I personally find the claims dubious.
The portion of the assumption set listed is suspect.
The main claims are that
1. CO2 is made from destruction of biomass submerged when the hydro
lake is formed.
2. Methane forms when remaining material falls to bottom.
3. Annual cycling of lake levels grows and then destroys ongoing
biomass and produces methane..
Methane is a far more significant greenhouse gas volume for volume
than CO2.
I wonder whether due consideration has been given to the growth and
death of foliage on surfaces which aren't submerged. I suspect that
most surfaces have a plant growth and death rate similar to what they
would have if submerged cyclically. Arguably the permanently submerged
surface will produce less GHGs long term as they are not growing
vegetation which then dies, often annually.
Never mind the benefits of the biomass in the hydro lake. I'm sure the
algae and plants do nothing beneficial :-)
This Science (capitol S) reminds me of the thinking in the Healthy Forest Act.
One day I will wake up and realize that it's not the millions of cars
on the roads thats causing the trouble, its the liberal tree-hugging
hippies that ride bikes and exhale more CO2 that causes all of the
problems. Do the world a favor and buy a Hummer.
> Hydroelectric power makes more greenhouse gases than equivalent fossil
> fuelled generation
>
> www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7046
>
> Or so they claim.
>
> I personally find the claims dubious.
> The portion of the assumption set listed is suspect.
> The main claims are that
>
> 1. CO2 is made from destruction of biomass submerged when the hydro
> lake is formed.
>
> 2. Methane forms when remaining material falls to bottom.
>
> 3. Annual cycling of lake levels grows and then destroys ongoing
> biomass and produces methane..
>
> Methane is a far more significant greenhouse gas volume for volume
> than CO2.
>
> I wonder whether due consideration has been given to the growth and
> death of foliage on surfaces which aren't submerged. I suspect that
> most surfaces have a plant growth and death rate similar to what they
> would have if submerged cyclically. Arguably the permanently submerged
> surface will produce less GHGs long term as they are not growing
> vegetation which then dies, often annually.
>
> RM
>
> One day I will wake up and realize that it's not the millions of cars
> on the roads thats causing the trouble, its the liberal tree-hugging
> hippies that ride bikes and exhale more CO2 that causes all of the
> problems. Do the world a favor and buy a Hummer.
That does pose an interesting question, though:
Does the average gasoline joule contribute more CO2 than the
average burned food joule?
I'm not talking about overall, here; ignore the CO2 costs of getting
the food to grow, the CO2 fixed by plants before they are harvested,
etc. Let's make it more specific: Does an H2 release more or less
CO2 per joule used than a human does?
In other words, start a Hummer, drive it one mile, turn it off. Measure
the output of CO2 and the amount of energy required to do so. Now
put a person on a bicycle, at a reasonable pace, and measure CO2
output versus energy usage. Who "wins"?
Of course, the person on the bike will go many, many more miles
than the H2 did, but that's not the question...
> In other words, start a Hummer, drive it one mile, turn it off. Measure
> the output of CO2 and the amount of energy required to do so. Now
> put a person on a bicycle, at a reasonable pace, and measure CO2
> output versus energy usage. Who "wins"?
There is no contest, just put both in their own garage, close the door
and wait.
---
But more on topic, would you count the CO2 from the driver of the
Hummer as well? :-)
> > In other words, start a Hummer, drive it one mile, turn it off. Measure
> > the output of CO2 and the amount of energy required to do so. Now
> > put a person on a bicycle, at a reasonable pace, and measure CO2
> > output versus energy usage. Who "wins"?
>
> There is no contest, just put both in their own garage, close the door
> and wait.
> ---
> But more on topic, would you count the CO2 from the driver of the
> Hummer as well? :-)
Insignificant. After all, the energy required to move a Hummer 1 mile
(over, say, 3 minutes) would take several hours for a human sitting
behind the wheel to burn. If not longer.
It's a fun thought experiment, though. And more to the point, it can
reveal a flaw in thinking. One of the favorite arguing points of those
who favor large vehicles is that emission standards are now such
that 1 gallon of gas in a Chevy Cavalier and one gallon of gas in a
Ford Excursion produce roughly the same waste products, so why
not drive the Excursion?
