Because during take-off you're generating enough wattage to power a small cityPrivateVendetta wrote:
You don't think people have thought of that? Algae isn't going to affect shit.
And Take-off? Why did you single that out? Sure it's a major part of the fuel burn, but only about a quarter on a 2 hour flight.
rdx-fx wrote:
no catalytic converters on cargo ships or jet aircraft, etc
Illustrating the point that consumer level greenness generally does jack shit in the face of industrial pollution.Dilbert_X wrote:
What would be the point?
That was the first product I though of when looking at this thread ... honestly vinegar and water does better in general. So many diverse yet unnecessary productsrdx-fx wrote:
Four reasons I avoid many "green" products
- It doesn't work. "Green" Windex"
Cargo ships are required to burn low sulfur fuel oil now.rdx-fx wrote:
rdx-fx wrote:
no catalytic converters on cargo ships or jet aircraft, etcIllustrating the point that consumer level greenness generally does jack shit in the face of industrial pollution.Dilbert_X wrote:
What would be the point?
I think Dilbert was saying there isn't a point in Catalytic converters on Jet engines because they are generally for internal combustion engines..Jay wrote:
Cargo ships are required to burn low sulfur fuel oil now.rdx-fx wrote:
rdx-fx wrote:
no catalytic converters on cargo ships or jet aircraft, etcIllustrating the point that consumer level greenness generally does jack shit in the face of industrial pollution.Dilbert_X wrote:
What would be the point?
http://www.imo.org/blast/mainframe.asp?topic_id=233
Most ships these days are diesel driven anyway. Bunker fueled steam turbines are dinosaurs now.
We've been through this before, there's no need to carpet an entire desert, and high voltage DC works just fine.Jay wrote:
Realistically, unless you plan on carpeting the entire Mojave and Sonoran deserts with solar panels, and hooking it up to a grid filled with superconductors we're never going to get anything more than a very small fraction of our power from solar or wind sources. Nevermind that the cost would be bonkers.
If your electricity is provided from gas then running an electric car puts you well ahead on the carbon front.The equation changes completely if someone has a solar panel bank on the roof that they are charging their vehicle with, of course. My argument was based on the fact that most energy is produced here by burning coal. Plugging your electric or hybrid vehicle into our power grid does nothing to reduce your carbon footprint. That's also not going to change for... well, probably ever. We're never going to go majority solar or wind for our power production, at least not in my lifetime. We have too much natural gas to burn which provides reliable energy on demand.
And gasoline driven cars will be talked of as 'dinosaurs' relatively soon.Most ships these days are diesel driven anyway. Bunker fueled steam turbines are dinosaurs now.
Thats not the point on catalytic converters.rdx-fx wrote:
Illustrating the point that consumer level greenness generally does jack shit in the face of industrial pollution.
Jet engines are IC engines.PV wrote:
I think Dilbert was saying there isn't a point in Catalytic converters on Jet engines because they are generally for internal combustion engines.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-11-19 00:24:40)
there is no spoonExtra Medium wrote:
The green debate is about as pointless as it gets. There is no such thing as clean energy or green products as all of the green energy requires dirty energy to be produced and all of the green products require dirty products to be made and most simply turn back into dirty products once they are used up.
Might as well have an argument over how circles are cylindrical and cylinders are circular because all that's going to happen is your going to talk each other round and round.
^globefish23 wrote:
We buy most of our food at the farmer's market, from farmers a few kilometers away from us.
They don't use any pesticides.
We buy organic fruit juice at the same market, bottled in glass bottles, which are refilled when we return them.
It's even cheaper than the tetrapacked ones from the supermarket.
We buy our bread from a local bakery, which uses flour from a local mill.
A few simple changes that are not much more expensive, but are healthier and taste much better.
Wrong name, right thinking.Dilbert_X wrote:
Jet engines are IC engines.PV wrote:
I think Dilbert was saying there isn't a point in Catalytic converters on Jet engines because they are generally for internal combustion engines.
That's all fine if the local producers are providing an equal or superior product for about the same price. If they aren't, then you're cutting your own throat for nothing. 'Buy local' is the same concept as a tariff and is just as bad for the consumer if it's all they will consider. If they are open minded and its just one option among many, then yes, that is awesome.globefish23 wrote:
We buy most of our food at the farmer's market, from farmers a few kilometers away from us.
They don't use any pesticides.
We buy organic fruit juice at the same market, bottled in glass bottles, which are refilled when we return them.
It's even cheaper than the tetrapacked ones from the supermarket.
We buy our bread from a local bakery, which uses flour from a local mill.
A few simple changes that are not much more expensive, but are healthier and taste much better.
Which surprisingly they do.Jay wrote:
That's all fine if the local producers are providing an equal or superior product for about the same price. If they aren't, then you're cutting your own throat for nothing.
Well, by buying local you cut out the whole transportation which affects the carbon footprint.Jay wrote:
'Buy local' is the same concept as a tariff and is just as bad for the consumer if it's all they will consider. If they are open minded and its just one option among many, then yes, that is awesome.
Because you can't mass produce many things organically.Jay wrote:
Why is it contradictory?
Everything moves in refrigerated containers, pesticides have nothing to do with shelf life. They just increase productivity per acre farmed.globefish23 wrote:
Because you can't mass produce many things organically.Jay wrote:
Why is it contradictory?
E.g. eggs from free-range hens.
Use of zero pesticides is impossible with long transportation and storage of fruit and vegetables, which are needed to ship stuff into every store of a chain.
You seem to be neglecting that fact that many fertilisers used have a harmful effect on the ecosystem around them, often leading to increased costs and bigger problems further down the line. When I was at school we went on a trip to farms where they would show the effects of badly managed use of fertilisers from the 70s which meant there were huge swathes of land they effectively could not use for farming. I have a friend who works in agricultural research for Bayer, he's always saying stuff like that. Hear all sorts of horror stories about areas being destroyed by misuse of loads of nasty chemicals.Jay wrote:
Or... most of the claims made by people pushing green products are built on hucksterism rather than real science and people see through it. To use the example from the article, what is the benefit of organic cotton versus other cotton? That there are infinitesimal amounts of chemical transferred during the processing of it? Ok. Now prove those infinitely small levels of chemical are harmful. Oh, they can't? Right, it's a placebo effect and that is 99.99% of the benefit gained by people buying organic products. They get to feel better about themselves when they spend money. They sell people a chance to attain smug superiority, nothing more. Higher prices and lower output on the production end due to inefficient use of farmland are the results. And they expect people to buy in?
Those farmers are generally just fucking themselves over though. Modern farming is literally a science and good land is expensive. In my opinion, it's much more likely that a small farmer would use unsustainable practices, mostly out of ignorance, compared to the huge agribusiness farms that employ teams of scientists to extract every ounce of productivity out of the land that they can. It's largely why I don't understand the organic 'buy local' movement. It hinges on emotion based marketing rather than hard science. Frankly, I blame the French influence on food culture more than anything else. They're the most conservative, progress resistant, people on the entire planet when it comes to food. They give people who don't understand science cover to push their ignorance on other ignorant people.Bertster7 wrote:
You seem to be neglecting that fact that many fertilisers used have a harmful effect on the ecosystem around them, often leading to increased costs and bigger problems further down the line. When I was at school we went on a trip to farms where they would show the effects of badly managed use of fertilisers from the 70s which meant there were huge swathes of land they effectively could not use for farming. I have a friend who works in agricultural research for Bayer, he's always saying stuff like that. Hear all sorts of horror stories about areas being destroyed by misuse of loads of nasty chemicals.Jay wrote:
Or... most of the claims made by people pushing green products are built on hucksterism rather than real science and people see through it. To use the example from the article, what is the benefit of organic cotton versus other cotton? That there are infinitesimal amounts of chemical transferred during the processing of it? Ok. Now prove those infinitely small levels of chemical are harmful. Oh, they can't? Right, it's a placebo effect and that is 99.99% of the benefit gained by people buying organic products. They get to feel better about themselves when they spend money. They sell people a chance to attain smug superiority, nothing more. Higher prices and lower output on the production end due to inefficient use of farmland are the results. And they expect people to buy in?
I'm with you on the organic thing, because the criteria for something to be classed as organic are meaningless, not because I don't think there is a problem. But it's a problem with some short sighted farmers fucking up relatively small areas of land for short term gains. In the US, with the amount of space you have, maybe it isn't a problem - but here in the UK, it is.
Last edited by BVC (2012-11-20 12:18:42)
