Your dog is a greenhouse gas polluter

No, sorry, I don't partake. Early on life I sensed the need to
safeguard the few (impaired or otherwise) brain cells granted me. ;-)

I don't understand (nor much care for) American politics -- a little
too rough and tumble for my tastes. Still, all this Bush bashing,
Clinton bashing and Gore bashing has me wondering if Americans are
nasty to everyone, or if this type of vitriol language is reserved for
elected representatives.

Anyway, thanks for the head's up! -- I must remember to look both ways
before Michael, Al and I step off the curb. :>)

Cheers,
Paul

 

Here's one huge fallacy in your argument: The laws of thermodynamics say
that when electrical energy is used, regardless of its source,
regardless of its initial conversion, 100% of it eventually converts to
*HEAT*. It seems a sleight of hand shell game to be talking about
global warming and then change it to terms of "carbon usage" or "carbon
footprint" and other such nonsense.

When Al Gore uses 220,000 kW-hrs, he is adding that much heat - no more
- no less - to the earth. That is 20 times more heat added to "global
warming" than the house that consumes 10,000 kW-hrs of electricity.

I repeat: Al Gore's house is adding 20 times the heat to the earth that
the average American is adding!!

Are you starting to see why I refer to this "global warming" thing as
false science?

With the logic in the first part of your previous post, Al Gore should
*NOT* try to make his house more efficient (i.e., use less electricity)
- he should try to double or triple his usage so as not to deprive TVA
of all that extra money to build "carbon neutral" generation. *AND*, in
addition, all his TVA neighbors need to try to compete with him and up
their consumption so they also can be contributing to the "solution".
Surely you can see the fallacy in that logic.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Gore has been chastised about his personal excesses in electrical energy.
And that is fair enough. All of us, you included, would prefer that the
issues applied to other people, or at least not to ourselves.

But the electrical energy is not the culprit. Electrical heat outside the
norm
is a function of the consumption of the fuel required to produce it.
Lightning
( a normal electrical event) generates heat, but in the summation of
energies
required to produce it and dissipate it you will see no net effect.

The modification of the atmosphere (or ecosphere if you want to include a
bit more)
IS a culprit.

We have a little energy produced by nuclear reactors, wind generators, and
solar
cells. Neither of the latter two generate additional heat in the
atmosphere. They
convert energetic events that already exist into electrical power.

The former source will eventually generate the same amount of heat, over
time,
whether is it allowed to decay in nature or whether it is used in a reactor.
But when driven to criticality in a reactor, it will generate its capacity
over a shorter
period. This give a small but real ripple in the energy balance per time.

Your arguments amount to "begging the question". Watch my smoke and
mirrors,
not my hands.

 

Hi Bill,

I'm afraid you've lost me on your first point. Can you explain to me
(in simple terms) how converting wind or solar energy into electricity
could *increase* the temperature of our planet? For example, what's
the "multiplier effect" for the solar radiation that strikes the
earth? Not that I paid a whole lot of attention in physics class, but
I was led to believe energy could be neither created nor destroyed and
you seem to be suggesting otherwise.

The real issue at heart is carbon emissions and the warming effect
they have on our planet, not Mr. Gore's electricity use (afterall,
isn't that Mr. Gore's message?). The burning of fossil fuels releases
these gases into our atmosphere whereas the production of wind and
solar energy do not.

As to the second point, Mr. Gore has opted to pay an additional
$5,200.00/year on his electrical bill to help finance the development
of renewable energy (an amount the TVA has deemed sufficient to ensure
all of the electricity he uses is "carbon neutral'). And he is now in
the process of reducing his home's energy demands and will soon
generate some of his electricity by way of rooftop solar shingles. My
suggestion to you is that the renewable energy resources he has helped
put in place through his purchases of green power will continue to
provide clean electricity long after he no longer requires this
electricity for himself. With that, there should be a net reduction
in carbon emissions because the TVA's renewable portfolio will have
increased, while Mr. Gore's own electricity demands will have fallen.

Cheers,
Paul

 

I can buy that argument. Now tell me how building and maintaining a huge
house did not increase his carbon footprint.

 

In this discussion, I have seen no mention of hydro electric power. It's the
main source of electricity in many places.


Steve R.

 

OK, what do you suggest?

 

That's what the TVA is all about. The region went hydroelectric in the
1930s.

