Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

And whats a bigger waste of energy than production of movies for crying out loud, for what, to make them richer?

.... and I simply pointed out their [Hollywood's] hypocrisy because of their lavish and energy wasteful lifestyle.

Furthermore, I am not being anti-capitalistic,

....but just because there are lots of things that people make a living doing does not mean I love all of them....

parados wrote:

OMG okie. I found it. Your argument there is HILARIOUS.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2005792&highlight=denver#2005792

If the average bus trip is 7.54 miles HOW in the hell can a car trip be MORE efficient to make up for the gas mileage?

In order for that to occur the average driving trip would have to be 5.5 miles. (assuming a 22 mpg average for a in town driving.)

If we take the reported average US mpg of 17 it would require that the average trip be 4.3 miles.

Come on Parados, you are smarter than what you just wrote, I hope. Here is my quote from that link:

I picked out Denver RTD, and if I am interpreting the data correctly, the buses traveled 26,424,000 miles while consuming 6,707,000 gallons of fuel for an average of 3.94 mpg. Another column showed annual passenger miles as 199,205,000, which translates into an average of about 7.54 in passenger average. Multiply 7.54 by 3.94 and the result is 29.7 mpg for equivalent fuel usage if everybody drove a car instead in the exact same route as the buses to get to their destinations, which I don't think would happen. This is worse than the Portland data. Some of the other ones are probably better; I did not calculate them out.

The average passengers on a Denver bus was 7.54 for every mile driven by the entire bus system, so I multiplied 7.54 by the average fuel consumption of 3.94 mpg, which yields a result of 29.7 passenger miles per gallon, which is worse than I remembered by the way. So if each and every person that rode the bus would drive a car alone to their destinations in Denver, and that car got 29.7 mpg, then cars would be as efficient as buses. Add to this the circuitous route every passenger may possibly take on a bus to arrive at their destination vs going the most direct route by car, which is virtually impossible to calculate, but using common sense, the average mileage of a personal car to equal the bus would almost assuredly be lowered to 25 mpg at least, and I think probably more. I base this on personal experience and by talking to other people. Add to the equation the possibility that people drive to a parking lot to catch a bus, and also add the additional pollution emitted by diesel buses.

And as I previously pointed out, any carpooling in cars multiplies the efficiency of cars over buses in Denver. Case closed, Parados.

Cyclops, you might wish to do some web searches yourself, but this was found in a very short time concerning greenhouse gases produced by creating hydrogen.

http://www.h2gen.com/pages/hydrogen_economy_subpages/sub7.html

This quote from the above: Making hydrogen by electrolyzing water using grid electricity substantially increases GHGs in the US. While there are no emissions from the electrolyzer or the FCV, most of the electricity to run the electrolyzer comes from burning coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel . Estimating GHGs from the electrical grid requires the estimation of the marginal grid mix.

Now, the argument can be made that electricity from wind or solar can be used that creates no greenhouse gases, but cyclops, we live in reality, not hoped for reality 40 years from now. The current reality is that we are nowhere close to creating a significant percentage of our electricity from wind and solar, and we will not be able to change that any time in the near future. Also, better ways of making hydrogen is being worked on, but the technology is far from being perfected.

So I think you need to apologize to Foxfyre for posting an opinion that you said was wrong, and it turns out she is close to being very right. After all, she posted it as an opinion to be further discussed, not hard data.

Previously, Okie posted the following message.

okie wrote:

And whats a bigger waste of energy than production of movies for crying out loud, for what, to make them richer?

This post clearly criticized people for the "affront" of starting a business for the purpose of becoming wealthy. Surely this is the most anti-capitalist, economically authoritarian position imaginable, and Okie was rightly called on it.

In reply, Okie wrote:

okie wrote:

.... and I simply pointed out their [Hollywood's] hypocrisy because of their lavish and energy wasteful lifestyle.

It is true that elsewhere in his post, Okie dealt with what he felt was hypocrisy on the part of Hollywood people. However, in the sentence in question he does not even mention hypocrisy. In this sentence, he criticizes Hollywood people for becoming wealthy from their business. As if there is anything wrong with that.

Okie wrote:

Furthermore, I am not being anti-capitalistic,

Of course you are. In that sentence, you are criticizing people for no other reason than making money at their legal business. Other criticisms you had, such as they were, were dealt with elsewhere in your post-not here. Here, you are criticizing them merely for making money at their business.

Okie wrote:

....but just because there are lots of things that people make a living doing does not mean I love all of them....

You don't have to love them. But if you are going to criticize a person's business, criticize it for something OTHER than they make money from it. Criticize it because it the factory fouls the air, criticize it because the place of business is an eyesore, criticize it for whatever reason you think is convincing. But don't criticize someone for the simple fact of making money from their business. For Chrissakes, when you go into business, that is what you are supposed to do!

