California Fires and Pollution / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

California Fires and Pollution

previous 1 2 3 4 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

ragnar

Sat Oct 27 2007, 01:06AM

Registered Member #63 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 06:18AM
Location:
Posts: 1425

Coyote Wilde wrote ...

Well when it's in tree form it's not really CO2, likewise oceans, fossil fuels, etc... I think it goes back to the whole Carbon Cycle. Its only CO2 in atmo, so you're leaving out the rest of the cycle (the parts getting overwhelmed by human activity)
Besides, have you seen what a diesel belches out? Carbon emissions. Pure unadulterated particles of C settle deep down into your lungs and do... well, probably nothing, but they do clog the works up some. Newer diesel just have smaller particles, but research suggests that those just settle deeper and that the lungs have an even harder time dislodging them there.

Yes, it's easy and tempting to look at the black, sooty emissions from diesel vehicles and say "They're so dirty", but please read this: http://www.stealthtdi.com/Emissions.html

Bored Chemist

Sat Oct 27 2007, 09:10AM

Registered Member #193 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 07:04AM
Location: sheffield
Posts: 1022

I can't help thinking that, because there is still debate about the relative merits of petrol vs diesel there can't be much difference.
On the other hand I don't see much debate about the fact that big engines and big cars use more fuel than small ones.
It might be better to focus on the fact that most cars are far bigger and heavier than can be justified for most journeys.
Anyway, to get back to the topic, we can't do a lot about Forest fires; we can use smaller cars and otherwise cut down CO2 emissions.

Bjørn

Sat Oct 27 2007, 12:46PM

Registered Member #27 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058

It is possible for a specially designed motorbike to transport a human at 100 km/h using 600 W of power.
A randomly selected car needs about 25 kW, I am sure some use a lot more.

That is a difference of about 42:1, so a car is less than 2.5% efficient in that particular task. This is a favorable comparison so the average efficiency would be significantly less than 2.5% since cars do very badly at low speeds.

Low single digit efficiency after 100++ years of development means that technology is not the solution, it is just a tool. As an example a 20-30 year old Volvo 240 that is as aerodynamic as a lump of bricks has the same efficiency as a 2007 model Ford Taurus.

So for the tool to be used a very powerful incentive is needed. The only realistic incentive seems to be easy money. So the change will come when someone discovers how to exploit the gap to make a lot of money with little effort.

Eric

Sat Oct 27 2007, 05:30PM

Registered Member #69 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 07:42AM
Location:
Posts: 116

BjÃ¸rn BÃ¦verfjord wrote ...

So for the tool to be used a very powerful incentive is needed. The only realistic incentive seems to be easy money. So the change will come when someone discovers how to exploit the gap to make a lot of money with little effort.

Or when energy becomes very expensive and the status quo is finally re-examined. Clearly we could get by using much much less energy for transportation, AC, heating, etc. It'll happen sooner or later. I think we could use 1/4 the energy across the board that we use now with little effect on our lifestyle. Question is, how expensive does energy have to get before that'll happen.

Coyote Wilde

Sat Oct 27 2007, 09:29PM

Registered Member #175 Joined: Tue Feb 14 2006, 09:32PM
Location: Sudbury, ON
Posts: 111

I was actually just pointing out, without much seriousness, that there *are* actual carbon emissions, from our vehicles, just that they don't get very much press.
As for Diesel vs Otto cycles, I hate them both... I'd rather a electrics or good, honest triple-expansion double-acting steam engine, but that's just me. Low pressure combustion means no NOx; uninterrupted combustion means a more complete burn.

I'd like to point out that not just money but convenience is a big motivator. I know more than a few people who own vehicles and can easily afford fuel for them, but take their daily commute by public transit. Between traffic congestion and parking, it's just more convenient to hop on the bus; these people haven't much economic incentive (there is some, but as I said, it's not a prime concern) and little to no environmental conscience. And yet they're drastically reducing their carbon footprint versus driving the SUV in every day because it has worked out to be quicker and easier for them.
This, I think, is the direction we need to go. People have and do make all sorts of expensive purchases in the name of making life easier (where do you think the economic incentive for your dishwasher, microwave, etc came from?) -- and if its something that can save them money on energy costs at the same time, well, that's bonus.
Vis a vis transportation, then, I'd do nothing.
Literally, nothing. Stop building roads; halt any anti-congestion project. Keep bus lanes clear or install light rail (okay, that's something, but it's optional), and so long as the transit network is fast and fine enough to get people where you need to go, people will use it. The big trouble is finding the money to put together a decent set of routes... you don't have money unless people use transit; you don't have people using transit if you don't have enough money for good coverage. It's a catch 22 begging for a government bailout. >_<

Reaching

Sun Oct 28 2007, 12:09PM

Registered Member #76 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 10:04AM
Location: Hemer, Germany
Posts: 458

Yeah, i love this debates. Why dont you think about the real problem? People like it easy. the fuel is still availiable to a decent price, so everyone needs it. if you drive a suv which needs 25liters/100km or a small vw or fiat which needs 5liters/100km... theres no alternative on the market such as gas powered engines or electro or something else which are cheaper to get. everybodys talking about coÂ² emissions and here in germany they release laws against diesel engines in the inner citys etc. thats hard cause germany is a small country and the whole rest of the world cares a shit about pollution or emission of their vehicles, so no oneÂ´s really interested about new forms of engines etc.
Yeah, lets buy a Hummer and blow out 30liters/100km just to be proud of to have the biggest vehicle on the street just to compare the size of your D*** with a 20year old military boosted steel monster.

