 | |
Your dog is a greenhouse gas polluter
Chrysler Dodge, Plymouth, Jeep, Eagle, etc info/talk (rec.autos.makers.chrysler)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#31
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Your dog is a greenhouse gas polluter -
04-10-2007
, 01:12 AM
|
Al Gore's house uses 20 times the electricity of the average American home. His solution to the problem is to set up some environmental clearing house to which you could pay big indulgences to lower your "carbon foot print" score. |
credits which relieve his guilt. Of course he still creates that
pollution, regardless of whether he buys carbon offsets.
He hopes his money goes to clean energy projects, but since these Carbon
Offset cash collectors aren't audited we will see?
I just hope that everyone with a city sized lawn uses an electric or
manual lawn mower.
If their lawn is too big for that approach they should probably plant
trees on the excess property.
#32
| |||
| |||
|
|
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. |
waters down their arguments.
#33
| |||
| |||
|
|
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!! Not true. |
-solar heat is falling on the earth whether it creates energy in solar
panels or not.
-Wind power is there whether it is used or not.
#34
| |||
| |||
|
|
In this discussion, I have seen no mention of hydro electric power. It's the main source of electricity in many places. |
power is limited. In fact BC is running out of economic water power
sites.
In Alberta, Canada it isn't. They burn natural gas and coal for most of
their power and also burn much gas to create oil for the USA from their
oil sands.
#35
| |||
| |||
|
|
HLS (AT) nospam (DOT) nix> wrote in message The modification of the atmosphere (or ecosphere if you want to include a bit more) IS a culprit. I can buy that argument. Now tell me how building and maintaining a huge house did not increase his carbon footprint. |
these
sorts of things contribute.
I would never have voted for Gore, and he is not one of my favorite people.
Not everything he says is wrong, however.
#36
| |||
| |||
|
|
In this discussion, I have seen no mention of hydro electric power. It's the main source of electricity in many places. Steve R. |
(my previous
residence) has a huge hydroelectric industry. Our electrical power costs
used to be
fairly cheap, and there was no significant greenhouse gas contribution from
the direct
generation of power in this way.
It isn't available everywhere.
Norway is looking at converting some of the natural gas into electrical
power to sell
into the European power grid. (At present the gas is transported to Emden,
Germany
via a subsea pipeline). The key difference is that the CO2 will be removed
at the site
of power generation, not released into the atmosphere. (At least that is
the plan and
the goal.)
#37
| |||
| |||
|
|
Steve R. wrote: In this discussion, I have seen no mention of hydro electric power. It's the main source of electricity in many places. Steve R. That's what the TVA is all about. The region went hydroelectric in the 1930s. |
Steve R.
#38
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Bill Putney" <bptn (AT) kinez (DOT) net> wrote in message news:evd4vf$83r$1 (AT) news (DOT) isdn.net... 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. 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. |
As I stated before, when the electrical energy is converted to any other
form *IN* *THE* *HOME* or anywhere else, it is ultimately converted to
heat. So when the electricity was used in Mr. Gore's home to the tune
of 20 times the average American home, 20 times the heat was added to
the enviroment.
Please take a course in thermodynamics before spouting your false science.
Quote:
|
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. |
electical energy is converted) is released into the environment.
Quote:
|
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. |
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
#39
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <evd4vf$83r$1 (AT) news (DOT) isdn.net>, Bill Putney <bptn (AT) kinez (DOT) net 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!! Not true. For example: -solar heat is falling on the earth whether it creates energy in solar panels or not. -Wind power is there whether it is used or not. |
many kW-hrs. of electricity is converted ultimately turns into heatr
released into the environment.
You also need to take a course in thermodynamics.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
#40
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
|
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 06:36:44 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn (AT) kinez (DOT) net 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. 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? |
to heat that is released into the envirnoment.
Quote:
|
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. |
what's really behind the true science.
Quote:
|
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'). |
usage in the past, as in 2006? You really can't be serious. Please
document all this building of these new sources going on.
Quote:
|
And he is now in the process of reducing his home's energy demands... |
doesn't he just quit wasting the energy. Makes him look like a
hypocrite. He could use the same money now to build the new stuff
without doing damage now. Who is forcing him to use this much
electricity while it is doing so much damage?
Quote:
|
...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,... |
building programs going on for that.
Quote:
|
...while Mr. Gore's own electricity demands will have fallen... |
Quote:
|
Cheers, Paul |
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.