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

As far as General Electric is concerned, its probably more about money than science.

0 Replies

Quote:

As the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment has pointed out, the Arctic has warmed about twice as fast during the past two centuries, as much as 1.6 °C. Here's the remarkable finding: Dirty Arctic snow triggered .5 to 1.5 ° C of the Arctic warming - as much as 94 percent of the rise in temperatures.

UC at Irvine >
http://www.alaskareport.com/do77821_dirty_arctic_snow.htm
> actually calculates that 94% of melting of polar ice is attributed to particulates (resulting from incomplete combustion, such as wood stoves)
with only the balance of 6% caused by CO2.

0 Replies

okie wrote :

Quote:

As far as General Electric is concerned, its probably more about money than science.

of course it is all about money for GE - and many other companies .
they have realized that going green is not only good for the environment but also good for improved PROFITS ! absolutely not only nothing wrong with that but good for all of us !

as i pointed out in an earlier post , there are now many companies that realize that GOING GREEN is good for the environment AND PROFIT !
it's really not much different than insulating your house properly : you use less energy and are good to the environment AND YOU SAVE MONEY !
(we've certainly noticed it in decreased energy consumption after adding additional insulation in our 40 year old house .)
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger, have you ever heard of the "law of unintended consequences?" For example, if CO2 really does pose a serious problem, it was the tree huggers that have made this problem far worse by killing the nuclear power industry back in the late 70's. It was about money then as well, so the only choice was the power industry went to coal and natural gas. Whoopee, so look what that accomplished.

I am just as skeptical of the current sky is falling crowd. There will be more laws of unintended consequences kicking into gear in the future.

Another interesting thing is the possibility that hybrid cars, if manufactured in numbers great enough to impact gas mileage, may create alot of unforeseen problems, such as more energy to manufacture and other associated problems with the materials required to build the cars. This is only one small example among many. The nuclear example is a good one. I know, because I was in the industry. It was killed by tree huggers, people like Gore and his ilk.

0 Replies

I agree with you about the Nukes, though I will say that the safety record was a little worse back then then it is now.

Quote:

Another interesting thing is the possibility that hybrid cars, if manufactured in numbers great enough to impact gas mileage, may create alot of unforeseen problems, such as more energy to manufacture and other associated problems with the materials required to build the cars.

This, not so much. I haven't seen studies which show that Hybrids cost more to manufacture then they save in emissions and overall gas usage.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The nuclear thing is another example of your so-called progressive liberals being dead wrong. Many liberals want to go back to the caves. That isn't progress.

0 Replies

Quote:

Many liberals want to go back to the caves.

Unsupported Hyperbolic assertion. Virtually no Liberal wants to 'go back to the caves.'

And yes, the fact that Nuke reactors were melting down with greater frequency then today probably had a lot to do with the Environmentalist movement against them. It isn't the nukes or radiation is inherently evil, but that they just weren't safe.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well, Earth Firsters, and all of the other organizations that roadblock virtually all economic activity are certainly not conservative, cyclops.

And it can be demonstrated they were far safer than claimed by a negative press sympathetic to tree huggers.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Well, Earth Firsters, and all of the other organizations that roadblock virtually all economic activity are certainly not conservative, cyclops.

Neither are they Liberal, certainly, as you well know.

They share the same sort of relationship as the Libertarians share with Conservatives: believe in some of the same goals, but are most definitely not the same group.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I thought positive changes to reduce the CO2 emissions in this country were supposed to bring about the economic apocalypse? Now it turns out that what Democrats have been saying for years (that the change to "go green" need not be fraught with business closures and job-loss) is actually true? I'm so confused.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I agree with you about the Nukes, though I will say that the safety record was a little worse back then then it is now.

Quote:
Another interesting thing is the possibility that hybrid cars, if manufactured in numbers great enough to impact gas mileage, may create alot of unforeseen problems, such as more energy to manufacture and other associated problems with the materials required to build the cars.

This, not so much. I haven't seen studies which show that Hybrids cost more to manufacture then they save in emissions and overall gas usage.

Cycloptichorn

http://www.katu.com/news/7561002.html

Well, the "Dust to Dust" study is raising a few eyebrows, cyclops. I don't know how accurate the study is that shows even a Hummer having less energy cost per mile than a Prius, but at least it deserves a closer look, and it deserves a fair hearing without being dismissed out of hand. I am sure there is some useful information to be learned from the study. It makes sense to me that there are hidden energy cost factors that are overlooked by simply looking at gas mileage. We do know that simply comparing gas mileage is not an accurate comparison. That is for sure.

Again, I have been laughed at many times by people on this forum when I have asserted that the free market is often the best determination of what is most efficient. That is what makes the free market the beautiful thing it is. There are real reasons why the cost of things cost what they do, which reflects the significant component of energy built into it, not only directly but indirectly. I stick by my assertion that the free market is typically the best arbitor of the most efficient source of energy. If the government artificially props up some things and skews the market, then that effect needs to be considered as well. A good example of that is ethanol.

0 Replies

Quote:

Well, the "Dust to Dust" study is raising a few eyebrows, cyclops. I don't know how accurate the study is that shows even a Hummer having less energy cost per mile than a Prius, but at least it deserves a closer look, and it deserves a fair hearing without being dismissed out of hand. I am sure there is some useful information to be learned from the study. It makes sense to me that there are hidden energy cost factors that are overlooked by simply looking at gas mileage. We do know that simply comparing gas mileage is not an accurate comparison. That is for sure.

Who's eyebrows is this 'study' raising?

Here's the website for the fella who did the study:

http://cnwmr.com/door/

Not exactly what I would call a scientist. I'm sorry but I am going to have to exhibit a little skepticism.

Let me ask you,

Quote:

It makes sense to me that there are hidden energy cost factors that are overlooked by simply looking at gas mileage.

What exactly are those factors? Do you have any information specifically, or is this one of those 'gut feelings?'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclops, you should be able to figure your own question out. This is not complicated. If a hybrid car requires more components to manufacture, namely more batteries, those batteries require unique materials, minerals, which need to be mined, extracted, shipped, maybe from other parts of the world, and then the batteries need to be manufactured, and after being spent, they may require special requirements for recycling or disposal, and all of this requires energy to accomplish. We are not simply talking about the materials for the cars, but the materials to build the equipment to mine the materials, manufacture the components, ship the components and materials, on and on. The relationship of all of the cooperation and involvement of industry to produce products are endless. This is only one example.

A second one is the expected life of vehicles, as compared to each other, so if some vehicles last longer, then less of them would need to be manufactured and shipped. As the title of the study indicates, "Dust to Dust," the energy consumed by a vehicle starts with all of the materials being extracted from a natural resource, and ends with it all being junked and disposed of.

Why do you even need to ask the question, cyclops? The answer should have been obvious to you.

As a side issue here, anti-capitalists love to show how capitalists are selfish, but just the discussion of the above reminds me again of the incredible cooperation of people in all kinds of industries involved in free enterprise to produce products. I heard Thomas Sowell talk about this in regard to just make a pencil, and it was a beautiful explanation he offered in terms of the graphite, the wood, the eraser, and all of the industries all over the world that cooperate to make pencils. Capitalists cooperate together, work together in an incredibly efficient manner where everyone involved benefits greatly from the system. The pencil is only one of millions of things that have produced the incredible standard of living all over the world, that is absolutely amazing.

0 Replies

Quote:

Why do you even need to ask the question, cyclops? The answer should have been obvious to you.

The 'answers' aren't obvious, though the questions are.

Yes, it may be more expensive to make the batteries or dispose of them; but does this really counter the emissions put out by automobiles over the course of their lifetime, or the greater amount of materials necessary for larger automobiles?

None of these ideas are new; but it will take a more in-depth study then some marketing guy in Oregon sitting around in his living room to count as evidence that hybrids are worse for the environment then normal automobiles.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I agree the subject needs more study, but the premise is valid, thats all I am saying. To automatically assume something is less energy consumptive, based on gas mileage alone is obviously not totally accurate. So often, people and politicians do not look beyond the surface of issues, and off they go running in the wrong direction, often in the wrong one. There are many examples of this. Nuclear for one. Recycling another, where some recycling makes sense, but not always. We had that discussion before and I was laughed at in that case as well, but I am convinced that my conclusion is obviously true. Before you assume recycling is better and conserves something, you need to do an analysis first.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I agree the subject needs more study, but the premise is valid, thats all I am saying. To automatically assume something is less energy consumptive, based on gas mileage alone is obviously not totally accurate. So often, people and politicians do not look beyond the surface of issues, and off they go running in the wrong direction, often in the wrong one. There are many examples of this. Nuclear for one. Recycling another, where some recycling makes sense, but not always. We had that discussion before and I was laughed at in that case as well, but I am convinced that my conclusion is obviously true. Before you assume recycling is better and conserves something, you need to do an analysis first.