Steve Conner

Sun Oct 28 2007, 03:57PM

Registered Member #30 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706

Well, I am a hippy. I got rid of my car (it was ready for the scrapheap anyway!) and I get around by bike, public transport, taxi, on foot, and now and again getting rides from friends who do have cars.

I guess some of you will protest that you can't do without a car, well that's fine, I'm just talking about my own experience. I live in an apartment in a big city with major traffic congestion and parking hassles, and a subway and rail system.

Carbon_Rod

Sun Oct 28 2007, 08:21PM

Registered Member #65 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 06:43AM
Location:
Posts: 1155

Steve Conner you are not a Hippie (note the correct spelling), and I do not need a population distribution graph to prove this point.

Fires are a natural abiotic factor in nature. This includes the hot fires that essentially sterilize the landscape. They are carbon neutral as carbon sinks are not necessarily permanent.

Cars are not a normal factor, and so far 1000:0 scientific studies agree we may cause a problem. Funny, news outlets seem to think there is some sort of argument...

Find out how many planets you need:

A clock of what it looks like now:

Chris Russell

Sun Oct 28 2007, 11:34PM

... not Russel!
Registered Member #1 Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052

I am not a hippie, but I also got rid of my car. It took some adjustments, but in the long run, it's saved me an incredible amount of money. It's also forced me to be more active, which can't be a bad thing. My motivation was not environmental, but I guess in the long run, it has a positive impact by reducing my carbon footprint.

It greatly amuses me how many people gripe about the current price of gasoline, and then drive the quarter mile to the store to pick up a quart of milk. I mean, that's less than a 15 minute trip even at the pace of a leisurely stroll. In that regard, I agree with the sentiment expressed above -- just how expensive is energy going to have to get before people start rethinking their lifestyles?

Getting back to the original topic, I lived in southern California for most of my life, and I've seen the aftermath of many fires. It's amazing how fast the regrowth occurs. Literally, in some places, it takes just a few years to cover up any evidence that a fire even happened. It's easy to see that yeah, a lot of carbon was unsequestered in a hurry, but before too long, it will all be sequestered again. That makes all the difference.

Since everyone here hates hippies and cancer victims, I won't go for the biodiversity argument against cutting down what few old-growth forests remain (have you ever been on clear-cut land? It isn't pretty, and don't fool yourself, because they don't do much other kinds of logging anymore. You suddenly gain a whole new appreciation for the hippie mindset, or some of it at least, standing in the middle of tortured wasteland that used to be forest. It's worse than fire; I've seen both and I can't tell you why, but the gut reaction is way stronger.)

Come to Maine. Old growth forests here aren't particularly beautiful; in fact, since fire has been prevented from doing its job of thinning things out, they're damn near impossible to hike in. The undergrowth is impenetrable. The best areas for recreation are the few areas that have burned within the last 100 years, or those areas that have been logged. Maybe elsewhere they cut everything down and salt the earth, but here, areas are thinned, not clear-cut, and those areas are replanted afterwards. My experience with logging has been quite the opposite of yours. After visiting the North Maine Woods, I gained a whole new appreciation of the timber industry. Logging, when properly planned and executed, can enhance the natural beauty of the land, make it more accessible to others, and provide valuabe economic resources, all while sinking more carbon than an old growth forest can.

Coyote Wilde

Mon Oct 29 2007, 06:27AM

Registered Member #175 Joined: Tue Feb 14 2006, 09:32PM
Location: Sudbury, ON
Posts: 111

I'm from Northern Ontario; the areas I gripe about being clear cut are unfortunately quite a bit bigger than the responsibly 'thinned' operations in Maine. Many forests need to catch fire every few decades to stay healthy, I'm aware of that, and I'm not against logging, as a concept. If it's done in such a way as to not harm the local environment, like they apparently do where you are, then grand, I'm all for it.
In contrast to that, the general method up here that I've seen is to cut everything, bulldoze the stumps, and replant straight rows of nothing but a fast growing breed pine, and claim it's a new forest. Return as soon as things have grown up enough to be profitable, rinse and repeat.
Which, okay, will sequester some carbon, but when you get down to it, that's a tree farm, not a forest. Monoculture isn't exactly going to do wonders for biodiversity... nor will it help with eco-tourism, which seems to be what the province wants people to do in this region, now.

I still contend that it's not just a matter of cost, but convenience. If we can find something more eco-friendly that's more convenient than the current car culture, then people will pay just as much (or more). But even many of the most whiny hippies I know refuse to make any real sacrifices.

I'm at 2.5 planets, for the record-- 4.5 acres, about half of the Canadian average of 8.8. The only way on the quiz I can cut that down is eating less meat/more local, which I'm trying to work my way towards. How's everyone else do on that?

previous 1 2 3 4 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob