| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/18 |
| 2005/5/26-27 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37844 Activity:high |
5/26 Hybrid Gas Savings Calculator:
http://www.mixedpower.com/modules.php?name=Gas_Savings
\_ I think it's off. Toyota representative in Japan (Toyota City)
told my brother that realistically, one couldn't really recover
the initial cost differences with fuel savings within the life
span of the car... for now.
\_ Wow! I guess my next car will be a hybrid.
\_ DUMB. The best way to save money is to USE LESS ENERGY. What
is it with you SUV loving Liberals trying to spend an enormous
amount of time and money trying to extract cheaper forms of
energy? The best way to save economically and ecologically is
to simply USE LESS ENERGY. Drive less, bike more, move closer to
work. -Bike Liberal
\_ Yes, this makes absolute sense. In fact, the best way to
utilize less energy is to just stop producing electricity.
That way all of society uses less energy. I think that's a
really great solution. Or we can just depopulate the earth.
The less people there are the less energy we will use. Of
course, depopulating the earth may cost a bit of energy
up front, but I'm sure we can find efficient ways to do
this.
\_ And what exactly do you think a hybrid does? it USES LESS
ENERGY. it uses energy more efficiently than others. For
some people a bike is not an option. Try carrying two kids
to day care safely on your bike.
\_ I'm not the above poster, and I own no car and never will, but
I've been wondering about something. What is the gas mileage
of a bike, really? It took a certain amount of energy to make
my bike, and a certain amount to transport it from the factory
where it was assembled, to transport the various parts, etc.
I try to take decent care of my bike, but it certainly has
a finite lifetime in terms of total miles ridden over the
lifetime of the bike. Divide energy in gas
equivalent by miles, and you get a gas mileage. What is
that number? Does anyone here know?
lifetime of the bike. Divide energy in gas equivalent by
miles, and you get a gas mileage. What is that number?
Does anyone here know?
Does anyone here know? -lafe
\_ http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/beef.html
\_ I can safely tell you that the best way to save energy
is to reproduce less people, and to die earlier. If you
don't exist, you don't consume, and if you don't consume,
there's more energy for other people, hence less shortage.
So please die. And PS your question is STUPID.
\_ it's not a number; it's amortized by the number of miles
you put in on your bike. It is fair to say that it is
well down in the noise, in any case; a truck that used
a gallon of gas delivering 20 bikes to a bike store
would contribute (number of miles ridden over the
lifetime of 20 bikes) per gallon. You can also talk
about long-haul trucks, trains, and ships, but there
the concentration of bikes is even greater. You could
probably fit several hundred bikes in a shipping container.
-tom
\_ Not a number? You are truly a jackass. -lafe
\_ Calling tom a jackass when you disagree? You are
the real jackass. I mean seriously, wtf. You ask a
pretty stupid question and then get all pissy when
tom actually attempts to answer it. "Does anyone here
know?" Ha ha! No really you're stupid.
\_ thank you, anonymous coward. The point is that
there is no one number for MPG for "a bike." It
depends how much you ride it. Shithead. -tom
\_ Apparently you didn't bother to read my post,
asshole. No bike has an infinite lifetime. After
a certain number of miles it's either going to
become scrap metal or need spare parts to be added
all of which have a finite energy cost. Given
that the bike has a finite lifetime in miles, one
can divide energy cost by miles and that is in
fact a number. Is it going to be remotely
comparable to a car? Of course not, but it seems
interesting anyway. -lafe
\_ Obviously it's non-zero, but it's so small as
to be negligible. And the way you asked the
question is meaningless; you would, at least,
have to tell us how much you ride. -tom
\_ That's where the "miles" come in, tom.
\_ Bikes don't expire after a certain
number of miles. Depending on the care
taken etc. one can replace parts... and
then it depends on what parts you choose.
But why are you asking this about bikes
and not trying to apply this "MPG"
reasoning to cars, which obviously have
a much much higher production, xport,
maintenance, and disposal cost?
\_ I'm not original poster, but yes, I
would compare total energy cost of
both systems.
\_ Fuck off, tom, really. -lafe
\_ the fact that you sign your posts does not
change the fact that you are an asshole.
if you're going to sign other peoples posts,
at least bother to be consistent about it.
-anonymous coward(lafe)
\_ Yeah, but what about all the fossil fuel
that goes into producing the food that
you eat to power the bike? Did you consider
that? And what about transportation costs
to bring that food to market? I bet if you
eat beef, the total energy cost of moving
a bike is higher than a car.
\_ Hint: The person driving the car eats too
\_ Yeah, but the cyclist burns extra
calories.
\_ But the cyclist also gets
exercise; how many "MPG" do you
get in spinning class? -tom
\_ Yes, but we are talking about
energy efficiency here.
\_ Yes, the point is that it
is more efficient to get
exercise while also getting
somewhere than to sit on
your ass in your car, and
then go to spinning class.
-tom
\_ Riding bike to work is
great if you don't wear
a suit, work on multiple
customer projects, have
a lot of meetings, or
have to transport lots of
equipment Otherwise, I
agree with the guy who
advocates walking to look
at girls :-) -John
\_ Spinning class is indeed
a very inefficient method
of transportation.
\_ How many kCal in a gallon of gas?
\_ Who is this lafe guy? He's a hoot. I'm laughing
my ass off on how funny this thread is. BTW,
if you really want to save the environment don't
even ride a bike, just walk. You'll have to walk
barefoot because the manufacture and transportation
of shoe products utilizes fossil fuels. So do the
clothes you wear. Guess you'll just have to walk
around naked and barefoot. I advocate this for
all the hot cute chicks out there.
\_ Plus public transit and carpool.
\_ Using less energy isn't the answer. The answer is to
use energy more efficiently and to use renewable srcs. |
| 5/18 |
|
| www.mixedpower.com/modules.php?name=Gas_Savings I could be closer if I drove differently I am not very close but dont expect to be I am not very close and am surprised. details Lexus RX 400h available By jeffcharlotte US$ 000 Please contact me as I do have some RX 400 h avail... |
| bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/beef.html Most people think that bicycling doesn't use gas, but actually it does. I t takes lots of fossil fuel to produce the food for the cyclist's calori es -- and cycling requires more food fuel than driving. Of course, we can't just stop eating, but we can definitel y choose what we eat, and here's the kicker: meat requires much more fos sil fuel to produce than vegetables and grains. So it takes a lot more water, land, and of cou rse, energy to produce that meat. In short, the more meat you eat, the m ore gas you waste. David Pimentel of Cornell University calculates that it takes nearly twic e as much fossil energy to produce a typical American diet than a pure v egetarian diet. This works out to about an extra 150 gallons of fossil f uels per year for a meat-eater. Even driving many gas-guzzling luxury cars can conserve energy over walking -- that is, when the calories you burn walking come from the standard American diet! It's no bombshell that cycling uses less fossil energy than driving. W hat's important is that meat-eaters use twice as much fossil energy as p ure vegetarians -- whether they're bicycling or not. It means that the amount of gas you use isn't just related to how you get from place to place, it's also related to what you eat. Meatless diets require twice as much fuel to produce than the standard American diet. P imentel calculated that if the entire world ate the way the US does, t he planet's entire petroleum reserves would be exhausted in 13 years. Eighty percent of beef raised in the US is grain-fed, n ot grass-fed. If you're eating beef, you're almost certainly eating gra in-fed beef. Even if you're not it makes little difference, because the fact that all the 20% grass-fed beef is spoken for is what forces indu stry to go grain-fed for the other 80%. Ergo, if you switch from grain- fed to grass-fed, then either someone else simply switching from grass- fed to grain-fed. Yes, it works that way: There's a finite amount of gr ass-fed beef to go around. Appendix: How Much More Efficient is Cycling than Walking? Man Cycling, 95mph 56 74 Walking, 35mph 45 59 Cyclists cover 27 times as much distance in the same period of time as walkers. That's because cyclists travel nearly three times faster than walkers, but use only about 25% m ore calories to do so. Running the numbers for men's calories yields a similar result. Eating Fossil Fuels, by Dale Allen Pfeiffer Notes Beef: In April 2004 Dr. David Pimentel of Cornell University shared w ith me an advance copy of his paper Livestock Production and Energy Use, which says that it takes 40 kilocalories (kcal) of fossil energy to pro duce 1 kcal of beef protein. This number updates the 35:1 ratio publishe d in his earlier book Food, Energy and Society (1996, with Marcia Piment el). These numbers include only production, not processing, packaging, t ransport, refrigeration, etc. The numbers for potatoes below likewise ar e only for production, so we're comparing apples to apples. potatoes than we calculate here, co nsidering the extra energy required for refrigeration and safety protoco ls. Finally, note that these figures consider all forms of fossil energy , not just gasoline. US DA database) * 13,481 kcal energy per 455 g beef * 13,481 kcal energy per 1 lb. see below) In Beyond Beef, Jeremy Rifkin, 1992, p 225 says it takes a gallon of gasoline to produce a pound of beef. Rifkin cites as his source Alan B Durning, "Cost of Beef for Health and Habitat," Los Angeles Times, 21 September 1986, p 3 I assume this old data is in error. Note that there is some disagreement over the number of kilocalories in a gallon of gasoline. First of all, the kilocalorie is a measure of energy, but gasoline is not energy itself, it is a fuel that can be used to produce energy. Also, gasoline is not a static substance -- the quality of gasoline varies from one batch to the next depending on the source material, processing methods, etc. Google calculator), so the 113,500 BTUs in a gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 28,807 kcal. Pimentel's earlier work he assigns a whopping 38,000 kcal per gallon, he confirmed for me in a telephone conversation on April 8, 2004 that 30,000 is a better figure. Potatoes: On p 134-135 of Food, Energy and Society we see that the produ ction of 34,384 kg of potatoes in New York required 152 litres of diesel , 272 litres of gasoline, and 47 kWh of electricity. most electricity in the US is produced with fossil fuels. Pimentel by telephone on April 8 to confirm my calculation above he said that I should double my result to include fossil-based fertilizers, so let's call it 00030 gallons. That means that beef requires 0435 / 0003 = 145 t imes as much fossil energy to produce as potatoes. Page 147 of Food, Energy and Society shows that it takes 35,000 kcal of fossil energy to produce 3500 kcal for a typical daily American diet, while it would take only 18,000 kcal to produce a pure vegetarian diet. With that figure it takes 12,857 extra kcal a day for the non-veg etarian diet, or 4,692,805 extra kcal per year. At 30,000 kcal per gallo n of fuel that's an extra 156 gallons per year. Diet for a New America by John Robbins (1987, p 375), furth er attributed as chapter footnote (62) to Hur, Robin and Fields, David, "How Meat Robs America of its Energy," Vegetarian Times, April 1985 The original version of this web page stated that bicycling actually uses more fossil energy than driving, if the source of the cyclist's cal ories are from beef. The new figure is 40 kcal of energy for 1 kcal of beef protein. Beef pr oduction still wastes staggering amounts of fossil fuel compared to grai n and vegetable production, it's simply not so wasteful that biking uses more gas than driving. However, meat-eaters use about twice as much fos sil energy as pure vegetarians, whether they're bicycling or not. |