Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Solar Power

I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice.


  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Solar Power


"Stu Fields" wrote in message
.. .
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice.


I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.


  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 457
Default Solar Power


"Stu Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"Stu Fields" wrote in message
.. .
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice.


I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.


How much CO2 was released making, shipping and installing the panels? How
much of a waste disposal problem in 20 or so years?


  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,355
Default Solar Power

"Buerste" on Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:44:53 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

"Stu Fields" wrote in message
. ..

"Stu Fields" wrote in message
.. .
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice.


I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.


How much CO2 was released making, shipping and installing the panels? How
much of a waste disposal problem in 20 or so years?


Details, details - if it doesn't matter to Al Gore, then it
doesn't matter. The important thing is that now Stu can feel superior
to the rest of us, for his lower Carbon Footprint.
Oh, and if anyone needs carbon credits, I'm willing to sell the
offsets from not using my Learjet to fly to the coast. But hurry, I'm
thinking about upgrading, to not flying my private 737, in the near
future.


tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich.
"I wish you wouldn't use the mind control device - I get
these terrible migranes until it's finished." Jonathon
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default Solar Power

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:56:22 -0700, "Stu Fields" wrote:

I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice.


So you are no longer mig welding with any Co2 related product?

G

Gunner


One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Solar Power


"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Stu Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"Stu Fields" wrote in message
.. .
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice.


I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.


How much CO2 was released making, shipping and installing the panels? How
much of a waste disposal problem in 20 or so years?


You know we don't do long term planning. If it gives a good appearance that
is the main thing that is required. Unintended consequences happen on
another guy's watch. Haven't you been paying attention?


  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Solar Power


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:56:22 -0700, "Stu Fields" wrote:

I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice.


So you are no longer mig welding with any Co2 related product?

G

Gunner


Nope. I've never done the MIG thing. I'm a TIGer and only use pure Argon..
And use the Co2 saved to belabor my Green Friends. I can't get too excited
about the Green movement until they start including population as a major
factor.


  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 218
Default Solar Power


"Stu Fields" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar
panel system

claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause
would be nice.


I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.


500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount!
I'm a bit suspicious of that number. How can it be so high?
Anyone care to explain?
I don't believe it........
phil



  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 59
Default Solar Power

On Jul 17, 6:33*pm, "Phil Kangas" wrote:
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar
panel system
claims to have saved: *Are you ready?


* * * * * * * * * * * *300# of Co2


If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause
would be nice.


I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.


500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount!
I'm a bit suspicious of that number. How can it be so high?
Anyone care to explain?
I don't believe it........
phil


Phil

Let me take a stab at that one, I will make educated guesses as
needed.
500 pounds C02 equates to 136 pounds of carbon and 364pound of Oxygen
I believe that they are assuming the solar power is replacing
electricity derived from coal, oil, or natural gas. I'll use coal
(because it seems easier right now) but I don't believe it will make a
big difference.
Assume that coal is mostly composed of long hydrocarbon chains the
carbon to hydrogen ratio is roughly 1/2 on an atom basis, but 12/2 on
a weight basis, so the 136 pounds of carbon came from 159 pounds of
coal.
A quick google search says that coal has 8000-13000 BTU per pound and
that a BTU equals 2.93X10^-4 KWh, Assume that power generation is 50%
efficient at extracting the energy in coal. So with a little math
Stu's solar electric system has generated 3.7 KWh worth of
electricity.

CarlBoyd
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Solar Power


"Phil Kangas" wrote in message
...

"Stu Fields" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice.


I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.


500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit
suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to explain?
I don't believe it........
phil


Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the same size
system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of Co2 saved in 6
days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that mean the power plants
could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would we have to artificially
inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life? Yeah 500# in 6 days causes
my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the display says. Maybe its really
grams...




  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Solar Power


"Carl" wrote in message
...
On Jul 17, 6:33 pm, "Phil Kangas" wrote:
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar
panel system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?


300# of Co2


If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause
would be nice.


I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.


500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount!
I'm a bit suspicious of that number. How can it be so high?
Anyone care to explain?
I don't believe it........
phil


Phil

Let me take a stab at that one, I will make educated guesses as
needed.
500 pounds C02 equates to 136 pounds of carbon and 364pound of Oxygen
I believe that they are assuming the solar power is replacing
electricity derived from coal, oil, or natural gas. I'll use coal
(because it seems easier right now) but I don't believe it will make a
big difference.
Assume that coal is mostly composed of long hydrocarbon chains the
carbon to hydrogen ratio is roughly 1/2 on an atom basis, but 12/2 on
a weight basis, so the 136 pounds of carbon came from 159 pounds of
coal.
A quick google search says that coal has 8000-13000 BTU per pound and
that a BTU equals 2.93X10^-4 KWh, Assume that power generation is 50%
efficient at extracting the energy in coal. So with a little math
Stu's solar electric system has generated 3.7 KWh worth of
electricity.

CarlBoyd

Carl: Our average usage has been about 40kwh/day. Our meter numbers are
slightly decreasing. We appear to be generating more than we use...
According again to the display we are producing around 40+kwh/day. 30-230w
panels. For me the best part is to watch the meter wheel turn backwards....


  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,355
Default Solar Power

"Stu Fields" on Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:08:24 -0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:56:22 -0700, "Stu Fields" wrote:

I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice.


So you are no longer mig welding with any Co2 related product?

G

Gunner


Nope. I've never done the MIG thing. I'm a TIGer and only use pure Argon..
And use the Co2 saved to belabor my Green Friends. I can't get too excited
about the Green movement until they start including population as a major
factor.


If only they would cease to exhale CO2 with every breathe.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Solar Power

"Stu Fields" wrote:

Nope. I've never done the MIG thing. I'm a TIGer and only use pure Argon..
And use the Co2 saved to belabor my Green Friends. I can't get too excited
about the Green movement until they start including population as a major
factor.


Think how much carbon is saved by keeping an illegal in mexico.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Solar Power

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:56:55 -0700, Stu Fields wrote:
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
.. .
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice.


I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.


Is this the same software that the IPCC used to give use the hockey stick?

Thanks,
Rich

  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Solar Power

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:33:41 -0400, Phil Kangas wrote:
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice.


I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.

500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit
suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to explain?
I don't believe it........


The software was provided by IPCC....

Cheers!
Rich



  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Solar Power

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:07:22 -0700, Stu Fields wrote:
"Phil Kangas" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel
system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice.

I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.

500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit
suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to
explain? I don't believe it........
phil


Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the same
size system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of Co2
saved in 6 days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that mean
the power plants could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would we
have to artificially inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life? Yeah
500# in 6 days causes my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the display
says. Maybe its really grams...


You could save 1 KG of CO2 a day by not exhaling:

"The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l)

"A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such
contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out
about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats
325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person on
average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people alive
we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day.

"Compare that to the fact that as a rough estimate, the burning of one
litre of gasoline produces about 2.4 pounds (1.08kg) of CO2. A really good
north American car will get 40mpg which is still only 18km to the litre,
which means for every 18 km that you drive, you will release 2.4 lbs (1.08
kg) of CO2 or roughly what you breathe in a day. Source(s): Climate Change
Research"
-- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3091421AA830QK

Just a thought.... ;-)

Cheers!
Rich


  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Solar Power

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 13:21:16 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:56:22 -0700, "Stu Fields" wrote:

I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice.


So you are no longer mig welding with any Co2 related product?

G


He's mig welding on solar cells? Damn! That's a lot of electricity!

Thanks,
Rich

  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 544
Default Solar Power

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:37:24 -0700, Rich the Cynic
wrote:

He's mig welding on solar cells? Damn!


I've been doing various kinds of welding on solar and wind power for
about 15 years.
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/images...28Small%29.jpg

That's a lot of electricity!


Not really. I probably average about 4kW when welding, but that's
usually not for very long. An hour of "welding" tends to be about 55
minutes of fitting, jigging, grinding, etc. 5 minutes at 4kW and 10
cents per kWh is about 3 cents worth. Most days when I'm welding, the
overhead lighting, grinders, saws and air tools use more energy.

Wayne
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,624
Default Solar Power

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:36:15 -0700, Rich the Cynic
wrote the following:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:07:22 -0700, Stu Fields wrote:
"Phil Kangas" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel
system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice.

I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.

500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit
suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to
explain? I don't believe it........
phil


Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the same
size system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of Co2
saved in 6 days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that mean
the power plants could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would we
have to artificially inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life? Yeah
500# in 6 days causes my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the display
says. Maybe its really grams...


You could save 1 KG of CO2 a day by not exhaling:

"The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l)

"A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such
contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out
about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats
325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person on
average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people alive
we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day.

"Compare that to the fact that as a rough estimate, the burning of one
litre of gasoline produces about 2.4 pounds (1.08kg) of CO2. A really good
north American car will get 40mpg which is still only 18km to the litre,
which means for every 18 km that you drive, you will release 2.4 lbs (1.08
kg) of CO2 or roughly what you breathe in a day. Source(s): Climate Change
Research"
-- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3091421AA830QK

Just a thought.... ;-)


Rich, please now compare how many extra breaths that carload or
busload of people would expend hoofin' it from place to place for that
liter of gas. I'll bet the gas is more efficient in the long run, not
to mention getting people to work on time, getting all errands done in
the same day, etc.

