[TheWOAT]

Gore sunk my scrabbleship.

[besson3c]

Who says I'm bothered? I'm just baffled as to what puts wind in your sails, that is all.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who says I'm bothered? I'm just baffled as to what puts wind in your sails, that is all.

fiber and gas. Lots and lots of gas.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Well, I think we agree, ebuddy. But I have a few grains of salt I might as well unload.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

they are flying about on personal jets to tell you why you're singing is wrong and why you need to collect corn while they waste at least 12 times more than you.

I agree that Gore is making an ass out of himself, but keep in mind that ground transportation uses 10x more energy than air travel, so it's reasonable to say he's spending a dime to save a dollar.

Bush wants to reduce the nation's gasoline usage 5% annually by 2017 through increasing the fuel efficiency of passenger cars and light trucks. This proposal called '20 in 10'

I like that the two sides are communicating, and trying to compromise. That's a big improvement, and it will turn out to be more important than whatever small gains in fuel efficiency actually come from this plan.

Oh the problems though...

I thought it was weird to call it "20" in 10 when the savings is only "5" in 10. 5% is really pretty terrible. 20% is decent. Then I saw that the bulk of the plan is biofuels. I don't like biofuels. Estimates are that to fill 10% of our energy needs with bio-diesel it would take 30% of our cropland (for Europe, 70% to fill just that 10% of the demand). Also bio-diesel is worse than normal diesel from overall emissions standpoint. I prefer electric, as you can pick and choose many ways to generate it. I suppose bio-fuels are better than nothing...

But also, this plan calls for billions in tax dollars to develop alternative fuels. How does this satisfy you any more, or horrify you any less, than the fuel tax boogeyman you brought in here? The only difference I see is that Bushy proposed it, so loyal Bushies won't question it. Doesn't that strike you as kind of...partisan?

Finally, I noticed the part where "Congress Should Not Legislate A Particular Numeric Fuel Economy Standard." Huh? That sounds suspiciously like when he agreed to let the Dems interview his staff members as long as there was no record of it and they didn't have to tell the truth. I'll hold off judgement until it has a chance to work, but let's just say I'm highly skeptical.

[Buckaroo]

Speaking of conservation. I'm not sure, but I believe water softeners use a lot of water to make soft water. They also add a lot of salt to the sewage system. Like I say, I'm not sure.

Anyhow, I wonder if Al Gore is willing to give up his water softener.

BTW, post #2005 was intentionally misspelled.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I agree that Gore is making an ass out of himself, but keep in mind that ground transportation uses 10x more energy than air travel, so it's reasonable to say he's spending a dime to save a dollar.

This sounds sufficiently vague and inaccurate. Do you have a link?

I thought it was weird to call it "20" in 10 when the savings is only "5" in 10. 5% is really pretty terrible. 20% is decent.

The plan does have two parts; 35 Billion Gallons Of Renewable And Alternative Fuels In 2017 – Nearly Five Times The 2012 Target Now In Law. In 2017, this will displace 15 percent of projected annual gasoline use. 15% and Raising CAFE standards for an additional 5%. 15+5= 20% in 10 years. i.e. 20 in 10.

Then I saw that the bulk of the plan is biofuels. I don't like biofuels. Estimates are that to fill 10% of our energy needs with bio-diesel it would take 30% of our cropland (for Europe, 70% to fill just that 10% of the demand).

... I believe less reprehensible than paying farmers not to grow.

Also bio-diesel is worse than normal diesel from overall emissions standpoint.

Though the study is a little convoluted. It's not quite as cut and dry as "biodiesel is worse than normal diesel". What they're saying is biodiesel derived from rapeseed is more environmentally friendly than standard diesel within the combustion engine, but the concerns are the gasses released from the literal farming of rapeseed. Their conclusion is that if the rapeseed crops were used for planting trees instead of rapeseed, the total affect would be more friendly than biodiesel. I'd have to read more in depth, but at the surface it sounds like a huge stretch to fit a desired end. Perhaps that's just the skeptical side. The EPA and just about any other study you can find will attest to the superiority of biodiesel both on the environment and in benefit to growers over standard diesel.

I prefer electric, as you can pick and choose many ways to generate it. I suppose bio-fuels are better than nothing...