 

Can we stop using stupid terminology like "carbon footprint"? It's a
shortsighted generalization, and it sounds ridiculous anyway. Why do we
have to make up new words for everything every 10 years?

 

There probably isn't a good word for it. It's a simplistic term for a
process that is beyond the scope of the type of conversations it usually
appears in.

How about some old fashioned terms, such as "decadence" or "fuel
efficiency"? At least those have real meanings that aren't made up by
the political hack du jour.

 

He didn't set it up. He pays money to a Web site for Carbon Offset
credits which relieve his guilt. Of course he still creates that
pollution, regardless of whether he buys carbon offsets.

He hopes his money goes to clean energy projects, but since these Carbon
Offset cash collectors aren't audited we will see?

I just hope that everyone with a city sized lawn uses an electric or
manual lawn mower.
If their lawn is too big for that approach they should probably plant
trees on the excess property.

 

Yes they spend too much time taking political sides, which IMO simply
waters down their arguments.

 

Not true.
For example:
-solar heat is falling on the earth whether it creates energy in solar
panels or not.
-Wind power is there whether it is used or not.

 

Here in BC, Canada it is, but we are unique in todays world where water
power is limited. In fact BC is running out of economic water power
sites.
In Alberta, Canada it isn't. They burn natural gas and coal for most of
their power and also burn much gas to create oil for the USA from their
oil sands.

 

Excesses do increase the carbon footprint, certainly. All of us who do
these
sorts of things contribute.

I would never have voted for Gore, and he is not one of my favorite people.
Not everything he says is wrong, however.

 

Certainly hydroelectric power is important, where it is available. Norway
(my previous
residence) has a huge hydroelectric industry. Our electrical power costs
used to be
fairly cheap, and there was no significant greenhouse gas contribution from
the direct
generation of power in this way.

It isn't available everywhere.

Norway is looking at converting some of the natural gas into electrical
power to sell
into the European power grid. (At present the gas is transported to Emden,
Germany
via a subsea pipeline). The key difference is that the CO2 will be removed
at the site
of power generation, not released into the atmosphere. (At least that is
the plan and
the goal.)

 

I just came back from Italy. Electric was 39¢ kWh, Heating oil $5.88,
gasoline $6.45 (all converted to USD) I drove a total of 1400 miles and did
not see one Hummer or Expedition. I did see one Dodge Caravan, one Jeep
Cherokee. I did pass a Chevy dealership, but saw very few on the road.

 

1898 here!

Steve R.

 

So, can you document where any of this money is being spent right now to
build wind or solar generation to make even the slightest dent in the
power consumed over the TVA grid?

You're making a lot of assumptions about what the absolute waste of
energy by Mr. Gore and his money paid into the TVA system when here you
admit you know nothing about what it is actually accomplishing.

I refer back to my earlier calling this stuff a new religion - which
you've demonstrated it is by your blind faith. I also referred to
"indulgences", which is what Mr. Gore is paying. For those who don't
know, years ago in the Catholic church, people could buy "God's
forgiveness" - even ahead of time of when they wanted to commit a sin.
IOW, if they wanted to have a mistress, they could buy the chruch's
permission and forgiveness by donating money to the church, or paying
for a new adddion to the building, or whatever. Hence the term I've
chosen to use for the latest scam by Gore and others.

In reality, Gore's payments for his exorbitant use of electricity pays
for nothing other than his forgiveness for what he has done. The bit
about building new "carbon neutral energy sources" is a scam that no one
else would be allowed to get away with.

If the TVA

Why doesn't he just donate that money ahead of time instead of damaging
the environment that the greenies claim is being done by current forms
of generation? IOW - Does he really expect anyone to believe that it is
absolutely necessary to use all that electricity (and do all that awful
damage) so he can pay money to TVA. Again - how can he justify doing
the damage in the first place? This is the height of hypocracy.


That being the case, his electricity purchases

Not to a sane person.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

No - and this is where you're invoking false science.

As I stated before, when the electrical energy is converted to any other
form *IN* *THE* *HOME* or anywhere else, it is ultimately converted to
heat. So when the electricity was used in Mr. Gore's home to the tune
of 20 times the average American home, 20 times the heat was added to
the enviroment.

Please take a course in thermodynamics before spouting your false science.

And when those events occur, that amount of heat (however many kW-hrs of
electical energy is converted) is released into the environment.

No - you've proven that you do not know the laws of thermodynamics.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')