Fox does not differentiate between opinions and hard data. In this case, she used an anecdotal opinion which was actually factually incorrect - it isn't the production of the Hydrogen which produces waste, but the production of the energy used to produce the hydrogen. This didn't stop her from using the argument that alternative sources were less efficient than gasoline in the long run, even though it doesn't take more than a minute of thinking to find the logical holes in the argument.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, you might wish to do some web searches yourself, but this was found in a very short time concerning greenhouse gases produced by creating hydrogen.

http://www.h2gen.com/pages/hydrogen_economy_subpages/sub7.html

This quote from the above: Making hydrogen by electrolyzing water using grid electricity substantially increases GHGs in the US. While there are no emissions from the electrolyzer or the FCV, most of the electricity to run the electrolyzer comes from burning coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel . Estimating GHGs from the electrical grid requires the estimation of the marginal grid mix.

Now, the argument can be made that electricity from wind or solar can be used that creates no greenhouse gases, but cyclops, we live in reality, not hoped for reality 40 years from now. The current reality is that we are nowhere close to creating a significant percentage of our electricity from wind and solar, and we will not be able to change that any time in the near future. Also, better ways of making hydrogen is being worked on, but the technology is far from being perfected.

So I think you need to apologize to Foxfyre for posting an opinion that you said was wrong, and it turns out she is close to being very right. After all, she posted it as an opinion to be further discussed, not hard data.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Fox does not differentiate between opinions and hard data. In this case, she used an anecdotal opinion which was actually factually incorrect - it isn't the production of the Hydrogen which produces waste, but the production of the energy used to produce the hydrogen. This didn't stop her from using the argument that alternative sources were less efficient than gasoline in the long run, even though it doesn't take more than a minute of thinking to find the logical holes in the argument.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, simply quit splitting hairs and admit Foxfyre was correct. I frankly see little difference in the production of the hydrogen and the energy used to produce the hydrogen, it all involves the production of hydrogen. I say you owe Foxfyre an apology.

Keltic, I criticized the business not solely for the reason that they were making money....

but for making money in a basically non-essential endeavor [movies] that consumes alot of energy....

That's an interesting opinion; you don't see a difference in between the production of a commodity, and the steps which go into the production of a commodity used to produce said commodity? That's ridiculous.

On Preview, KW spelled it out exactly; Fox is interpolating that Hydrogen causes more environmental damage, because some of the means to make hydrogen that we currently use cause environmental damage. But we could just as easily use other means to produce that hydrogen, without causing said damage. Therefore Fox's point fails under inspection.

This is the problem with the vast majority of her points: they fail under any sort of rational inspection. Why apologize for pointing this out? It isn't 'splitting hairs' to point out the error in someone's logic.

Cycloptichorn

One small problem with this. Grid electricity is NOT the only way to produce hydrogen. There are many other ways. It uses the same false logic we have seen time and again. It takes a SINGLE way and shows it is bad which is then interpolated to ALL ways being bad. It is complete BS and shows an inability to think.

Grid electricity is not the only way to produce hydrogen, but obviously Parados, if a significant amount of hydrogen was to be produced in the now to contribute to fueling vehicles to any significant percentage, it would likely be from grid electricity now.

Your argument is akin to saying that using lots of electricity does not produce pollution. Obviously the use of electricity does not, but to use it, you must first produce it. Must we argue the obvious here, or is the obvious not obvious enough to some?

Energy efficient? I am reserving judgment on that, but it sure doesn't look like it is.

Hydrogen powered cars for instance emit no greenhouse gasses. But according to what one engineer in the business told me recently, it requires twice the greenhouse gas emitting energy to produce the hydrogen as it does to produce the equivalent mileage in gasoline. So do we gain anything? Probably not.

Energy efficient? I am reserving judgment on that, but it sure doesn't look like it is.

Hydrogen powered cars for instance emit no greenhouse gasses. But according to what one engineer in the business told me recently, it requires twice the greenhouse gas emitting energy to produce the hydrogen as it does to produce the equivalent mileage in gasoline. So do we gain anything? Probably not.

Fox does not differentiate between opinions and hard data. In this case, she used an anecdotal opinion which was actually factually incorrect - it isn't the production of the Hydrogen which produces waste, but the production of the energy used to produce the hydrogen. This didn't stop her from using the argument that alternative sources were less efficient than gasoline in the long run, even though it doesn't take more than a minute of thinking to find the logical holes in the argument

My above statement is presented as opinion. You are free to disagree with it; if I wanted to state it as a categorical fact, I would have provided supporting evidence, which I didn't care to do.

In fact I think I'll copy the whole discussion as it might come in handy if he continues on this tact.

That could include the immediately preceding one.

My above statement is presented as opinion. You are free to disagree with it; if I wanted to state it as a categorical fact, I would have provided supporting evidence, which I didn't care to do.