Efficient electric generation has a ways to go before it can be implemented en masse. If we wait too long we'll hit peak oil, the sky will fall in a black plume of smoke, and all the ants will have folded their little legs and died. The locusts are coming.

But also, this plan calls for billions in tax dollars to develop alternative fuels. How does this satisfy you any more, or horrify you any less, than the fuel tax boogeyman you brought in here?

The above seems a smidgen myopic to me. A fuel cost increase is a direct, immediate, and tangible increase in cost to all. Cutting other forms of waste and pork in Washington, granting tax breaks to all sectors and using a portion of current tax income for beneficial purposes is what we're paying them to do. By being better stewards of their current income, there's no need to seek more. There is no notion of increasing taxes on the collective to fund this plan.

The only difference I see is that Bushy proposed it, so loyal Bushies won't question it. Doesn't that strike you as kind of...partisan?

Your statement? Patently! Again, we're not seeing anything as wrong or right, only right or left. Isn't this line of questioning a little below you? "Bushies", "loyal bushies"? I mean c'mon man. You stated that no one is doing anything. I cited corporations and some government action on the issue and this is the best you've got? You should be ashamed of yourself. Especially when talking to someone who has railed plenty on the current Administration.

Finally, I noticed the part where "Congress Should Not Legislate A Particular Numeric Fuel Economy Standard." Huh? That sounds suspiciously like when he agreed to let the Dems interview his staff members as long as there was no record of it and they didn't have to tell the truth. I'll hold off judgement until it has a chance to work, but let's just say I'm highly skeptical.

You have the right to be skeptical, but as you mentioned before, something is better than nothing. Regulating an already-vulnerable vehicle manufacturer by imposing specific numerical standards at the Federal Level is why prior Administrations didn't want to touch this issue. You may find the concession reprehensible, but again we're talking about getting started. The next President (D), can finish the job.

Right?

*Hint - don't say; "no... LEFT!!!"

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This sounds sufficiently vague and inaccurate. Do you have a link?

Ok my google-fu was weak last night, and I could only find the DOE's "kids page," but I've seen it in "grown-up" talk before too. A few months ago I was going to argue that surely reducing oil usage should target air travel, but checking my facts beforehand convinced me otherwise.

... I believe less reprehensible than paying farmers not to grow.

But 30% of farmland for just 10% of our needs? Doesn't that tell you this is not going to be an expandable solution?

Though the study is a little convoluted. It's not quite as cut and dry as "biodiesel is worse than normal diesel". What they're saying is biodiesel derived from rapeseed is more environmentally friendly than standard diesel within the combustion engine, but the concerns are the gasses released from the literal farming of rapeseed. Their conclusion is that if the rapeseed crops were used for planting trees instead of rapeseed, the total affect would be more friendly than biodiesel. I'd have to read more in depth, but at the surface it sounds like a huge stretch to fit a desired end. Perhaps that's just the skeptical side. The EPA and just about any other study you can find will attest to the superiority of biodiesel both on the environment and in benefit to growers over standard diesel.

This study is more recent, and at least in scope, more thorough. It's hard to get a new study published that contradicts previous findings if it's less thorough than the previous findings it contradicts.

Efficient electric generation has a ways to go before it can be implemented en masse.

I find that hard to believe when we have such a massive use of electricity in this country already. 80% of my electricity comes from hydro, but the same principals of hydro can be applied to geothermal. Also you can pool the electricity from all different kinds of generators, including what I think is most relevant, which is that people can generate it on their own property if they like energy independence. I don't think that's true of any other fuel medium.

"Bushies", "loyal bushies"? I mean c'mon man.

That was a reference to the attorney firings issue. Some of the internal GOP emails said those guys weren't being "loyal bushies." Sorry if you missed that.

I cited corporations and some government action on the issue

I appreciate that trucking thing, but I was more interested in the industries that actually make the vehicles. And state of the union talk is a far cry from government action. It sounds like the run-around. But it's better than nothing.

Regulating an already-vulnerable vehicle manufacturer by imposing specific numerical standards

It's my understanding that one of the reasons the manufacturers are "already-vulnerable" is exactly because their efficiencies aren't competitive with foreign auto-makers. If that's not it, then what is it? Why are we behind?