Never mind the fact that you'll use 3 times the petrol...But then,
who ever claimed people are logical?
> Insignificant. After all, the energy required to move a
> Hummer 1 mile (over, say, 3 minutes) would take several hours
> for a human sitting behind the wheel to burn. If not longer.
>
Hang on, what if the human where moving the same weight? Humans are actually
LESS efficient and MORE polluting than car engines when all other variables
are equal.
Actually, I'm not sure that is true of just CO2, but when you take, err...
Other forms of waste production into account, the human "engine" is not a
good one.
The REAL problem with hummers, et all, is that they WEIGHT so much. Moving a
human around in an H2 is like using a nuke to fry an egg.
A bicycle with a little gas engine is probably the best way (ecologically
speaking) to get from point A to point B. Why not electric? Because before
you know it, you have to dispose of the battery.
Fossil fuels aren't all that bad, but they way they are being used is just
about criminal. H2 owners are giving gasoline a bad name.
> A bicycle with a little gas engine is probably the best way (ecologically
> speaking) to get from point A to point B.
Funny you should mention it, I have a weedeater produced under the newest
California emissions standards for portable engines, and it really is
amazing how sweet the exhaust is. 2-stroke, too.
>
>A bicycle with a little gas engine is probably the best way (ecologically
>speaking) to get from point A to point B. Why not electric? Because before
>you know it, you have to dispose of the battery.
When I was in Taiwan, they had tons of two-stroke mopeds.
Weekdays, I couldn't SEE the lake next to the apartment, but I could hit it
with a rock.
Sundays, I could see quite a ways.. Much less traffic on the streets then.
Unless those little motors are made way better than they usually are,
that's a recipe for pollution en mass.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Hord" <mike.hordKILLspamgmail.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <.....piclistKILLspam.....mit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] Hydroelectric power makes more greenhouse gases
thanequivalent fossil fuelled generation
>> One day I will wake up and realize that it's not the millions
>> of cars
>> on the roads thats causing the trouble, its the liberal
>> tree-hugging
>> hippies that ride bikes and exhale more CO2 that causes all of
>> the
>> problems. Do the world a favor and buy a Hummer.
>
> That does pose an interesting question, though:
>
> Does the average gasoline joule contribute more CO2 than the
> average burned food joule?
>
> I'm not talking about overall, here; ignore the CO2 costs of
> getting
> the food to grow, the CO2 fixed by plants before they are
> harvested,
> etc. Let's make it more specific: Does an H2 release more or
> less
> CO2 per joule used than a human does?
This is an important issue though , in co2 pollution the few
month cycle from energy splitting oxygen from carbon in a plant
to burning the carbon with oxygen in a human being and releasing
the energy again. the end result is the same , no matter and no
energy is lost.
The issue with burning fossil fuels is that this carbon was
reduced from co2 many many years ago when most of the earth was
more like a tropical rainforrest (hot humid and rich in co2) and
recombining this carbon with oxygen will bring our climate closer
and closer to the same condition.
>
> In other words, start a Hummer, drive it one mile, turn it off.
> Measure
> the output of CO2 and the amount of energy required to do so.
> Now
> put a person on a bicycle, at a reasonable pace, and measure
> CO2
> output versus energy usage. Who "wins"?
Did you ever fill a garbage bag with the exhaust gasses of an
idling car? it fills incredibly fast (make sure the exhaust is
still cold or you get nasty burns.
A human body is more than a source of propulsion it is also an
incredible computer, ingenious motion machine etc etc. to keep
the comparison fair you would only count the extra exhaled co2
needed for motion. this would be extremely low.
Did you ever read about how many calories you consume performing
an activity? It is not surprising we cannot lose weight by
exercising easily it takes a reduction of food intake.
>
> Of course, the person on the bike will go many, many more miles
> than the H2 did, but that's not the question...
>
> Mike H.
> --
At 04:49 PM 02/03/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>
>> Insignificant. After all, the energy required to move a
>> Hummer 1 mile (over, say, 3 minutes) would take several hours
>> for a human sitting behind the wheel to burn. If not longer.
