellent point.
>
> The alternative sources all have their problems, not to mention being
> more expensive.
>
> Now the LFTR people are *talking* about energy cheaper than coal with
> other advantages, but you know this is a case of the devil being in
> the *details*. Still it has to be orders of magnitude easier than
> fusion and with with fusion releasing many more neutrons per erg
> probably LFTR would be cleaner than fusion.
The externalities are so great that nuclear power would be worth it at
> *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Of course electric or hybrid cars are only part of the solution. If
> > > you're charging your Prius off of a dirty coal plant, there's probably
> > > not much difference. If you're charging it off of a hydro or nuclear
> > > plant, it becomes more significant. The obvious answer is to quit
> > > burning coal.
>
> > Excellent point.
>
> The alternative sources all have their problems, not to mention being
> more expensive.
>
> Now the LFTR people are *talking* about energy cheaper than coal with
> other advantages, but you know this is a case of the devil being in
> the *details*. Still it has to be orders of magnitude easier than
> fusion and with with fusion releasing many more neutrons per erg
> probably LFTR would be cleaner than fusion.
virutally any price.
Mitchell Coffey
Vend
Apr 9, 2012, 1:47:58 PM4/9/12
to
On 9 Apr, 11:36, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <f855f882-96b7-48ce-bcb2-030021a0f...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, Vend
Wikipedia says that coal and oil are in the same range:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint#Of_electricity
If I understand correctly, breaking the carbon-hydrogen bond and
burning the hydrogen relases less energy than breaking the aromatic
carbon-carbon bond and burning the carbon.
> In message
> <f855f882-96b7-48ce-bcb2-030021a0f...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, Vend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint#Of_electricity
If I understand correctly, breaking the carbon-hydrogen bond and
burning the hydrogen relases less energy than breaking the aromatic
carbon-carbon bond and burning the carbon.
Vend
Apr 9, 2012, 1:54:28 PM4/9/12
to
On 9 Apr, 18:12, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <89GdnYzZz7_lSB_SnZ2dnUVZ_sidn...@earthlink.com>,
more efficient.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my understanding, despite the
colloquialism of "burning" sugars and fats, muscles aren't actual heat
engines and thus they aren't subject to the thermodynamic efficiency
limit.
> In article <89GdnYzZz7_lSB_SnZ2dnUVZ_sidn...@earthlink.com>,
> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > The most energy efficient use of corn is to EAT IT, and use the calories
> > thus generated by your metabolism to walk rather than drive a car.
>
> s/walk/bicycle/
>
> Bicycles are much more efficient than walking as well as faster. Not
> compatible with cars though.
Cycling and walking are slower than driving a cars, but they are far
>
> > The most energy efficient use of corn is to EAT IT, and use the calories
> > thus generated by your metabolism to walk rather than drive a car.
>
> s/walk/bicycle/
>
> Bicycles are much more efficient than walking as well as faster. Not
> compatible with cars though.
more efficient.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my understanding, despite the
colloquialism of "burning" sugars and fats, muscles aren't actual heat
engines and thus they aren't subject to the thermodynamic efficiency
limit.
Ernest Major
Apr 9, 2012, 3:52:44 PM4/9/12
to
In message
<34b06b75-63e0-4588...@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Yes, but for each molecule of CO2 produced, the energy from burning the
hydrogen is extra.
Your source has coal releasing around 90g of CO2 (equivalent) per
megajoule of energy, and oil 73g per megajoule. That's a significant
difference.
--
alias Ernest Major
<34b06b75-63e0-4588...@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
hydrogen is extra.
Your source has coal releasing around 90g of CO2 (equivalent) per
megajoule of energy, and oil 73g per megajoule. That's a significant
difference.
--
alias Ernest Major
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Apr 9, 2012, 6:16:49 PM4/9/12
to
On Monday, April 9, 2012 5:12:09 PM UTC+1, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <89GdnYzZz7_lSB_S...@earthlink.com>,
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > The most energy efficient use of corn is to EAT IT, and use the calories
> > thus generated by your metabolism to walk rather than drive a car.
>
> s/walk/bicycle/
>
> Bicycles are much more efficient than walking as well as faster. Not
> compatible with cars though.