[Macrobat]

That's all well and good, Unc, but even with all that ominous-looking chart data, CO2 still compreises less than a single percentage point of total greenhouse gases, yet all the concentration is on CO2.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

That's all well and good, Unc, but even with all that ominous-looking chart data, CO2 still compreises less than a single percentage point of total greenhouse gases, yet all the concentration is on CO2.

nope.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

That's all well and good, Unc, but even with all that ominous-looking chart data, CO2 still compreises less than a single percentage point of total greenhouse gases, yet all the concentration is on CO2.

That sounds similar to what I've argued in other threads, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Which chart do you find ominous-looking? What's your basis for "less than 1%?"

FYI, CO2 gets more than its fair share of interest, because its ecological half-life is longer than the other greenhouse gases. Personally I think air travel should get more scrutiny in the global warming issue because of contrails that are made of the most potent greenhouse gas (water), but in this thread we've been talking about wasting fuel, not about greenhouse gas, so it's not really relevant. Also I don't have any data to support this opinion.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

nope.

Duh, yep.

http://books.google.com/books?id=eso...ssd6_iq8BnhD2Q

Whereas Earth's atmosphere contains only about 0.03 percent C02 . . .

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Duh, yep.

Astronomy: The Solar System and Beyond - Google Book Search

Read the post to which I responded please.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Read the post to which I responded please.

I wrote the post to which you responded. The VAST majority of greenhouse gas is water vapor.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

I wrote the post to which you responded. The VAST majority of greenhouse gas is water vapor.

So you did

The reason that people aren't concerned with water vapor is that it is naturally occuring and self-regulating. Humans don't produce appreciable amounts of water vapor. Also, too much water vapor in the air? it rains.

The only number I've seen that shows an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere puts it at 0.04 ppm/year. Contrast that with ~1 ppm/year for CO2.

[edit: sorry, i had it at 330 ppm/year for CO2. Wrong!]

Airplanes do not produce water vapor. That water is already in the atmosphere, it just changes state. Contrails reflect energy from the sun away from earth, causing cooling. Airplanes do produce CO2 (and soot which cools as well) though and they do contribute greatly in that respect.

[Macrobat]

Um, hate to point out the obvious, but CO2 is also naturally occurring.

330 ppm of the same CO2 that composes .03 percent of the total atmosphere?

There is no way you aren't getting this.

lol

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Um, hate to point out the obvious, but CO2 is also naturally occurring.

...but not self-regulating, hence, the concern.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

330 ppm of the same CO2 that composes .03 percent of the total atmosphere?

Small doesn't always mean insignificant.

Greenhouse gases increase the temp of the atmosphere by 33C. Without that 1% that is greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, the earth would be a giant snowball.

Another problem is that even small increases in CO2 levels cause increases in water vapor levels. More heat = more evaporation. More evaporation = more heat.

Water vapor levels, again, are self-regulating but the levels increase with heat. CO2 levels are not self-regulating and are something that we could control. That is why the concern is over CO2 levels - they cause the positive feedback mechanism that is warming the planet (via which ever greenhouse gas you personally choose to blame).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok my google-fu was weak last night, and I could only find the DOE's "kids page," but I've seen it in "grown-up" talk before too. A few months ago I was going to argue that surely reducing oil usage should target air travel, but checking my facts beforehand convinced me otherwise.

Interesting. I'd be curious in seeing comparative data. In other words, on the surface it would seem obvious that air travel (something many people do a couple of times a year) would pale in comparison to something almost everyone does daily, but I think if you compared a bus of 60 people to a plane of 60 people to the same A to B you'd find the plane to be more destructive to the environment. Not too relevant, just a curiosity.

But 30% of farmland for just 10% of our needs? Doesn't that tell you this is not going to be an expandable solution?

I'd see the potential for many a farmer to get back on line. If you've ever driven cross-country, there's no shortage of open land to be farmed. I'm thinking they're using current land-space used for commercial farming as opposed to potential, available land. That said, I agree that this is only a "stall tactic" of sorts to perfect more efficient means of solving the problem.

This study is more recent, and at least in scope, more thorough. It's hard to get a new study published that contradicts previous findings if it's less thorough than the previous findings it contradicts.

I don't think it's necessarily more thorough. I think it's really more of a stretch in that it may not be founded on a reasonable premise. "replace farmland with trees", etc...

I find that hard to believe when we have such a massive use of electricity in this countr