>>
>
>Hang on, what if the human where moving the same weight? Humans are actually
>LESS efficient and MORE polluting than car engines when all other variables
>are equal.
>
>Actually, I'm not sure that is true of just CO2, but when you take, err...
>Other forms of waste production into account, the human "engine" is not a
>good one.
This is a social isssue that intrigues me. 'Crap' is actually very
valuable. One day I'm sure it'll be big business. So instead of pumping it
out to sea, and costing them, municipalities will be selling it, if people
are still dumb enough to flush it away.
> Hang on, what if the human where moving the same weight?
> Humans are actually
> LESS efficient and MORE polluting than car engines when all
> other variables
> are equal.
Nonsense. Cars would be much more polluting if they were required to
walk on two legs.
I don't see what sense it makes to make "all other variables equal". A
movement has a purpose, it is sensible to require that movement by car
or by person serves the same purpose. But that purpose can range from
'get this person form here to there' to 'get this 1000000 m^3 of crude
oil from here to there, here being Saudi Arabia, there being Rotterdam.'
For the first purpose a walking human (or even more: a bycycling human)
might be very efficient, for the second purpose an oil tanker would be
more efficient. Somewhere inbetween a car might have an optimum.
Wouter van Ooijen
-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:45:06 -0600, Mike Hord wrote:
> In other words, start a Hummer, drive it one mile, turn it off. Measure
> the output of CO2 and the amount of energy required to do so. Now
> put a person on a bicycle, at a reasonable pace, and measure CO2
> output versus energy usage. Who "wins"?
It doesn't matter. This "Specific CO2" figure is completely irrelevant, because of the huge difference in
energy expended. A bicycle moves the weight of the rider, plus about 10kg (if it's a heavy bike with carriers
and such). An H2 moves the weight of the driver plus about 2,000 kg! If an H2 had a Specific CO2 of a tenth
of the biker (and I'll bet folding money it hasn't), it would still produce twice as much CO2 for the same
result, that of moving a person from A to B.
> This is a social isssue that intrigues me. 'Crap' is
actually very
> valuable. One day I'm sure it'll be big business. So
instead of pumping it
> out to sea, and costing them, municipalities will be
selling it, if people
> are still dumb enough to flush it away.
It's been happening for years, but it's not something
they like to crow about! In the UK there used to be a
fertiliser called "Cinagro" ("organic" backwards) which
was processed sewage sludge. I don't know if it's still
around, but then it's not something that I follow! :-)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: piclist-bouncesspam_OUTmit.edu [@spam@piclist-bouncesKILLspammit.edu]
>Sent: 03 March 2005 14:24
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: RE: [OT] Hydroelectric power makes more greenhouse
>gases thanequivalent fossil fuelled generation
>
>
>On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 08:26:15, Roland wrote:
>
>> This is a social isssue that intrigues me. 'Crap' is
>actually very
>> valuable. One day I'm sure it'll be big business. So
>instead of pumping it
>> out to sea, and costing them, municipalities will be
>selling it, if people
>> are still dumb enough to flush it away.
>
>It's been happening for years, but it's not something
>they like to crow about! In the UK there used to be a
>fertiliser called "Cinagro" ("organic" backwards) which
>was processed sewage sludge. I don't know if it's still
>around, but then it's not something that I follow! :-)
>
>Cheers,
=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================
>
>This is a social isssue that intrigues me. 'Crap' is actually very
>valuable. One day I'm sure it'll be big business. So instead of pumping it
>out to sea, and costing them, municipalities will be selling it, if people
>are still dumb enough to flush it away.
I know a fellow that went into the Poop business in a big way. He built methane digesters for large cattle operations. His first prototype was built in his barn, had four big steel tanks to digest the stuff. The setup, however, was less than professional, as he decided to store excess methane in some old waterbed bags he found at a surplus sale.
I saw the setup, it was quite impressive. However, one day, he returned home to find the barn simply gone, a few bits of it laying about in the field. It seems he also had a little spark ignited generator running on the methane, near the bags.......
I believe that we will be mining our trash dumps soon enough, in a big industrial way. There is plenty of steel, plastic, aluminum, and other high value materials in that mess just waiting to be dug up. People are already extracting methane from trash dumps.
> It doesn't matter. This "Specific CO2" figure is completely irrelevant,
> because of the huge difference in energy expended.
I was wondering if the CO2 output per joule is higher for a Hummer or
a person, not whether a person or a Hummer produces more CO2
per mile. I have no doubt who would win that competition. ;-)
Incidentally, to all you international PICListers, how many H2's do you
see on a regular basis? I see two-three per day, if I'm out about on the
town, and that's in a 50000 person fairly rural college town (which is
supposedly much more liberal than the surrounding area).
> >This is a social isssue that intrigues me. 'Crap' is actually very
> >valuable. One day I'm sure it'll be big business. So instead of pumping it
> >out to sea, and costing them, municipalities will be selling it, if people
> >are still dumb enough to flush it away.
The cost to treat human waste to make it into fertilizer is (currently)
prohibitive. Fargo, ND boils it hard enough to be safe to spread on the
local landfill; I believe the cost in added energy alone to get it to food
grade fertilizer was estimated at more than double the current cost.
It needs to be cooked, very hot, and for a reasonably long time.
> I believe that we will be mining our trash dumps soon enough, in a big
> industrial way. There is plenty of steel, plastic, aluminum, and other high
> value materials in that mess just waiting to be dug up. People are already
> extracting methane from trash dumps.
I think that's going to be the next big thing, maybe. The problem is that
a lot of those areas are now under things. For example, the northern half
of the city of Bismarck, ND is entirely built on old landfill. Those people
may object to having their land mined out from under them.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: KILLspampiclist-bouncesKILLspammit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTmit.edu]
>Sent: 03 March 2005 16:02
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [OT] Hydroelectric power makes more greenhouse
>gases thanequivalent fossil fuelled generation
>
>
>> >This is a social isssue that intrigues me. 'Crap' is actually very
>> >valuable. One day I'm sure it'll be big business. So instead of
>> >pumping it out to sea, and costing them, municipalities will be
>> >selling it, if people are still dumb enough to flush it away.
>
>The cost to treat human waste to make it into fertilizer is
>(currently) prohibitive. Fargo, ND boils it hard enough to be
>safe to spread on the local landfill; I believe the cost in
>added energy alone to get it to food grade fertilizer was
>estimated at more than double the current cost. It needs to be
>cooked, very hot, and for a reasonably long time.
>
Solar furnace anyone? ;)
Mike
=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:55:34 -0600, Mike Hord wrote:
> I was wondering if the CO2 output per joule is higher for a Hummer or
> a person, not whether a person or a Hummer produces more CO2
> per mile. I have no doubt who would win that competition. ;-)
:-)
> Incidentally, to all you international PICListers, how many H2's do you
> see on a regular basis? I see two-three per day, if I'm out about on the
> town, and that's in a 50000 person fairly rural college town (which is
> supposedly much more liberal than the surrounding area).
Well I see one every time I watch CSI:Miami - I've never seen one in Britain in person :-)
"Top Gear" presenter Jeremy Clarkson did try driving one through a sleepy little English village, and found
that it effectively blocked the road for oncoming traffic - it involved lots of maneuvering back and forth and
abject apologies to the other drivers!
Then of course the cost of running it (with fuel being 3 to 4 times the price in the USA, even with your
recent price increases) means it's a really bad idea anyway...
> When I was in Taiwan, they had tons of two-stroke mopeds.
> Weekdays, I couldn't SEE the lake next to the apartment, but
> I could hit it with a rock.
> Sundays, I could see quite a ways.. Much less traffic on the
> streets then.
>
> Unless those little motors are made way better than they
> usually are, that's a recipe for pollution en mass.
A two stroke, oil burner is, I agree, not good. There are a number of little
4 stroke, gas only engines that are clean as all heck. You can breath the
exhaust and not smell anything.
>
> I don't see what sense it makes to make "all other variables equal". A
> movement has a purpose, it is sensible to require that movement by car
> or by person serves the same purpose. But that purpose can range from
> 'get this person form here to there' to 'get this 1000000 m^3 of crude
> oil from here to there, here being Saudi Arabia, there being Rotterdam.'
> For the first purpose a walking human (or even more: a bycycling human)
> might be very efficient, for the second purpose an oil tanker would be
> more efficient. Somewhere inbetween a car might have an optimum.
>
> Wouter van Ooijen
I agree from a practical viewpoint. I think the original question was
the ratio of CO2 to energy consumption between the two, ignoring all
other output (movement, heat, etc).
I can't help but think of all of the past wonders of the world that
were done with pure human/animal energy like the pyramids and such.
Then I imagine 50k people swimming in the ocean pulling ropes tied to
an oil tanker. Better than that, 50k people swimming in the ocean
pulling a cruise liner :-)
>
>A two stroke, oil burner is, I agree, not good. There are a number of little
>4 stroke, gas only engines that are clean as all heck. You can breath the
>exhaust and not smell anything.
That's definitely not what they were running then. :)
I would hope that they are getting past that phase, the scenery is
stunning, it's nice to be able to see it.
All true. But for the job of getting a human from home to work and back, the
human alone can only be more efficient over the very short end of the range.
E.g. you live a few miles or less from the office.
For any significant distance, a very light gas powered car is better. Which
is, I think, what you are saying. I forgot to specify the distance moved.
At 01:17 PM 3/3/2005, James Newtons Massmind wrote:
>All true. But for the job of getting a human from home to work and back, the
>human alone can only be more efficient over the very short end of the range.
>E.g. you live a few miles or less from the office.
I walk to work now, but it's about 15 meters. :)
>For any significant distance, a very light gas powered car is better. Which
>is, I think, what you are saying. I forgot to specify the distance moved.
For most people, I would agree, but a light vehicle would be a very bad
idea for me.
For one thing, I need to carry six, with two in carseats, and then there's
my volunteer thing where a light vehicle would be a VERY bad idea.
> All true. But for the job of getting a human from home to
> work and back, the
> human alone can only be more efficient over the very short
> end of the range.
> E.g. you live a few miles or less from the office.
I don't have figures at hand. But assuming you just look at energy
consumption (?), then how can it differ depending on the distance?
Wouter van Ooijen
-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
At 01:44 PM 3/3/2005, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > All true. But for the job of getting a human from home to
> > work and back, the
> > human alone can only be more efficient over the very short
> > end of the range.
> > E.g. you live a few miles or less from the office.
>
>I don't have figures at hand. But assuming you just look at energy
>consumption (?), then how can it differ depending on the distance?
Ever pedalled a 100 miler? :-P
There's other kinds of efficiency though.
Time enters into it as well. If I can save half an hour a day by driving,
I'm driving.
Weather, what I have to carry with me, all factor into it.
I have done the bicycle commute over a 5 mile range, in nice weather it's a
joy, but only if there's no other complications.
> >I don't have figures at hand. But assuming you just look at energy
> >consumption (?), then how can it differ depending on the distance?
>
> Ever pedalled a 100 miler? :-P
Yeah, even a 150, but that was when I was young. It is tiring and it
takes a lot of time. But what has that to do with energy efficiency?
> There's other kinds of efficiency though.
> Time enters into it as well. If I can save half an hour a day
> by driving, I'm driving.
Sure, in that case you should take a heli. But AFAIK that was not the
discussion.
> I have done the bicycle commute over a 5 mile range, in nice
> weather it's a
> joy, but only if there's no other complications.
When I was 12..22y a 30..50 minutes bike commute was standard. The kids
who lived closer to school/university were wimps ;)
Wouter van Ooijen
-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
At 02:34 PM 3/3/2005, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > >I don't have figures at hand. But assuming you just look at energy
> > >consumption (?), then how can it differ depending on the distance?
> >
> > Ever pedalled a 100 miler? :-P
>
>Yeah, even a 150, but that was when I was young. It is tiring and it
>takes a lot of time. But what has that to do with energy efficiency?
I suspect we're a lot more efficient at the beginning, before the fatigue
toxins start to build up.
> > There's other kinds of efficiency though.
> > Time enters into it as well. If I can save half an hour a day
> > by driving, I'm driving.
>
>Sure, in that case you should take a heli. But AFAIK that was not the
>discussion.
Too many trees and powerwires locally, plus they cost way more per hour to
operate.
That would be REALLY bad for my volunteer thing.
> > I have done the bicycle commute over a 5 mile range, in nice
> > weather it's a
> > joy, but only if there's no other complications.
>
>When I was 12..22y a 30..50 minutes bike commute was standard. The kids
>who lived closer to school/university were wimps ;)
I put most of my pedal time in, in Hawaii. Except for the humidity, it's
pretty nice.
Melted a set of brake pads at the bottom of Pearl City Drive where it
crosses Kam highway.
I think I was probably doing 50+
I've done 70+ on a 10 speed, that was fun and hair-raising at the same time.
JUST DONT FALL.
> > All true. But for the job of getting a human from home to work and
> > back, the human alone can only be more efficient over the
> very short
> > end of the range.
> > E.g. you live a few miles or less from the office.
>
> I don't have figures at hand. But assuming you just look at
> energy consumption (?), then how can it differ depending on
> the distance?
>
Start up and shut down, I would guess, would be worse for the gas engine,
human waste production is much worse over the long. Unless, of course, you
recycle the human waste.
Wow... Look, all I'm trying to say is that gasoline engines are not such
horrible things, in terms of energy efficiency and environmental impact, if
they are applied well.
Using an H2 to commute 15 miles to work is NOT a good application. Neither
is a human powered bicycle. Or even an electric car. A reasonable gas motor
scooter / motorcycle / motor powered bicycle is going to produce less waste
and impact the environment less than a human "engine" bicycle in that
application and have less long term effect than a battery powered bicycle
due to the disposal issues with the battery.
You can't compare a gasoline powered H2 with a human powered bicycle and say
"there! Look! Gasoline is bad!"
Gasoline isn't the problem. It isn't a "bad" or "polluting" or "evil"
technology. It is simply being applied in very wasteful / stupid / wrong /
criminal / evil ways. The trick is to apply the correct technology for the
job at hand.
As another example, the most power efficient transport is probably electric
trains, but that assumes that you can maintain a large and constant volume
of riders. If you run the trains when there are few riders, you are wasting
again. But you must run the trains on a regular schedule or the riders will
not rely on them. So you have to apply them only when you have a very
consistent need such as commuting from a large housing area to a large
industrial area. If every one in New York had to switch to bicycles for the
daily commute, the sewer system would probably explode under the strain and
the place would smell of sweaty bodies <GRIN>. If they all used motor
scooters, the air quality would plummet (as Dave VanHorn reported about
Taiwan). If they all used battery powered trikes, the toxic waste dumps
would overflow. The subway is the best solution for that case.
If you had a small town with a suburb and people coming from all over in
different directions, you probably need scooters or small cars. Trains would
be a waste.
And so on.... It isn't any one technology that is good or bad. That is the
only point I'm trying to make.
> Then I imagine 50k people swimming in the ocean pulling ropes
> tied to an oil tanker. Better than that, 50k people swimming
> in the ocean pulling a cruise liner :-)
The "smokers" from the movie "Water world"
50k H2 owners in the ocean each tied to their own Hummer H2? Humm... What do
you call that?
50K lawyers at the bottom of the ocean... (all together now)
> Did you ever fill a garbage bag with the exhaust gasses of an idling
> car? it fills incredibly fast (make sure the exhaust is still cold
> or you get nasty burns.
A car more or less outputs its swept volume x revolutions per time.
This assumes that the charge is input at ambient and this isn't quite
true, but close enough.
So an eg 2 litre car at 2000 rpm puts out
Extra 2 below is due to 4 stroke firing once every 2 revs.
> It's been happening for years, but it's not something
> they like to crow about! In the UK there used to be a
> fertiliser called "Cinagro" ("organic" backwards) which
> was processed sewage sludge. I don't know if it's still
> around, but then it's not something that I follow! :-)
FWIW - such sludge concentrates heavy metals and is not recommended
for growing some/many food crops.
>> For any significant distance, a very light gas powered car is
>> better. Which is, I think, what you are saying. I forgot to
>> specify the distance moved.
>
> For most people, I would agree, but a light vehicle would be a very
> bad idea for me. For one thing, I need to carry six...
To work? One of the interesting problems of american society is
that people find it necessary to use the same vehicle to carry
themselves to work (all by themselves, 30 miles round trip, 5
days a week) that they use to transport their full family with
travel gear "occasionally" or "back and forth to school, 5 miles
round trip." Of course, the hypothetical light gas car isn't safe
for a daily commute with everyone else driving the SUVs they need
to go skiing three times a year...
>-----Original Message-----
>From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesspamBeGonemit.edu [TakeThisOuTpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspam_OUTmit.edu]
>Sent: 03 March 2005 14:26
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [OT] Hydroelectric power makes more greenhouse
>gases thanequivalent fossil fuelled generation
>
>
>> Did you ever fill a garbage bag with the exhaust gasses of an idling
>> car? it fills incredibly fast (make sure the exhaust is still cold
>> or you get nasty burns.
>
>A car more or less outputs its swept volume x revolutions per
>time. This assumes that the charge is input at ambient and
>this isn't quite
>true, but close enough.
>
>So an eg 2 litre car at 2000 rpm puts out
>Extra 2 below is due to 4 stroke firing once every 2 revs.
>
> 2 x 2000/60/2 = 33 litres / second.
>
>
>
> RM
Russell, there is a crucial factor missing from that; throttle opening.
An engine doing 2000RPM with no load will be heavily throttled so intake
and exhaust volumes will be less. Also I suppose you are assuming that
exhaust and intake temperatures are the same?
Mike
=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================
>> It's been happening for years, but it's not something they like to crow
>> about! In the UK there used to be a fertiliser called "Cinagro"
>> ("organic" backwards) which was processed sewage sludge.
> FWIW - such sludge concentrates heavy metals and is not recommended
> for growing some/many food crops.
Isn't it a pity that we mix it all together and create almost unusable
"waste" from such valuable resources? :)
> Incidentally, to all you international PICListers, how many H2's do you
> see on a regular basis?
Almost exactly 0, in the state of São Paulo, Brazil.
I did see a few when I lived in Southern California :)
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 20:52 -0800, William Chops Westfield wrote:
> To work? One of the interesting problems of american society is
> that people find it necessary to use the same vehicle to carry
> themselves to work (all by themselves, 30 miles round trip, 5
> days a week) that they use to transport their full family with
> travel gear "occasionally" or "back and forth to school, 5 miles
> round trip."
Yes, but there's a problem there: an additional car costs additional
money. Aside from the purchase price of the car there's insurance every
year along with maintanence.
In this way I like what they do in some parts of Europe: a set of plates
(and insurance) can be shared by two cars. So say you have a "summer"
car and a "winter" car, just swap the plates. Very neat idea since the
only cost is the cost of the second car (which is often a cheap used
car). TTYL
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTmit.edu [piclist-bouncesEraseME.....mit.edu]On Behalf
> Of Dave Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, 9 March 2005 10:27 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: [OT] Hydroelectric power makes more greenhouse gases
> thanequivalent fossil fuelled generation
>
>
> I'd love to get into this discussion about the pyramids, but no
> doubt the moderator will throw us off.
>
> for those with an interest in the pyramids I suggest u read
> Christopher Dunn's book on " The Giza Power Plant "
>
> http://www.gizapower.com/
>
> " an irrigation pump" ..........not even close.
>
>
> Dave Smith
> Cape Town
> South Africa
>
Irrigation pump is close, but they were really refuelling stations for alien
spaceships.
Interesting point Tony, I stand to be corrected, in Chris's book, his theory is that the pyramid produced Hydrogen, which I think is the main ingredient in cold fusion, so just as in Stargate an alien vessel parking on top of the pyramid could be pumping fuel or just parking?
Dave Smith
Cape Town
South Africa
>
>
> I'd love to get into this discussion about the pyramids, but no
> doubt the moderator will throw us off.
>
> for those with an interest in the pyramids I suggest u read
> Christopher Dunn's book on " The Giza Power Plant "
>
> http://www.gizapower.com/
>
> " an irrigation pump" ..........not even close.
>
>
> Dave Smith
> Cape Town
> South Africa
>
Irrigation pump is close, but they were really refuelling stations for alien
spaceships.
paradise.net.nz> wrote:
