| 22-11-2017 20:49 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
And no, people who want to reduce their Carbon Footprint do not have to do it all at once, to not be a hypocrite.
Just been so stinkin busy lately, and still am, but I gotta throw a couple shots here.
Greenstuff has said in other threads and posts...
1. I drive a Jeep. I like them.
2. I make about $3,000 a week.
3. Burning our cheap fuels is creating CO2 and warming the planet.
4. It's not your fault Gassy, but you gotta fix it.
So, I drive a big truck that is no doubt a gas guzzler. It is required for the work I perform. I drag a large trailer most days in the summer and winter, and when it snows, this GasGuzzler is pushing it. Greenstuff, on the other hand, drives a Jeep to work. He apparently uses it for transportation and personal pleasure use. Now, he has made it clear that I am of the population that must fix the problem. He has also made it clear that he is not a hypocrite. He doesn't have to get off the grid today, as long as he is making strides to get there, he's all innocent and good. So, here I am wondering why he can make 3k a week but doesn't drive a Prius. Unless you live in San Diego or New York, 12k a month is a fairly sporty paycheck. Don't tell me you can't afford to drive something a little more...shall we say...CO2 efficient? This is something you could do today! Should have done it a long time ago.
Greenthing, how is this not the definition of hypocrite? It's almost a little Algoresk.
gasguzzler,
Any more it might be more about hydrocarbons than co2. Have you heard any scientist lately (the last few years or so) actually say that co2 is causing climate change ? I think it's the media that is saying co2 and not scientists.
Watch this movie in support of global warming/climate change and if you can, show me where a scientist actually states that co2 is causing climate change and not that it's 95% likely that AGW (man's effect).
From what I've seen they'll say and co2 levels have risen this much but are not saying because co2 levels rose this much our atmosphere warmed this much as a result. If the media and people make an incorrect inference, it is not the scientists. This is because they are making information known about climate change and the media and people are reading into it what they want to see.
This is pretty much correct. It's largely the media. There is a source though. It's the IPCC itself. Our government (and many world governments) has only been too happy to go along and claim this opportunity for increasing their power.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 22-11-2017 20:51 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James,
You've missed the point a little bit.
ITN said Greensomething was a hypocrite. He said no I'm not. I said yes you are and here's why.
To your suggestion of hydrocarbon...here's my thoughts.
1. Pollution will kill us all. Stop burning "fossil fuels".
2. Acid rain will kill us all. Stop burning "fossil fuels".
3. Global warming will kill us all. Stop burning "fossil fuels".
4. Climate change (trying a new name) will kill us all. Stop burning "fossil fuels".
5. Methane will kill us all. Stop burning "fossil fuels".
6. Now you suggest some hydrocarbon problem? Stop burning "fossil fuels"?
You see how the "big problem" changes but the solution is always the same? Why? Who is it that is "discovering" these problems and why?
gasguzzler,
Hope you don't mind my having a bit of fun with this.
Trains can move a ton of freight over 470 miles on a single gallon of fuel.
https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-us/the-csx-advantage/fuel-efficiency/?mobileFormat=true
The diesel electric locomotive is the most efficient engine we can build. The second most efficient is the turbojet engine.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 22-11-2017 21:32 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I love outstanding fuel efficiency, and trains are definitely that. It only means less demand for a great product, which drive prices lower and Greendude crazy.
Hey Greenfriek, how many solar panels does it take to move a ton of freight 400 miles? Hee hee hee.
Beats the dog shit right out of me, Gassy. Not many though, since a gallon of gas isn't that much energy. I'm not going to bother looking up how much energy is in a gallon of fuel, just to figure it out though. It would be easier to just guess at it, then let Wake figure it out. And that's only if I gave a shit. I don't.
This has already been measured (it's not calculated, but measured).
A gallon of gasoline has 124000 btu and weighs approx 6lbs.
A gallon of diesel oil (which a locomotive uses) has 139000 btu and weighs approx 6.9 lbs.
A gallon of kerosene (which jet engines use) has 135000 btu and weighs approx 6.8 lbs.
GreenMan wrote:
The only reason you bring it up is because you are trying to show that no matter what anyone does, we are still going to need to use oil for something somewhere.
Like the guys shipping all that food and supplies you are using to build your bunker with.
GreenMan wrote:
Agreed. And that is no reason to do nothing to wean ourselves off of it as much as we possibly can.
There is no reason to wean ourselves off of petroleum based products. It's useful stuff.
GreenMan wrote:
By the way, have you ever heard of electric trains?
You mean those coal fired things that supposedly protect the environment? Guess where the electricity to run the thing comes from, dumbass.
GreenMan wrote:
All they gotta do is build a huge battery [enough to run 1,000,000 vibrators] and pull it behind the locomotive, like they used to do wood for their boiler.
Batteries are not an energy source. They are a storage medium. They're heavy suckers, too. A battery powered train will not get far, even if the entire train was batteries. Apparently you are not aware that the whole thing about trains is efficiency of hauling useful load.
GreenMan wrote:
You could charge that with solar.
Solar does not produce enough power to run a train.
GreenMan wrote:
Then it wouldn't take any gas to move that big train.
Trains use diesel oil. It's cheap and it has a lot of power. No tender is required.
GreenMan wrote:
In fact, why not put solar panels on the roofs of the train cars, and let it charge it's own battery as it is going down the track?
Not enough power. Hauling batteries around reduces useful load. Interconnection further reduces efficiency (by quite a lot).
GreenMan wrote:
That might not work out so well on coal cars, since they don't have roofs, but you know what, we wouldn't need as much coal anymore, so coal might not be as big a mover as it used to be.
Nothing wrong with coal. We use it to power those electric trains.
GreenMan wrote:
I think there is a solution to every problem, Gassy. We just have to keep looking for what the best solution is, and make a change.
Why do you keep insisting there is a problem that a solution needs to be found for?
GreenMan wrote:
Ignoring it, won't make it go away.
There is no need to make it go away.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 22-11-2017 21:53 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
GreenMan wrote: I don't despise technology, fruit loop. I like Fruit Loops better'n Trix. Hey, I haven't had them fer a long time. I'll have to get a box of 'em.
Edited on 22-11-2017 21:55 |