If various road users are considerate of each other's needs -
> In article <89GdnYzZz7_lSB_S...@earthlink.com>,
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > The most energy efficient use of corn is to EAT IT, and use the calories
> > thus generated by your metabolism to walk rather than drive a car.
>
> s/walk/bicycle/
>
> Bicycles are much more efficient than walking as well as faster. Not
> compatible with cars though.
and if cyclists get convex rear view mirrors like mine - and
if the roads are built and marked for such shared use - then
it goes fine.
Richard Norman
Apr 9, 2012, 6:36:16 PM4/9/12
to
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:54:28 -0700 (PDT), Vend <ven...@virgilio.it>
wrote:
You are wrong. Muscles, nor any cells for that matter, are indeed not
heat engines in the sense of doing work by virtue of moving heat from
a higher temperature to a lower. But they are very much thermodynamic
machines and you can measure the energy consumed relative to the
external work produced.
wrote:
heat engines in the sense of doing work by virtue of moving heat from
a higher temperature to a lower. But they are very much thermodynamic
machines and you can measure the energy consumed relative to the
external work produced.
Vend
Apr 9, 2012, 6:51:07 PM4/9/12
to
> <34b06b75-63e0-4588-9cad-c4ef72cc3...@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
The column about electric energy puts them in the same range.
Vend
Apr 9, 2012, 7:05:51 PM4/9/12
to
energy conversion gain is below 100%. What I meant is that they aren't
subject to the tighter temperature-dependent theoretical efficiency
limit of heat engines.
chris thompson
Apr 9, 2012, 7:26:03 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 12:12 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <89GdnYzZz7_lSB_SnZ2dnUVZ_sidn...@earthlink.com>,
> In article <89GdnYzZz7_lSB_SnZ2dnUVZ_sidn...@earthlink.com>,
> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > The most energy efficient use of corn is to EAT IT, and use the calories
> > thus generated by your metabolism to walk rather than drive a car.
>
> s/walk/bicycle/
>
> Bicycles are much more efficient than walking as well as faster. Not
> compatible with cars though.
>
> --
> This space unintentionally left blank.
Along with skateboards and scooters. Rolling friction, you know.
>
> > The most energy efficient use of corn is to EAT IT, and use the calories
> > thus generated by your metabolism to walk rather than drive a car.
>
> s/walk/bicycle/
>
> Bicycles are much more efficient than walking as well as faster. Not
> compatible with cars though.
>
> --
> This space unintentionally left blank.
And our idiot mayor is trying to FORCE compatibility by putting bike
lanes on some of the most heavily driven roads (other than highways
and parkways) in the city, even when perfectly good alternatives might
be a block or two away. This has led to a significant increase in car-
bike accidents, bike-pedestrian accidents, some deaths, and endless
litigation. It does not help that even though cyclists have (according
to NYS and NYC law) "the same rights, privileges AND OBLIGATIONS [my
emphasis] as motor vehicles" they routinely run stop signs, red
lights, and when possible break the speed limit- all without any
enforcement of the law by NYPD.
Chris
Ron O
Apr 9, 2012, 7:26:34 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 8:20 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 13:16:28 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
I think that everyone agrees that sugar cane is energy positive. It
doesn't grow well in most of the US.
All the plant solutions at our latitude have not been proven.
Ron Okimoto
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 13:16:28 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
doesn't grow well in most of the US.
All the plant solutions at our latitude have not been proven.
Ron Okimoto
chris thompson
Apr 9, 2012, 7:30:14 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 5:45 pm, nmp <n...@mail.please> wrote:
> Walter Bushell wrote:
> forces of nature and I love it ;-)
>
> (I am a bit of a bicycle hobbyist)
> course it is true that cars do not use the same fuel as people. And cars
> can be used for different purposes.
If cyclists would obey the rules of the road, as they're supposed to,
they would be perfectly compatible with cars. See my earlier post.
Here in NYC bicycles seem immune to all traffic laws. If there was
some enforcement- say, cyclists got a ticket comparable to that given
to a car for running a red light- I'd be a lot happier. Cyclists ARE
supposed to obey road rules.
Chris
> Walter Bushell wrote:
> > "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> The most energy efficient use of corn is to EAT IT, and use the
> >> calories thus generated by your metabolism to walk rather than drive a
> >> car.
>
> > s/walk/bicycle/
>
> > Bicycles are much more efficient than walking as well as faster.
>
> Yes. It is called "mechanical advantage". It is one of the friendly
> >> The most energy efficient use of corn is to EAT IT, and use the
> >> calories thus generated by your metabolism to walk rather than drive a
> >> car.
>
> > s/walk/bicycle/
>
> > Bicycles are much more efficient than walking as well as faster.
>
> forces of nature and I love it ;-)
>
> (I am a bit of a bicycle hobbyist)
>
> > Not compatible with cars though.
>
> In what sense are they not compatible? Perhaps you meant comparable. Of
> > Not compatible with cars though.
>
> course it is true that cars do not use the same fuel as people. And cars
> can be used for different purposes.
If cyclists would obey the rules of the road, as they're supposed to,
they would be perfectly compatible with cars. See my earlier post.
Here in NYC bicycles seem immune to all traffic laws. If there was
some enforcement- say, cyclists got a ticket comparable to that given
to a car for running a red light- I'd be a lot happier. Cyclists ARE
supposed to obey road rules.
Chris
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Walter Bushell
Apr 9, 2012, 8:45:18 PM4/9/12
to
In article
<dfaf6ff5-daf3-4f40...@h20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
lights or reflectors, certainly, and cyclists do need to be licensed
so they can be tracked. But also motorists just don't *see*
bicyclists, and the cars always win.
I swear, that motorists from out of town in NYC, don't expect
pedestrians even in crosswalks. Many only stop after completely
blocking the crosswalk.
<dfaf6ff5-daf3-4f40...@h20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If cyclists would obey the rules of the road, as they're supposed to,
> they would be perfectly compatible with cars. See my earlier post.
> Here in NYC bicycles seem immune to all traffic laws. If there was
> some enforcement- say, cyclists got a ticket comparable to that given
> to a car for running a red light- I'd be a lot happier. Cyclists ARE
> supposed to obey road rules.
>
> Chris
There is a lot of that and bicyclists wearing black clothing and no
> If cyclists would obey the rules of the road, as they're supposed to,
> they would be perfectly compatible with cars. See my earlier post.
> Here in NYC bicycles seem immune to all traffic laws. If there was
> some enforcement- say, cyclists got a ticket comparable to that given
> to a car for running a red light- I'd be a lot happier. Cyclists ARE
> supposed to obey road rules.
>
> Chris
lights or reflectors, certainly, and cyclists do need to be licensed
so they can be tracked. But also motorists just don't *see*
bicyclists, and the cars always win.
I swear, that motorists from out of town in NYC, don't expect
pedestrians even in crosswalks. Many only stop after completely
blocking the crosswalk.
Richard Norman
Apr 9, 2012, 9:10:44 PM4/9/12
to
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 23:48:21 +0000 (UTC), nmp <n...@mail.please> wrote:
>chris thompson wrote:
>
>> It does not help that even though cyclists have (according to NYS and
>> NYC law) "the same rights, privileges AND OBLIGATIONS [my emphasis] as
>> motor vehicles" they routinely run stop signs, red lights, and when
>> possible break the speed limit- all without any enforcement of the law
>> by NYPD.
>
>Very good. Motorists should learn to be careful.
So they run red lights and stop signs, make turns against the light,
weave between lanes of cars but nevertheless demand to occupy a full
lane of traffic when it suits them. And if they get into trouble
disobeying the traffic laws they are required to obey then it is the
motorist's fault?
>chris thompson wrote:
>
>> It does not help that even though cyclists have (according to NYS and
>> NYC law) "the same rights, privileges AND OBLIGATIONS [my emphasis] as
>> motor vehicles" they routinely run stop signs, red lights, and when
>> possible break the speed limit- all without any enforcement of the law
>> by NYPD.
>
So they run red lights and stop signs, make turns against the light,
weave between lanes of cars but nevertheless demand to occupy a full
lane of traffic when it suits them. And if they get into trouble
disobeying the traffic laws they are required to obey then it is the
motorist's fault?
Richard Norman
Apr 9, 2012, 9:14:47 PM4/9/12
to
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:05:51 -0700 (PDT), Vend <ven...@virgilio.it>
Given that the efficiency of all sorts of electric power generation
has been discussed as well as the transmission of electric power, why
do you insist that the limitations of heat engines to a maxium of the
Carnot cycle matters at all? The efficiency of electric vehicles
driven by hydrogen powered fuel cells has nothing to do with heat
engines. The efficiency of solar (photovoltaic, at least) and
hydroelectric and tidal and ... power has nothing to do with heat
engines.
has been discussed as well as the transmission of electric power, why
do you insist that the limitations of heat engines to a maxium of the
Carnot cycle matters at all? The efficiency of electric vehicles
driven by hydrogen powered fuel cells has nothing to do with heat
engines. The efficiency of solar (photovoltaic, at least) and
hydroelectric and tidal and ... power has nothing to do with heat
engines.
jillery
Apr 10, 2012, 2:36:20 AM4/10/12
to
energy from hydrogen is a factor in the reduced ratio for oil as
compared to coal. I am asking; is it the case that the increased
ratio for coal is partly due to the greater difficulty in obtaining
complete combustion for it?
jillery
Apr 10, 2012, 3:00:45 AM4/10/12
to
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:36:20 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
To be clear, I am asking about not only the (possibly) greater
difficulty in complete comubstion of coal vs oil, but also the
(possible) damping effects from various contaminants in coal. For
example, I notice that the chart reports a higher ratio for brown
coal, perhaps resulting from the damping effect of water.
wrote:
difficulty in complete comubstion of coal vs oil, but also the
(possible) damping effects from various contaminants in coal. For
example, I notice that the chart reports a higher ratio for brown
coal, perhaps resulting from the damping effect of water.
Ernest Major
Apr 10, 2012, 3:26:23 AM4/10/12
to
In message <9nk7o717rc5faeago...@4ax.com>, jillery
<69jp...@gmail.com> writes
I doubt that it is significant. Power station ash is mostly
non-carbonaceous.
--
alias Ernest Major
<69jp...@gmail.com> writes
>On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 20:52:44 +0100, Ernest Major
><{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message
>><34b06b75-63e0-4588...@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>>Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> writes
>>>On 9 Apr, 11:36, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message
>>>> <f855f882-96b7-48ce-bcb2-030021a0f...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, Vend
>>>> <ven...@virgilio.it> writes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >On 9 Apr, 10:19, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:09:20 -0700 (PDT), Vend <ven...@virgilio.it>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> >On 8 Apr, 15:24, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 01:29:37 -0700 (PDT), Vend <ven...@virgilio.it>
>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> >> >On 8 Apr, 07:17, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 06:12:24 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie:
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>
><{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message
>><34b06b75-63e0-4588...@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>>Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> writes
>>>On 9 Apr, 11:36, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message
>>>> <f855f882-96b7-48ce-bcb2-030021a0f...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, Vend
>>>> <ven...@virgilio.it> writes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >On 9 Apr, 10:19, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:09:20 -0700 (PDT), Vend <ven...@virgilio.it>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> >On 8 Apr, 15:24, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 01:29:37 -0700 (PDT), Vend <ven...@virgilio.it>
>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> >> >On 8 Apr, 07:17, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 06:12:24 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie:
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>
>>>> >> >> >> talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >I have a default position of incredulity as
>>>> >> >> >> >to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
>>>> >> >> >> >road vehicles being at all significant compared
>>>> >> >> >> >to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
>>>> >> >> >> >the Use that they're meant for.
>>>>
>>>> >> >> >> That would be an interesting point to actually back up.
>>>>
>>>> >> >> >> >I think I've heard that the energy in burning
>>>> >> >> >> >gasoline to move a vehicle comes out as
>>>> >> >> >> >one-third "work" and two-thirds waste heat.
>>>>
>>>> >> >> >It's actually about 15 - 20%.
>>>>
>>>> >> >> >> And how does that apply to efficiency of the electric system? Yet
>>>> >> >> >> another point worth backing up.
