The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

[esldude]

32 minutes ago, botrytis said:

@esldudeBiofuels do make sense. You can never make more energy than you put in. It is with all fuels. Biofuels reformulated from fats made from algae makes sense - just add light and carbon dioxide. Even the US Military states we need to rethink about Biofuels. They say it is for our National Security.

 

I have working in biofuels for 20 years. If we supported them as much as we do the Petroleum Industry (I mean government support) they would work out the problems, I have no doubt. But, the Petroleum Industry doesn't want that.

So you can supply energy cheaper than oil or natural gas?  Or at least close.  The algae process holds promise, but I don't know of it being made to work up to its potential.  

 

The ways in which we get back more energy than we use is the sun supplied the surplus. I'm not talking about more than 100% efficiency perpetual motion machines.  Yes all energy processes are less than 100% efficient.  In the case of oil we use about 10 or 15% of the energy to make it available vs what we get from it.  The surplus was from the sun. In the case of plant grown biofuels, it isn't clear that we don't expend more energy creating the biofuel than we get back in energy the fuel represents.  EROEI.  Energy returned on energy invested is what I have in mind. 

 

Algae based approaches could be better. What percent of solar energy gets turned into energy in the end of those processes with currently available methods?

[esldude]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

That's depressing...

Hopefuly the cut and re-grow cycling won't deplete the soil of its nutrients.

 

In Portugal the Government used to offer tax benefits for people buying electric cars and to those who installed solar panels or wind generators. These people will be paid for having the potential to put energy into the grid but apparently the cost of this ended up in bills of regular users which don't generate electricity. People also get tax benefits for replacing windows with thermal-break double- or triple-glazing.

I am not sure how it works here in the UK but recent pledges seem to be pointing at subsidised refurbs to increase the energy efficiency of old buildings. I wonder where they'll find the money after a now likely no-deal Brexit...

 

Building Regs both here, in Portugal and probably most of the EU are pretty strick about energy efficiency in new build. There are also rules about the sourcing of timber, as well as the disposal of hazzard and non-hazzard refuse.

 

In Portugal there are also strick rules about bore holes and you are required to install a separate meter for gardening and/swiming pool (and water will be a lot more expensive). Waterproofing of large areas of ground are also subject to strickt rules.

 

In both countries you are required to produce an Energy Performance Certificate when selling or renting a property.

No such thing here.  You can get billing for the past several years from each utility.  My current home is all electric so that was simple.  I asked for the electrical usage and billing since it was built a few years prior.  It showed a very low level of energy usage especially for its size. It has  proven to be very modest in energy usage.  Changed all the lighting to LED.  Other than that no changes.  So it doesn't take too much for a buyer to get such info on an existing structure, but almost no one does that. 

[esldude]

Just a side comment.  In the past at least, people in the USA didn't expect the gov't to be a nanny to everyone.  More of a DIY, caveat emptor philosophy. Or at least it used to be.  The house I purchased had double pane argon gas windows.  I climbed into the attic to find deep almost excessive insulation.  Exterior walls had vapor barriers and insulation.  All interior walls had fiberglass insulation.  So I was fairly sure of what it would be like.  Getting past utility bills merely confirmed it.  I didn't need some gov't bureaucratic BS with some piece of paper certificate that maybe someone could have paid someone else off to fake.  My impression is things are different and more complex than need be in Europe.  I'm sure Europeans feel differently.  C'est la vie.  

[esldude]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Of course I can't be the person teaching people English here, but since C'est la vie is French anyway ... this is not really how it is to be applied. So it could be a fact all right, but not really a fact of life or being.

People get ill some times. They also die. C'est la vie.

 

Over here the government went over the top IMO because since 5 years or so houses get certificates. Like C (the worse), B, A, AA, AAA+ (the best) etc. labels for energy consumption. They thought to do this from a distance by means of looking at the year of build. So a common house from the 30's would be inherently C and a house from a couple of years old and fairly small would be an AA. The idea is that a buyer could review this rating before he buys the house. The other idea (because this is how our government operates) is that people would improve the insulation etc. because else the house would not sell easily, later (because the potential buyer can see the rating).

If you did all to improve your 30's house and made it into a (perceived) A rating, you could hire an official instance and a formal report would change the already formally registered C into an A etc. Too bad is that hiring such an instance  easily costs 10K euros.

Because government is government run by government people (they are a different species) it would be so that a new house with all the appliances possible to make it green, would still receive e.g. a B rating just because some moron thought that the size is a factor. Thus, if my house would be 10 times larger than the common one, the emission would be 10 times more as well.

What ?

-> No problem, just hire that instance and let make that formal report (which is now even more expensive because of the size of the house).

 

Btw, this is not much related to being nannied as I see it. But over here we just agreed to comply to whatever emission rates "per 2025" etc. and in the end this is a good thing. A bit the opposite of what Trump (anti-Paris agreement) tries to achieve for some reason. Must be the American freedom ?

So Yes, I think I see where the "nanny" comes from. But ...  I could even add a C'est la vie to it (as in a sad fact of life).

This is life or such is life is how I understood it.  And the phrase is the feeling along the lines of such is life and nothing I could do about it. 

 

So seems things are more complex than need be in Europe, and Europeans I'd assume feel differently since it is that way.  So that is how it is in Europe and nothing I could do (or should do) about it.  If Europeans don't like the governmental complexity  ??????  Maybe that is why some of the recent elections went how they did.  Or maybe it is just fad and fashion in politics. 

[esldude]

22 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

do you have to stub out a Gauloises or a Gitane at the end of the sentence?

Gitane from what I've seen. 

[esldude]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

No Sir. What I tried to indicate is the small sadness which has to be in it. Might you translate it as "such is life" then in English you are already closer. Here:

https://www.thoughtco.com/cest-la-vie-1371131

"In France, it's still used in the same sense as always, as a sort of restrained, slightly fatalistic lamentation that this is how life is and there's not much you can do about it. "

 

In there, there's the example of someone who just lost his job and who can say (or is being told) c'est la vie.

 

Dennis in the end used it the way as it is intended by means of putting it by myself in a context which goes like:

The American wants to be free and nobody in the world is going to change that. If that means burning a bit too much coal - c'est la vie.

This is negative, or with fatalistic lamentation.

 

"This is life" does not resemble this at all.

Such is life, would (says me with his poor knowledge of the English language).

 

Any more important issues ?

 

 

 

Well implying coal use is going too far for what I had in mind.  What I had in mind was the proper touch of fatalism.  Not in the sense Americans will do what they do and Euro types can suck it.  In the sense that Americans value some freedom and less over-sight in a way that Europeans seem okay with having others make their decisions for them.  Who am I to say either is wrong. 

 

In my case, I used due diligence to find out something important to me.  If someone else doesn't value the energy efficiency then why should they and I pay for a gov't system to make sure everyone has a certificate that most don't care about.  Maybe your answer would be so the world doesn't destroy the environment, but at best the EU certificate system only slows that down a little bit.  The US system isn't ignoring that.  Efficiency in housing is driven by whether or not it saves money and/or makes for a more comfortable house.  

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Wreck your bicycle in a race?

😉

Had a girlfriend who road a Gitane.  I've seen women who smoked Gitanes.  Never cared for the latter. 

[esldude]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/06/04/climate-change-coal-now-more-expensive-than-wind-solar-energy/1277637001/

 

 

https://www.powermag.com/the-power-interview-state-of-the-wind-solar-storage-and-hydro-markets/

 

Good news relatively speaking. 

 

 

[esldude]

Super marmots created by climate change?  Not everything is negative about climate change. 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/7902923/Climate-change-creating-super-marmots-that-are-bigger-and-more-abundant.html

[esldude]

42 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

OTOH, it is possible to be too large...

 

 

Actually I don't know.  Perhaps the vehicle is too small.  Then we get into larger vehicles increase climate change which increases the size of marmots and maybe there is no solution to the problem you pictured.   Except electric vehicles would have a flat bottom and no where for the marmot to get into quite as easily. 

[esldude]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Pessimism:

https://phys.org/earth-news/environment/

 

Optimism:

https://phys.org/technology-news/energy-green-tech/

I certainly support the switch over to LP gas in place of diesel.  Diesels stink, and the fuel is so messy.  Yuck. 

 

If only people in the US has listened to T Boone Pickens we could have already swapped over all the semi trucks to it 20 years ago.  

[esldude]

UPS has for years run many of their trucks on LPG or CNG including their semi trucks.  They announced late last year they'll greatly expand that fuel use.  I've read reports in the past about how such engines last longer than diesel or gasoline engines. One of the reasons is the oil had much lower levels of contamination with such fuel.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

For the record, CNG is very different from LPG. I don't think we can get CNG widely spread here (although a couple of city buses hop around on it and theoretically we should be able to get it from the home feed (filling takes many hours in that case)).

 

Btw, LPG is a byproduct from refine oil (or even natural gas exploitation).

 

I don't think that UPS (or anything) will make a chance in using CNG now it will be banned from the homes in near future (as I told about earlier on).

You are mistaken. 

 

See these links which are from last year.   They've had propane for some of their trucks near where I live for 30 years.  And used LP gas for maybe a decade or more.  They have an order for 125 of the Tesla semi trucks as well.  

 

https://www.pressroom.ups.com/pressroom/ContentDetailsViewer.page?ConceptType=PressReleases&id=1529343847549-316

 

https://www.ccjdigital.com/ups-ordering-400-cng-trucks-from-freightliner-kenworth/

 

https://www.joc.com/technology/ups-order-shows-cng-powered-rigs-still-trucking-electric-age_20180706.html

 

“We’d like to see electric business cases drive this forward,” he said. “We need to quantify the value [EVs] bring to a business. My expectation is that electric will take the same role internal combustion engines did in the 1930s and 1940s, but we make decisions based on bottom-line impact, based on economics.” And currently, the economics for UPS favor CNG.

 

Here is a report from UPS from back in 2002.  They already had hundreds of vehicles using propane, LNG and more than 1000 using CNG.  So they have the experience to know whether it makes sense (and cents) to be ordering more at this point in time. 

 

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/31227.pdf

[esldude]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

I was talking about Holland. No-way CNG will be promoted from now (yesterday) on.

If you meant something else I am mistaken on, then I fail to see what that is. 

Obviously you don't read my posts carefully.  You reflexively replied to them.

[esldude]

6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Nope. read it twice (not the links, tbh). Now for the third time. Help me out ...

Well, I was speaking of the USA.  You of Holland.  You then wrote how natural gas powered engines didn't last long and weren't going to be practical for large transport trucks.  And that UPS wouldn't be going in that direction. 

 

My links indicate all of that to be incorrect.  UPS has used those options for a long time now, and are going further in that direction.  Such natural gas powered vehicles even though the NG is derived from petroleum products or coming from fracking petroleum wells represent a sizable reduction in greenhouse gas emission vs gasoline or diesel powered engines.  UPS being United Parcel Service if there is any misunderstanding.  

 

I suppose this all goes back to a relatively recent post about how T Boone Pickens wanted to move the USA trucking industry to using some form of natural gas rather than diesel about 20 years ago.  And that such a move would have been a good thing environmentally, and economically.  Which you appeared to disagree with in various ways.  

 

In addition, US electric generation has moved substantially toward using natural gas in the last 20 years.  That is the main reason coal powered plants are being phased out.  It is cheaper, cleaner, and natural gas does the job just fine. 

 

Here is another link for you to ignore. 

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/ups-buy-huge-amount-renewable-natural-gas-power-its-truck-fleet

 

It describes how UPS is going to use a much larger amount of renewable Natural Gas.  Renewable natural gas is basically methane from waste products being used for methane digestion.  If you have the infrastructure and equipment already in place that uses natural gas it is economically viable.  UPS has that and is taking advantage of it.  For trucks like this as well as their local delivery vans. 

 

 

[esldude]

59 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

the push by the NG co. here is to use NG derived from cattle/pig feeding operations & landfills 

 

- at least they are putting up ads on doing it; the city and likely the state, has them worried

 

I expect delivery vehicles to be EVs pretty soon; UPS, FedEx, & USPS have a consortium they founded to design/select a std. vehicle

 

over the highway/long-haul trucks - as in your pic - will take longer

Yes, but UPS has orders in for the Tesla long haul trucks.  125 of them. 

 

I worked at a place that started using NG from a closed down landfill nearly 30 years ago.  It continued to produce quite useful amounts of such gas for about 20 years.  Production tapered off and effectively stopped by 25 years.  I've also worked manning several large methane digesters.  I don't think such things are the answer for the future, but every little bit helps. They use waste we've no other use for so why not.  Otherwise the methane or another gas increases carbon in the atmosphere. 

[esldude]

I never was speaking about Holland or even the world in regards to natural gas. The USA.  There is a station near me, that has propane, CNG, and LNG at different pumps.  UPS is just up the road.  The local gas company uses it for many of their trucks and a few others.  Also this is for delivery and cargo transportation trucks.  Not cars.  

 

The links I provided were for USA UPS operations.  Perhaps skipping them wasn't helpful in understanding the context of my posts.  

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

Just a question: Would that be the same as LPG in the US (or your opinion) ?

Over here it is not;

Both propane and butane can be bought all right, but this is for camping like stuff (from small pots to 40L or so small vessels). For sure it can't be obtained for filling up. Thus, not on its own (while LPG is a mixture of both).

No LPG, liquified petroleum gas is propane and some butane.  LNG is liquified natural gas in the USA has to be at least 85% methane.  It isn't available to fill up here except at outlets where companies use it in trucks.  It isn't widespread.  It could be and could have been.  Still mostly the effort so far is in fleet trucks.  The majority of trucking in the USA uses diesel.  

[esldude]

At least there are lots of pretty pictures.  Like the sled dogs enjoying a romp in the ice melt and this one of the pretty red sailboat.  Pretty much worth it don't you think?

 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

I was able to watch 54 seconds.  Since she seems to think identity is everything.  You can't be what you can't see.  I can't see me being her.  So with such a stupid, uninformed, divisive approach no need to for me to see more.  

 

 

 

So what is this picture supposed to tell us.  Our saviour AOC, in a 1930's business suit, driving a horribly polluting 1930's convertible wearing a monocle.  Picking her teeth with a daisy or is that a sunflower?  Is she supposed to be Hitler or FDR? Maybe it is Colonel Klink.  That fits the childish demeanor of the video (and her). 

 

[esldude]

52 minutes ago, Paul R said:

This is an article that you may need to read with a touch of salt and a dash of detachment. You may find yourself reflected in some of the thoughts presented.

 

 

Weight of the World
It’s not surprising that researchers who study the dire effects of climate change might experience emotional consequences from their work. Now they’re finally talking about it.

Read in Mother Jones: https://apple.news/AJXCG0xwGQUm7XdqNGqDtMw

Shared from Apple News

Can't reach the article apparently without Apple News.

 

 

[esldude]

On 9/23/2019 at 3:27 PM, semente said:

 

I find this cloying presentation disgusting and insulting.  Has nothing to do with my opinion of climate change.  

 

Maybe some little girl will come along and guilt trip her in her old age because the world wasn't made perfect by then.  She'll be all to blame for it, right? Yuck. 

 

Maybe she'll read Scott Adams blog and go learn how to build good nuclear power. 

https://www.scottadamssays.com/2019/09/23/a-message-for-children-about-climate-change/

 

 

[esldude]

Just now, wdw said:

 

she should be congratulated and praised for her passion, commitment and resolve whereas Scott Adams is a libertarian Trump supporting a$$hole.

Don't let your TDS bias you or anything. 

 

I agree with Mr. Adams about nuclear power.  Don't have to agree with his politics. 

[esldude]

6 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Made perfect? The habitat which supports human life is disapeering...

In any case the little girl has probably watched this film:

 

 

 The human habitat was declining before I was born, and will be declining when this little girl dies.  Yet there are people who have made improvements to slow down that decline.  Sure would have been better to do more sooner, but that is how things go.  You don't know that when you are her age.  Saying evidence of what is happening has been available for 30 years and not enough has been done seems very different to a 16 year old than it does a 66 year old.  It takes time to re-orient something as large as the whole world and all of its cultures.  Sometimes you agree with what someone has to say and their way of saying it still disgusts you.  

[esldude]

2 hours ago, wdw said:

 

So here we are, a bunch of sad, mean, old men mocking an impassioned young woman...always shocked at the pure cowardice of most men.

Who is mocking her, and who is displaying cowardice?

 

Movements use the impassioned young just for someone like you.  As a shield against criticism.   I find it distasteful even as I mostly agree.  Somehow everyone jumps to confusions and talks about being mean in such cases.  Maybe someone will do some video editing and have your favorite prez in a made up video giving the exact same speech.  Maybe then it would make sense to you why I don't like it. 

 

The reason I posted the link to Scott Adams is I think he is onto something about scaring young people.  It was mentioned this lady is 16 and has Asperger's.  In the past two days I've read of other young girls who have been doing similar protesting.  They have joined with the Friday protests though they had activist activities prior to this.  They simply didn't happen upon the public notoriety of Ms. Thunberg.  Both also made a thing of being beset with anxiety and depression issues. (yes I know Asperger's isn't like anxiety and depression) Ms Thunberg says she feels fear everyday and wants adults to panic and act on the crisis.  So she fits with the other activist girls in this.  Panic isn't a good way to deal with important crisis situations. 

 

Now maybe it is just me, but I don't think creating something of a hysteria that makes lots of teenagers anxious in a debilitating way is good for them.  Give them 10 years and they'll be young adults and can do things of more consequence.   I'm not mocking or attacking a young teenager with Asperger's I think she should be more protected rather than used as a pawn politically.