 | |
Your dog is a greenhouse gas polluter
Ford Vehicles Discussions About Ford Cars (alt.autos.ford)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#31
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Your dog is a greenhouse gas polluter -
04-09-2007
, 10:41 PM
|
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. |
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?
#32
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Robert Reynolds" <robbie (AT) kcnet (DOT) com> wrote in message 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? OK, what do you suggest? |
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.
#33
| |||
| |||
|
|
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.
#34
| |||
| |||
|
|
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.
#35
| |||
| |||
|
|
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.
#36
| |||
| |||
|
|
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.
#37
| |||
| |||
|
|
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.)
#38
| |||
| |||
|
|
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.
#39
| |||
| |||
|
|
"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')
#40
| |||
| |||
|
|
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')
|
« 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.