On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 20:22:24 -0700, bmwgolfguy
<bmwgolfguy.2or78p (AT) no-mx (DOT) nodomain.com> wrote:

No, sorry, I don't partake. Early on life I sensed the need to
safeguard the few (impaired or otherwise) brain cells granted me. ;-)

I don't understand (nor much care for) American politics -- a little
too rough and tumble for my tastes. Still, all this Bush bashing,
Clinton bashing and Gore bashing has me wondering if Americans are
nasty to everyone, or if this type of vitriol language is reserved for
elected representatives.

Anyway, thanks for the head's up! -- I must remember to look both ways
before Michael, Al and I step off the curb. :>)

Cheers,
Paul

Paul M. Eldridge wrote:

Here's one huge fallacy in your argument: The laws of thermodynamics say
that when electrical energy is used, regardless of its source,
regardless of its initial conversion, 100% of it eventually converts to
*HEAT*. It seems a sleight of hand shell game to be talking about
global warming and then change it to terms of "carbon usage" or "carbon
footprint" and other such nonsense.

When Al Gore uses 220,000 kW-hrs, he is adding that much heat - no more
- no less - to the earth. That is 20 times more heat added to "global
warming" than the house that consumes 10,000 kW-hrs of electricity.

I repeat: Al Gore's house is adding 20 times the heat to the earth that
the average American is adding!!

Are you starting to see why I refer to this "global warming" thing as
false science?

With the logic in the first part of your previous post, Al Gore should
*NOT* try to make his house more efficient (i.e., use less electricity)
- he should try to double or triple his usage so as not to deprive TVA
of all that extra money to build "carbon neutral" generation. *AND*, in
addition, all his TVA neighbors need to try to compete with him and up
their consumption so they also can be contributing to the "solution".
Surely you can see the fallacy in that logic.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

"Bill Putney" <bptn (AT) kinez (DOT) net> wrote


Gore has been chastised about his personal excesses in electrical energy.
And that is fair enough. All of us, you included, would prefer that the
issues applied to other people, or at least not to ourselves.

But the electrical energy is not the culprit. Electrical heat outside the
norm
is a function of the consumption of the fuel required to produce it.
Lightning
( a normal electrical event) generates heat, but in the summation of
energies
required to produce it and dissipate it you will see no net effect.

The modification of the atmosphere (or ecosphere if you want to include a
bit more)
IS a culprit.

We have a little energy produced by nuclear reactors, wind generators, and
solar
cells. Neither of the latter two generate additional heat in the
atmosphere. They
convert energetic events that already exist into electrical power.

The former source will eventually generate the same amount of heat, over
time,
whether is it allowed to decay in nature or whether it is used in a reactor.
But when driven to criticality in a reactor, it will generate its capacity
over a shorter
period. This give a small but real ripple in the energy balance per time.

Your arguments amount to "begging the question". Watch my smoke and
mirrors,
not my hands.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 06:36:44 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn (AT) kinez (DOT) net>
wrote:

Hi Bill,

I'm afraid you've lost me on your first point. Can you explain to me
(in simple terms) how converting wind or solar energy into electricity
could *increase* the temperature of our planet? For example, what's
the "multiplier effect" for the solar radiation that strikes the
earth? Not that I paid a whole lot of attention in physics class, but
I was led to believe energy could be neither created nor destroyed and
you seem to be suggesting otherwise.

The real issue at heart is carbon emissions and the warming effect
they have on our planet, not Mr. Gore's electricity use (afterall,
isn't that Mr. Gore's message?). The burning of fossil fuels releases
these gases into our atmosphere whereas the production of wind and
solar energy do not.

As to the second point, Mr. Gore has opted to pay an additional
$5,200.00/year on his electrical bill to help finance the development
of renewable energy (an amount the TVA has deemed sufficient to ensure
all of the electricity he uses is "carbon neutral'). And he is now in
the process of reducing his home's energy demands and will soon
generate some of his electricity by way of rooftop solar shingles. My
suggestion to you is that the renewable energy resources he has helped
put in place through his purchases of green power will continue to
provide clean electricity long after he no longer requires this
electricity for himself. With that, there should be a net reduction
in carbon emissions because the TVA's renewable portfolio will have
increased, while Mr. Gore's own electricity demands will have fallen.

Cheers,
Paul

<HLS (AT) nospam (DOT) nix> wrote in message
I can buy that argument. Now tell me how building and maintaining a huge
house did not increase his carbon footprint.

In this discussion, I have seen no mention of hydro electric power. It's the
main source of electricity in many places.


Steve R.

"Robert Reynolds" <robbie (AT) kcnet (DOT) com> wrote in message
OK, what do you suggest?

Steve R. wrote:

That's what the TVA is all about. The region went hydroelectric in the
1930s.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

Can we stop using stupid terminology like "carbon footprint"? It's a
shortsighted generalization, and it sounds ridiculous anyway. Why do we
have to make up new words for everything every 10 years?

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
There probably isn't a good word for it. It's a simplistic term for a
process that is beyond the scope of the type of conversations it usually
appears in.

How about some old fashioned terms, such as "decadence" or "fuel
efficiency"? At least those have real meanings that aren't made up by
the political hack du jour.