--
Exercise ferments the humors, casts them into their proper channels,
throws off redundancies, and helps nature in those secret distributions,
without which the body cannot subsist in its vigor, nor the soul act
with cheerfulness. -- Joseph Addison, The Spectator, July 12, 1711
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Solar Power


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:36:15 -0700, Rich the Cynic
wrote the following:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:07:22 -0700, Stu Fields wrote:
"Phil Kangas" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel
system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice.

I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.

500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit
suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to
explain? I don't believe it........
phil

Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the same
size system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of Co2
saved in 6 days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that mean
the power plants could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would we
have to artificially inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life? Yeah
500# in 6 days causes my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the display
says. Maybe its really grams...


You could save 1 KG of CO2 a day by not exhaling:

"The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l)

"A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such
contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out
about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats
325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person on
average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people alive
we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day.

"Compare that to the fact that as a rough estimate, the burning of one
litre of gasoline produces about 2.4 pounds (1.08kg) of CO2. A really
good
north American car will get 40mpg which is still only 18km to the litre,
which means for every 18 km that you drive, you will release 2.4 lbs
(1.08
kg) of CO2 or roughly what you breathe in a day. Source(s): Climate
Change
Research"
-- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3091421AA830QK

Just a thought.... ;-)


Rich, please now compare how many extra breaths that carload or
busload of people would expend hoofin' it from place to place for that
liter of gas. I'll bet the gas is more efficient in the long run, not
to mention getting people to work on time, getting all errands done in
the same day, etc.


Remember that CO2 exhaled by humans -- or any animal -- does not add to
atmospheric carbon. Part of it is CO2 you breathed in. The rest of it is
part of the short-term, closed carbon loop: the oxidation product of carbon
in plants and animals that you ate.

The carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels is a release to the atmosphere
of long-term sequestration of carbon in petroleum, gas, or coal.

--
Ed Huntress




  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,536
Default Solar Power

Larry Jaques wrote:

Rich, please now compare how many extra breaths that carload or
busload of people would expend hoofin' it from place to place for that
liter of gas. I'll bet the gas is more efficient in the long run, not
to mention getting people to work on time, getting all errands done in
the same day, etc.



You do know, don't you, that none of this was EVER an issue before the
rain forests were "harvested"?
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,138
Default Solar Power

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:49:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:36:15 -0700, Rich the Cynic
wrote the following:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:07:22 -0700, Stu Fields wrote:
"Phil Kangas" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel
system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice.

I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.

500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit
suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to
explain? I don't believe it........
phil

Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the same
size system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of Co2
saved in 6 days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that mean
the power plants could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would we
have to artificially inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life? Yeah
500# in 6 days causes my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the display
says. Maybe its really grams...

You could save 1 KG of CO2 a day by not exhaling:

"The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l)

"A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such
contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out
about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats
325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person on
average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people alive
we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day.

"Compare that to the fact that as a rough estimate, the burning of one
litre of gasoline produces about 2.4 pounds (1.08kg) of CO2. A really
good
north American car will get 40mpg which is still only 18km to the litre,
which means for every 18 km that you drive, you will release 2.4 lbs
(1.08
kg) of CO2 or roughly what you breathe in a day. Source(s): Climate
Change
Research"
-- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3091421AA830QK

Just a thought.... ;-)


Rich, please now compare how many extra breaths that carload or
busload of people would expend hoofin' it from place to place for that
liter of gas. I'll bet the gas is more efficient in the long run, not
to mention getting people to work on time, getting all errands done in
the same day, etc.


Remember that CO2 exhaled by humans -- or any animal -- does not add to
atmospheric carbon. Part of it is CO2 you breathed in. The rest of it is
part of the short-term, closed carbon loop: the oxidation product of carbon
in plants and animals that you ate.

The carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels is a release to the atmosphere
of long-term sequestration of carbon in petroleum, gas, or coal.


This is different carbon?
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Solar Power


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:49:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:36:15 -0700, Rich the Cynic
wrote the following:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:07:22 -0700, Stu Fields wrote:
"Phil Kangas" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel
system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be
nice.

I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.

500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit
suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to
explain? I don't believe it........
phil

Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the same
size system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of Co2
saved in 6 days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that mean
the power plants could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would we
have to artificially inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life?
Yeah
500# in 6 days causes my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the
display
says. Maybe its really grams...

You could save 1 KG of CO2 a day by not exhaling:

"The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l)

"A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such
contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out
about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats
325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person on
average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people
alive
we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day.

"Compare that to the fact that as a rough estimate, the burning of one
litre of gasoline produces about 2.4 pounds (1.08kg) of CO2. A really
good
north American car will get 40mpg which is still only 18km to the
litre,
which means for every 18 km that you drive, you will release 2.4 lbs
(1.08
kg) of CO2 or roughly what you breathe in a day. Source(s): Climate
Change
Research"
-- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3091421AA830QK

Just a thought.... ;-)

Rich, please now compare how many extra breaths that carload or
busload of people would expend hoofin' it from place to place for that
liter of gas. I'll bet the gas is more efficient in the long run, not
to mention getting people to work on time, getting all errands done in
the same day, etc.


Remember that CO2 exhaled by humans -- or any animal -- does not add to
atmospheric carbon. Part of it is CO2 you breathed in. The rest of it is
part of the short-term, closed carbon loop: the oxidation product of
carbon
in plants and animals that you ate.

The carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels is a release to the
atmosphere
of long-term sequestration of carbon in petroleum, gas, or coal.


This is different carbon?


Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of it
underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of
that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the CO2
content of the atmosphere.

When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our
food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you
eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is
steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a short
period of time and then re-release it.

You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,984
Default Solar Power

On Jul 25, 2:47*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

This is different carbon?


Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of it
underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of
that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the CO2
content of the atmosphere.

When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our
food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you
eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is
steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a short
period of time and then re-release it.

You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Don is not playing stupid. He is just pointing out that a molecule of
CO2 does not know if it was released in a cycle of a few years or
hundreds of years. So it makes no difference in how the CO2 was
released into the atmosphere. It is faulty logic. I too have an
engineering background. The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the
atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from.

Dan



  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 310
Default Solar Power

In article
,
" wrote:

On Jul 25, 2:47*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

This is different carbon?


Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of it
underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of
that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the CO2
content of the atmosphere.

When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our
food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you
eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is
steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a short
period of time and then re-release it.

You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Don is not playing stupid. He is just pointing out that a molecule of
CO2 does not know if it was released in a cycle of a few years or
hundreds of years. So it makes no difference in how the CO2 was
released into the atmosphere. It is faulty logic. I too have an
engineering background. The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the
atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from.

Dan



I *think* what Ed and others are saying is that the sequestered CO2 has
been sequestered for a very long time, but is being released now at a
far faster rate than it would be by natural processes, which then raises
the proportion of it in the atmosphere more than it ordinarily would if
left alone. It's the *rate* of release that's important, not the overall
amount.

Hell, that is what he *did* say!


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,207
Default Solar Power

On 7/25/2010 7:59 AM, wrote:
On Jul 25, 2:47 am, "Ed wrote:

This is different carbon?


Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of it
underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of
that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the CO2
content of the atmosphere.

When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our
food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you
eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is
steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a short
period of time and then re-release it.

You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Don is not playing stupid. He is just pointing out that a molecule of
CO2 does not know if it was released in a cycle of a few years or
hundreds of years. So it makes no difference in how the CO2 was
released into the atmosphere. It is faulty logic. I too have an
engineering background. The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the
atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from.


However the long term effect of releasing a pound that was sequestered
by a corn plant over the last several months and will be resequestered
by the corn plant you are planting in the same location next spring is
different from the long term effect of releasing a pound that has been
buried in a hole in the ground for the past million years.

If there is a difficulty with CO2 (and I'm not taking that as proven)
the difficulty comes from releasing 150 or so million years worth of
sequestered carbon in a century or so, with no in-place process for
resorbing it.

So, yes, the source does matter.
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,146
Default Solar Power

On Jul 25, 7:59*am, " wrote:
On Jul 25, 2:47*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:





This is different carbon?


Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of it
underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of
that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the CO2
content of the atmosphere.


When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our
food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you
eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is
steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a short
period of time and then re-release it.


You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-)


--
Ed Huntress


Don is not playing stupid. *He is just pointing out that a molecule of
CO2 does not know if it was released in a cycle of a few years or
hundreds of years. *So it makes no difference in how the CO2 was
released into the atmosphere. *It is faulty logic. *I too have an
engineering background. *The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the
atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan


The carbon in plant tissue will reenter the atmosphere one way or
another, either you eat or burn it or it decomposes.

jsw
  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,984
Default Solar Power

On Jul 25, 9:32*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
On 7/25/2010 7:59 AM, wrote:



On Jul 25, 2:47 am, "Ed *wrote:


This is different carbon?


Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of it
underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of
that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the CO2
content of the atmosphere.


When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our
food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you
eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is
steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a short
period of time and then re-release it.


You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-)


--
Ed Huntress


Don is not playing stupid. *He is just pointing out that a molecule of
CO2 does not know if it was released in a cycle of a few years or
hundreds of years. *So it makes no difference in how the CO2 was
released into the atmosphere. *It is faulty logic. *I too have an
engineering background. *The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the
atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from.


However the long term effect of releasing a pound that was sequestered
by a corn plant over the last several months and will be resequestered
by the corn plant you are planting in the same location next spring is
different from the long term effect of releasing a pound that has been
buried in a hole in the ground for the past million years.

If there is a difficulty with CO2 (and I'm not taking that as proven)
the difficulty comes from releasing 150 or so million years worth of
sequestered carbon in a century or so, with no in-place process for
resorbing it.

So, yes, the source does matter.


Ah, but the lb of CO2 that was sequestered by the corn plant is not
going to be the same lb of CO2 that will be sequestered by the corn
plant in the same location. The lb of CO2 sequestered by the corn
plant next spring could be a lb of CO2 that has been buried in the
ground for the last million years. The source only matters to those
that want it to matter.

It is pretty silly that the US is considering taxes to limit CO2
release from cars and light trucks when it would be a lot cheaper to
put out the coal fires in China that release more CO2 than the cars
and light trucks in the US. But to some the source matters. So CO2
from underground fires in coal mines does not count, but CO2 from cars
counts. And of course CO2 from humans does not count in their minds
because there is not much that can be done about it. In fact it is
all fungible. A lb of CO2 is a lb of CO2.

Dan

  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Solar Power


wrote in message
...
On Jul 25, 2:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

This is different carbon?


Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of it
underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of
that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the CO2
content of the atmosphere.

When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our
food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you
eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is
steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a
short
period of time and then re-release it.

You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Don is not playing stupid.


Yes he is. And he does it nicely. g

He is just pointing out that a molecule of
CO2 does not know if it was released in a cycle of a few years or
hundreds of years.


No, he's not. Because he's enough of an engineer to know that's irrelevant
to the issue.

So it makes no difference in how the CO2 was
released into the atmosphere.


Yes, it matters a great deal if the CO2 is just recycled from the planet's
current load of atmospheric carbon, or if it's suddenly released from carbon
stored and sequestered millions of years. As you emit CO2 from fossil
sources, you increase the base load of atmospheric carbon, raising it to
some value that existed millions of years ago.

It is faulty logic. I too have an
engineering background.


Then let's see you put it to use here.

The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the
atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from.


No, it's not, Dan. Do you need an example here to see the point?

--
Ed Huntress


  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Solar Power


"John Husvar" wrote in message
...
In article
,
" wrote:

On Jul 25, 2:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

This is different carbon?

Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of
it
underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities
of
that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the
CO2
content of the atmosphere.

When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our
food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless
you
eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is
steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a
short
period of time and then re-release it.

You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Don is not playing stupid. He is just pointing out that a molecule of
CO2 does not know if it was released in a cycle of a few years or
hundreds of years. So it makes no difference in how the CO2 was
released into the atmosphere. It is faulty logic. I too have an
engineering background. The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the
atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from.

Dan



I *think* what Ed and others are saying is that the sequestered CO2 has
been sequestered for a very long time, but is being released now at a
far faster rate than it would be by natural processes, which then raises
the proportion of it in the atmosphere more than it ordinarily would if
left alone. It's the *rate* of release that's important, not the overall
amount.

Hell, that is what he *did* say!


Thank you, John. If any is genuinely surprised to recognize this phenomenon,
I have to wonder what they think the whole issue is about.

--
Ed Huntress




  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Solar Power


"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Jul 25, 7:59 am, " wrote:
On Jul 25, 2:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:





This is different carbon?


Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of
it
underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of
that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the
CO2
content of the atmosphere.


When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our
food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless
you
eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is
steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a
short
period of time and then re-release it.


You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-)


--
Ed Huntress


Don is not playing stupid. He is just pointing out that a molecule of
CO2 does not know if it was released in a cycle of a few years or
hundreds of years. So it makes no difference in how the CO2 was
released into the atmosphere. It is faulty logic. I too have an
engineering background. The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the
atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from.

Dan


The carbon in plant tissue will reenter the atmosphere one way or
another, either you eat or burn it or it decomposes.


Exactly. So human respiration, or any living thing's respiration, doesn't
matter in terms of atmospheric CO2. It's a closed cycle, whether humans, or
bacteria, or fungi are the ones that re-release the short-term sequestered
carbon.

When you burn fossil fuel, you're restoring levels of atmospheric CO2 that
existed millions of years ago. I'll leave it to the post-doctoral
climate-science fellows here on the newsgroup to argue what that means g,
but the point at issue is whether human respiration has anything to do with
CO2 levels in the atmosphere. It does not.

--
Ed Huntress


  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
ATP ATP is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default Solar Power


wrote in message
...
On Jul 25, 9:32 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
On 7/25/2010 7:59 AM, wrote:



On Jul 25, 2:47 am, "Ed wrote:


This is different carbon?


Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of
it
underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities
of
that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the
CO2
content of the atmosphere.


When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our
food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless
you
eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is
steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a
short
period of time and then re-release it.


You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-)


--
Ed Huntress


Don is not playing stupid. He is just pointing out that a molecule of
CO2 does not know if it was released in a cycle of a few years or
hundreds of years. So it makes no difference in how the CO2 was
released into the atmosphere. It is faulty logic. I too have an
engineering background. The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the
atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from.


However the long term effect of releasing a pound that was sequestered
by a corn plant over the last several months and will be resequestered
by the corn plant you are planting in the same location next spring is
different from the long term effect of releasing a pound that has been
buried in a hole in the ground for the past million years.

If there is a difficulty with CO2 (and I'm not taking that as proven)
the difficulty comes from releasing 150 or so million years worth of
sequestered carbon in a century or so, with no in-place process for
resorbing it.

So, yes, the source does matter.


Ah, but the lb of CO2 that was sequestered by the corn plant is not
going to be the same lb of CO2 that will be sequestered by the corn
plant in the same location. The lb of CO2 sequestered by the corn
plant next spring could be a lb of CO2 that has been buried in the
ground for the last million years. The source only matters to those
that want it to matter.

It is pretty silly that the US is considering taxes to limit CO2
release from cars and light trucks when it would be a lot cheaper to
put out the coal fires in China that release more CO2 than the cars
and light trucks in the US. But to some the source matters. So CO2
from underground fires in coal mines does not count, but CO2 from cars
counts. And of course CO2 from humans does not count in their minds
because there is not much that can be done about it. In fact it is
all fungible. A lb of CO2 is a lb of CO2.

Dan

Who has claimed that the CO2 from the coal fires in China don't count? It
has been reported on "liberal" NPR. Do we have a politically feasible means
of putting them out? Obviously CO2 from humans is not controllable except by
population control, probably a less popular subject than global warming
reduction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_seam_fire



  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,624
Default Solar Power

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:54:54 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote the following:

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:49:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:36:15 -0700, Rich the Cynic
wrote the following:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:07:22 -0700, Stu Fields wrote:
"Phil Kangas" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel
system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice.

I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.

500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit
suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to
explain? I don't believe it........
phil

Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the same
size system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of Co2
saved in 6 days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that mean
the power plants could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would we
have to artificially inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life? Yeah
500# in 6 days causes my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the display
says. Maybe its really grams...

You could save 1 KG of CO2 a day by not exhaling:

"The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l)

"A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such
contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out
about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats
325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person on
average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people alive
we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day.

"Compare that to the fact that as a rough estimate, the burning of one
litre of gasoline produces about 2.4 pounds (1.08kg) of CO2. A really
good
north American car will get 40mpg which is still only 18km to the litre,
which means for every 18 km that you drive, you will release 2.4 lbs
(1.08
kg) of CO2 or roughly what you breathe in a day. Source(s): Climate
Change
Research"
-- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3091421AA830QK

Just a thought.... ;-)

Rich, please now compare how many extra breaths that carload or
busload of people would expend hoofin' it from place to place for that
liter of gas. I'll bet the gas is more efficient in the long run, not
to mention getting people to work on time, getting all errands done in
the same day, etc.


Remember that CO2 exhaled by humans -- or any animal -- does not add to
atmospheric carbon. Part of it is CO2 you breathed in. The rest of it is
part of the short-term, closed carbon loop: the oxidation product of carbon
in plants and animals that you ate.

The carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels is a release to the atmosphere
of long-term sequestration of carbon in petroleum, gas, or coal.


I wonder if Algore told him to say that. I also doubt that he has
read about so many old wells coming back to life, producing again. Is
it really ancient oil or does it just look like it and it's being made
as we pump? (Though I haven't researched that much yet, either.)


This is different carbon?


While Ed's just being Ed (pointing out that I'm overestimating the
total carbon output while he has been naively suckered into believing
wildly overestimated effects of AGWK), yeah, they're different. Stored
carbon isn't into the active system and being cycled and recycled at
the moment, but folks counting this **** are into weird new math
practices of their own.

Think of it as the batteries in your flashlight now vs the unopened
plastic-wrapped box of batteries in your fridge.

--
It is pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness;
poverty and wealth have both failed.
-- Kin Hubbard
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Solar Power


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:54:54 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote the following:

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:49:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:36:15 -0700, Rich the Cynic
wrote the following:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:07:22 -0700, Stu Fields wrote:
"Phil Kangas" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel
system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be
nice.

I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.

500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a
bit
suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to
explain? I don't believe it........
phil

Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the same
size system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of
Co2
saved in 6 days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that
mean
the power plants could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would we
have to artificially inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life?
Yeah
500# in 6 days causes my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the
display
says. Maybe its really grams...

You could save 1 KG of CO2 a day by not exhaling:

"The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l)

"A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such
contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out
about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats
325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person on
average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people
alive
we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day.

"Compare that to the fact that as a rough estimate, the burning of one
litre of gasoline produces about 2.4 pounds (1.08kg) of CO2. A really
good
north American car will get 40mpg which is still only 18km to the
litre,
which means for every 18 km that you drive, you will release 2.4 lbs
(1.08
kg) of CO2 or roughly what you breathe in a day. Source(s): Climate
Change
Research"
-- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3091421AA830QK

Just a thought.... ;-)

Rich, please now compare how many extra breaths that carload or
busload of people would expend hoofin' it from place to place for that
liter of gas. I'll bet the gas is more efficient in the long run, not
to mention getting people to work on time, getting all errands done in
the same day, etc.

Remember that CO2 exhaled by humans -- or any animal -- does not add to
atmospheric carbon. Part of it is CO2 you breathed in. The rest of it is
part of the short-term, closed carbon loop: the oxidation product of
carbon
in plants and animals that you ate.

The carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels is a release to the
atmosphere
of long-term sequestration of carbon in petroleum, gas, or coal.


I wonder if Algore told him to say that.


Larry, if you had half enough knowledge to make the claims you frequently
make here about climate science, you'd recognize that this is THE
fundamental issue concerning the burning of fossil fuels. But you don't,
really, and it's clear you don't even recognize the basic issues.

I also doubt that he has
read about so many old wells coming back to life, producing again.


It has nothing to do with the question. Of course I've read about it.
Although I realize that the complexities of climate science are 'way over my
head, I'm interested in learning anything I can about energy issues. I just
don't make proclamations about things I don't know enough about to have an
opinion worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell. I find it amusing
that so many people do.

Is
it really ancient oil or does it just look like it and it's being made
as we pump? (Though I haven't researched that much yet, either.)


Hey, if you like that, you'll love the Young Earth theories. They're
fascinating, too. I especially like the ideas about how the Grand Canyon was
formed in 5,000 years. It was the prototype for water-jet cutting. d8-)



This is different carbon?


While Ed's just being Ed (pointing out that I'm overestimating the
total carbon output while he has been naively suckered into believing
wildly overestimated effects of AGWK)


Once again, I'll remind you that I have no opinions of my own about global
warming. There are a few matters of physics I can address, but not the
system-wide effects. You, on the other hand, continue to believe that you
know all about it.

, yeah, they're different. Stored
carbon isn't into the active system and being cycled and recycled at
the moment, but folks counting this **** are into weird new math
practices of their own.


Oh, cut the crap. All you have to do is count. It doesn't take "weird math"
to make good estimates of fossil fuel consumption, and it's basic chemistry
to measure how much carbon is released when it burns.


Think of it as the batteries in your flashlight now vs the unopened
plastic-wrapped box of batteries in your fridge.


Are you planning to keep them there for millions of years? If not, then what
are you talking about?

--
Ed Huntress


  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,984
Default Solar Power

On Jul 25, 10:47*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

It is faulty logic. *I too have an
engineering background.


Then let's see you put it to use here.

The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the
atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from.


No, it's not, Dan. Do you need an example here to see the point?

--
Ed Huntress


What ever. I have put my engineering background to use. Saying the
source of CO2 makes a difference is absurd. Some people will
understand, some never will.

Dan


  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Solar Power


wrote in message
...
On Jul 25, 10:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

It is faulty logic. I too have an
engineering background.


Then let's see you put it to use here.

The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the
atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from.


No, it's not, Dan. Do you need an example here to see the point?

--
Ed Huntress


What ever. I have put my engineering background to use. Saying the
source of CO2 makes a difference is absurd. Some people will
understand, some never will.

Dan


As you say, some will understand. Others may never get it.

--
Ed Huntress


  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,984
Default Solar Power

On Jul 25, 11:45*am, "ATP" wrote:


Who has claimed that the CO2 from the coal fires in China don't count? It
has been reported on "liberal" NPR. Do we have a politically feasible means
of putting them out? Obviously CO2 from humans is not controllable except by
population control, probably a less popular subject than global warming
reduction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_seam_fire


Well I think CO2 from coal mine fires counts. But I have not seen
anyone saying that we should do the sensible things to reduce the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It seems to be all about how can we
spend a bunch of money for not too much effect.

Coal mine fires can be extinguished. You have to cut off the oxygen
and cool the site so it does not reignite in the future. It isn't
easy, but a lot easier than getting 100% reduction in the amount of
CO2 going into the atmosphere from autos and light trucks.


Dan

  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
ATP ATP is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default Solar Power


wrote in message
...
On Jul 25, 11:45 am, "ATP" wrote:


Who has claimed that the CO2 from the coal fires in China don't count? It
has been reported on "liberal" NPR. Do we have a politically feasible
means
of putting them out? Obviously CO2 from humans is not controllable except
by
population control, probably a less popular subject than global warming
reduction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_seam_fire


Well I think CO2 from coal mine fires counts. But I have not seen
anyone saying that we should do the sensible things to reduce the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It seems to be all about how can we
spend a bunch of money for not too much effect.

Coal mine fires can be extinguished. You have to cut off the oxygen
and cool the site so it does not reignite in the future. It isn't
easy, but a lot easier than getting 100% reduction in the amount of
CO2 going into the atmosphere from autos and light trucks.


Dan

We should do what we can to help/pressure the Chinese to put out the fires.
Cheapest reduction first makes sense. Most efforts to reduce CO2 from cars
and trucks also reduce reliance on fossil fuels, which brings a host of
other benefits.

I think one of the most effective ways to reduce the growth in CO2
production would be to stop or curtail legal and illegal immigration and the
resulting population expansion in developed countries. That won't happen as
long as those who benefit from cheap labor continue to influence government.


  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 544
Default Solar Power

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 12:13:18 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

:

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:49:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
m...


The carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels is a release to the
atmosphere
of long-term sequestration of carbon in petroleum, gas, or coal.


I wonder if Algore told him to say that.


Larry, if you had half enough knowledge to make the claims you frequently
make here about climate science, you'd recognize that this is THE
fundamental issue concerning the burning of fossil fuels. But you don't,
really, and it's clear you don't even recognize the basic issues.

I also doubt that he has
read about so many old wells coming back to life, producing again.


It has nothing to do with the question. Of course I've read about it.
Although I realize that the complexities of climate science are 'way over my
head, I'm interested in learning anything I can about energy issues. I just
don't make proclamations about things I don't know enough about to have an
opinion worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell. I find it amusing
that so many people do.


I recently talked to a larry in person. He has clownish opinions on
*everything*, and I always enjoy hearing his latest rants. One of my
favorites was when he said he was going to move to Alaska to decrease
his cost of living. His own life is falling apart, so my latest
question was, given that he'd admittedly bungled that, then what
qualified him to disregard the opinion of experts etc. on so many
subjects. He said that the experts are all overeducated liberal
know-nothings, and that what we really need are more "down to earth"
people like him to run things, beginning with Palin. Then he declared
that if we'd had that for the last 20 years, then his life would have
turned out better. I could almost visualize the shrug :-) Of course
he thinks that the tea party is great blah blah blah. So next time I
see him I'm going to ask what he thinks about Angle cutting off his
SS, and try to keep from laughing too hard at whatever he comes up
with.

Wayne




  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 544
Default Solar Power

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:16:30 -0700, Steve Ackman
wrote:


It takes a LOT of energy to produce PV panels. From
what I've read,


Let's see the cite. 'Cause I've read that Elvis is alive, working at
7-eleven by day, and posting to usenet at night. :-)

a PV panel will never make up the
carbon it cost in its expected 25 year life span.


This study says 3 years for energy payback.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf This one says 6 years for
carbon payback. http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/2642/1/2642.pdf Both numbers
expected to improve substantially.

Wayne
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Solar power Stu Fields Metalworking 68 July 24th 10 03:20 AM
Solar Heating / Wind Power / Solar Power / UK Grants [email protected] UK diy 112 April 6th 10 12:41 PM
Solar Power Wes[_2_] Metalworking 7 August 10th 08 01:29 AM
Solar power alves Home Ownership 5 December 20th 06 05:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"