Climate Change Discussion

[goneandbrokeit]

If you don't think man is contributing significantly to CO2 levels, relax and have a homebrew. If you do think man is contributing significantly, but don't feel that we can do anything about it, relax and have a homebrew. If you do think we do and can, it looks like you may get to express your opinion at the polls. Do whatever feels right.

Chuck

Evolve already!

I am sure the people who touted Palm Oil felt were doing the right thing...http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/business/worldbusiness/31biofuel.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

 

[Chuck52]

The people who worked to clean up the Great Lakes and try to minimize air pollution thought they were doing the right thing, too. Poor deluded fools.

Chuck

Evolve already!

 

[goneandbrokeit]

The people who worked to clean up the Great Lakes and try to minimize air pollution thought they were doing the right thing, too. Poor deluded fools.

Chuck

Evolve already!

I guess my point was to think through your actions. I am sure there a hundreds peopled driving hybrids that think they are doing the right thing, but have not considered the increased lead pollution that will come from the batteries.
I am sure those folks who cleaned up the Great Lakes don't want the lead dump there.

 

[tallyho8]

I have been wondering about how much pollution hybrids really prevent. You always hear them talking about how much gas they save but you never hear them talking about how much electric they use to charge their batteries. When the power plants use oil or gas or coal to make the electricity to charge these batteries, they are increasing their pollution. Plus, the cost of electricity to charge the batteries is never mentioned in their advertising, just the cost of gasoline.
I would like to see a study of the net pollution increase or decrease if the USA replaced 10 million of their autos with hybrids and built a new coal burning power plant to charge their batteries.

 

[hazmat]

I guess my point was to think through your actions. I am sure there a hundreds peopled driving hybrids that think they are doing the right thing, but have not considered the increased lead pollution that will come from the batteries.
I am sure those folks who cleaned up the Great Lakes don't want the lead dump there.

Lead and the other heavy metals that are used in the various battery technologies are nasty stuff. However, we have a good track record of recycling lead.

95% of lead that is avialable to recycle is. 63% of all lead "produced" is from recycled stock. USGS 1998 lead report

I saw a show on heavy metals on the discovery channel the other day, they quoted a 97% as the current recycle rate.

That's what's great about elemental metals - you can melt them down & re-use.

 

[Tig]

I would like to see a study of the net pollution increase or decrease if the USA replaced 10 million of their autos with hybrids and built a new coal burning power plant to charge their batteries.

Since hybrids charge their own nickle hydride batteries the coal plant would not be required. Here is a car to car comparison of major pollutants based on EPA ratings, 14K diven per year. Multiply the results by 10 million and you will have your answer. HybridCars.com - Major Pollutants

 

[hazmat]

I have been wondering about how much pollution hybrids really prevent. You always hear them talking about how much gas they save but you never hear them talking about how much electric they use to charge their batteries. When the power plants use oil or gas or coal to make the electricity to charge these batteries, they are increasing their pollution. Plus, the cost of electricity to charge the batteries is never mentioned in their advertising, just the cost of gasoline.
I would like to see a study of the net pollution increase or decrease if the USA replaced 10 million of their autos with hybrids and built a new coal burning power plant to charge their batteries.

There is no such (mass produced) thing as a "plug in" hybrid although they are considered the "future" especially when coupled with a renewable/non polluting energy source (Solar, Wind etc.). All the electricity needed to charge the battery is produced by the gas engine or regenerative braking.

A group on the "left coast" has dedicated itself to furthering the technology

calcars They claim that plug in hybrids are cleaner than "regular" hybrids, even when recharged from a coal plant... At a macro level this makes sense, a large powerplant is typically more effecient than an automobile, and is better set up to "scrub" pollution before it exits it's stack. Often the comparisions don't account for transmission losses ~10% of the electric plant's energy is lost to resistance in the wires.

Oh, and hybrid sales in the US were >250,000 for the year.

 

[Chuck52]

It certainly is a good idea to think through your actions. There are sure lots of examples where people have set out to do the right thing and deluded themselves. The road to that bad place is paved with good intentions, and all. For the topic of this discussion, there's first the need to decide if there even is a problem that should be addressed. Then, if a problem is found, there must be a decision about appropriate action. Prudence. Prudence is good. Prudence doesn't prevent prudent action. Seems prudent to me for America to try to minimize the impact of foreign energy sources on our economy. If our contribution to CO2 levels turns out to be a factor in global warming, and if global warming turns out not to be a good thing, and if we can affect all these things by doing something right......lots of ifs, huh? At some point, it becomes prudent to take what one sees as prudent action. If you're wrong, do something different. If doing nothing seems prudent, so be it.

Chuck

 

[Tig]

I did the math, tallyho08.
48 billion lbs less CO2, that's a reduction of about 50%
1.6 billion lbs less CO, slightly more than 50% reduction
20 million lbs less NOx, slightly more than 20% reduction
Particulate matter listed shows an 85% reduction (39 million lbs) but I have doubts that the comparison is fair since the vehicles seem very different to me.
20 million lbs less hydrocarbons, about 25% reduction.

 

[tallyho8]

I did the math, tallyho08.
48 billion lbs less CO2, that's a reduction of about 50%
1.6 billion lbs less CO, slightly more than 50% reduction
20 million lbs less NOx, slightly more than 20% reduction
Particulate matter listed shows an 85% reduction (39 million lbs) but I have doubts that the comparison is fair since the vehicles seem very different to me.
20 million lbs less hydrocarbons, about 25% reduction.

This might be a very accurate figure. I have done no research to prove or disprove it. Merely reading posts like this gets me to thinking, and maybe more people ought to be thinking about what we need to do, if anything, to improve our environment and to consider all alternatives.

Just remember there are always hidden factors to include. Such as, a small economy hybrid truck may put out 1/2 the pollution of a 1 ton truck, but if you have to make 2 trips to deliver an order with it instead of the one trip you make with your larger truck, you are making the same amount of pollution, plus using more man hours and increasing your costs.

Just getting everyone to think about our problems is the first step towards solving them.