Let's be clear on why hybrids are so good: it isn't just the fact that they get great gas mileage, but that they also put out way less emissions at the same time. So it's a double whammy in favor of a cleaner environment.

If energy consumption is, as you say, determined efficiently by the 'free market,' then the fact that hybrids are relatively inexpensive compared to many other cars should give you a great example of which ones are more energy efficient to produce. The popular Prius, the most driven hybrid on the road by far, starts at 22k. Not too much for a new car with new technologies (and it does have a ton of other fancy features, even on the base model). The H2 hummer starts at a whopping 55 k, more than double the other car. So how do these facts match up with the claim that one is more energy efficient?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
I agree the subject needs more study, but the premise is valid, thats all I am saying. To automatically assume something is less energy consumptive, based on gas mileage alone is obviously not totally accurate. So often, people and politicians do not look beyond the surface of issues, and off they go running in the wrong direction, often in the wrong one. There are many examples of this. Nuclear for one. Recycling another, where some recycling makes sense, but not always. We had that discussion before and I was laughed at in that case as well, but I am convinced that my conclusion is obviously true. Before you assume recycling is better and conserves something, you need to do an analysis first.

Let's be clear on why hybrids are so good: it isn't just the fact that they get great gas mileage, but that they also put out way less emissions at the same time. So it's a double whammy in favor of a cleaner environment.
Steve wrote:
no better mileage = lower emissions, its the same thing

If energy consumption is, as you say, determined efficiently by the 'free market,' then the fact that hybrids are relatively inexpensive compared to many other cars

Steve wrote:
considerably more expensive for equivalent here

should give you a great example of which ones are more energy efficient to produce. The popular Prius, the most driven hybrid on the road by far, starts at 22k. Not too much for a new car with new technologies (and it does have a ton of other fancy features, even on the base model). The H2 hummer starts at a whopping 55 k, more than double the other car. So how do these facts match up with the claim that one is more energy efficient?

Steve wrote:
I'm tempted to buy a Prius. But I bought a bicycle (well 2 actually) and much prefer that to the car...160k miles normal aspirated diesel Peugeot 205...brilliant, reckon I will be driving that after the oil runs out.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I agree that the Prius is a success, and is probably more efficient than the Hummer, but I think the guy's study deserves a closer look and fair hearing. Some of his points may be at least partially valid, such as the nickel mines causing environmental problems. For the number of hybrid vehicles now on the road, their true environmental impact may not yet be totally known. Imagine if every car, truck, tractor, bus, and other equipment were manufactured with the batteries, and then project the vastly increased impacts of the shear numbers of batteries, as compared with the current impacts of the current fleet of vehicles.

Your point about the cost, I agree. However, one important point that is being overlooked here. We are comparing apples and oranges, because we can buy very small cars about the size of the Prius that also get more than 40 mpg highway, without the batteries. I do agree however that the most benefit of hybrid cars are seen in city driving.

I think I mentioned this before, but there is a VW Lupo sold in Europe that gets maybe 70 some mpg, without a battery. It is I think a 3 cylinder diesel that shuts off automatically when coasting or stopped, then restarts automatically. I would like to know why this is not sold in the U.S. Is it the tree huggers or Ralph Nader types that make it a safety hazard or something? I don't know, but I am curious why, because it is one efficient vehicle.

The hybrid cars are catching on to an extent, but it remains to be seen whether the technology holds the potential that some have predicted. The Prius is a success, but what about the other models?

P.S. Heres a link on the Lupo. Now I see they quit making it???!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo

0 Replies

Steve,

Quote:

no better mileage = lower emissions, its the same thing

It isn't, though.

Example:

Car A gets 25 miles per gallon, and puts out 1 unit of emissions per mile traveled. After traveling 75 miles, this car will have consumed 3 gallons of gas and put out 75 units of emissions.

Car B gets 50 miles per gallon, and puts out .5 units of emissions per mile traveled. After travelling 75 miles, this car will have consumed 1.5 gallons of gas and put out 37.5 units of emissions.

Higher Gas mileage Not Equal

lower emissions. Just look at some of the VW diesels that get 40+ miles per gallon - some of them can't even be sold here in California due to their emissions.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I read that "Dust-to-Dust" study, and we've discussed it in other threads (maybe even this one). It is full of holes and there are a few sites that debunk some of that research groups points.

It does need to be investigated, just using a more scientific and controlled approach.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know