>>>>
>>>> >> >> >About 70% from the power plant alternator shaft to the car wheels.
>>>> >> >> >Most power plants are heat engines with a 30 - 50% efficiency, hence
>>>> >> >> >the total efficiency is in the same ballpark.
>>>> >> >> >However, electric cars could have, at least in principle, a
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >I have a default position of incredulity as
>>>> >> >> >> >to the energy used in manufacturing terrestrial
>>>> >> >> >> >road vehicles being at all significant compared
>>>> >> >> >> >to the energy budget of pushing vehicles around,
>>>> >> >> >> >the Use that they're meant for.
>>>>
>>>> >> >> >> That would be an interesting point to actually back up.
>>>>
>>>> >> >> >> >I think I've heard that the energy in burning
>>>> >> >> >> >gasoline to move a vehicle comes out as
>>>> >> >> >> >one-third "work" and two-thirds waste heat.
>>>>
>>>> >> >> >It's actually about 15 - 20%.
>>>>
>>>> >> >> >> And how does that apply to efficiency of the electric system? Yet
>>>> >> >> >> another point worth backing up.
>>>>
>>>> >> >> >About 70% from the power plant alternator shaft to the car wheels.
>>>> >> >> >Most power plants are heat engines with a 30 - 50% efficiency, hence
>>>> >> >> >the total efficiency is in the same ballpark.
>>>> >> >> >However, electric cars could have, at least in principle, a
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >advantages both in terms of reduced pollution and decreased
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >
non-carbonaceous.
--
alias Ernest Major
jillery
Apr 10, 2012, 4:35:46 AM4/10/12
to
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:26:23 +0100, Ernest Major
Of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash
Since coal has a greater percentage of non-combustible material than
oil, I am asking if this non-combustible portion has a damping effect
on coal's thermal output, either by chemically or mechanically
interfering with complete combustion, or by absorbing heat and making
it unavailable for electric generation.
I notice that the chart reports a higher ratio for brown coal, so
perhaps my uninformed speculation isn't entirely out of line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash
Since coal has a greater percentage of non-combustible material than
oil, I am asking if this non-combustible portion has a damping effect
on coal's thermal output, either by chemically or mechanically
interfering with complete combustion, or by absorbing heat and making
it unavailable for electric generation.
I notice that the chart reports a higher ratio for brown coal, so
perhaps my uninformed speculation isn't entirely out of line.
Message has been deleted
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Apr 10, 2012, 5:58:00 AM4/10/12
to
account that some other road users are idiots.
That may even be the law. Having said that,
and speaking myself as a road cyclist (in Scotland), if a motorist flattens a cyclist
who ran a red light then it's nothing to get
upset over, except for damage to the car, and
a certain amount of time taken explaining the
thing to the authorities before you can go
about your business.
Speed limits in particular may apply
differently to different classes of vehicle,
and not at all to cyclists, who typically don't
have a speedometer anyway. However, an offence
such as "furious driving" may apply, having
been originally applied to horses with or
perhaps without carriages.
That's for public roads: but in a store car park,
for instance, that posts a speed limit maybe
as low as 5 mph (that's a fast walk), which
may or may not be respected by other users, wise
cyclists will considerately stick to going
slow. Or else they'll be banned from cycling
there. The store loses their custom, and
nobody wins.
Robert Grumbine
Apr 10, 2012, 9:38:45 AM4/10/12
to
per calorie burned. It also makes a big difference what mode of
muscle application you're looking at. Sprinting is extremely
inefficient. Distance running is better, at least if you run
near the broad optimum pace for efficiency. Walking is better
than running, but only if you're near the narrow optimum for
walking (which is markedly faster than most people actually walk
in the US -- for me it's 3.7 mph, 10 min/km and only depends weakly
on leg length). Best is biking, which is still only ca. 10%.
On the other hand, travel by those means carries a number of
health benefits that are not had by using a powered vehicle.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Walter Bushell
Apr 10, 2012, 10:03:13 AM4/10/12
to
In article <qgm7o719n4e0o1vok...@4ax.com>,
And, of course, it is harder to refine out the impurities from coal,
like sulfur and mercury.
like sulfur and mercury.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages