On 23 Feb, 23:17, "tlmfru" <la...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Wasn't talking about "man-made" GW. =A0But "people" do really believe
this=
-
> just not enough of them and espeicially not the right ones. =A0It isn't
> cynical to say that as long as profits are threatened by taking anti-GW
> efforts, none will happen. =A0One very simple thing that everyone can
do,
> without affecting their lifestyle, is to dump all
gasoline/diesel/propane
> home & garden appliances in favour of electrically-driven ones. =A0Lawn
> mowers, garden tractors, leaf blowers, edge trimmers - etc., etc.
=A0(For =
my
> fellow dwellers in climates with snow I specifically exempt snow
blowers!)=
>
> PL
>
> tim <T...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:13s0t5fmvg1bg21@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:35:24 -0600, tlmfru wrote:
>
> > > Well, if you think "global warming" is just a red-flag "loaded
phrase"=
,
> > > let's hear your answer to the question:
>
> > > Glaciers, sea ice covers, and ice caps are melting all over the
world.=
> (Not
> > > all of them, but most - over 70%, I'd say). =A0See the February
issue =
of
> > > Scientific American. =A0If it's not global warming that's causing
all
> this,
> > > what is?
>
> > > PL
>
> > If people believe Man Made Global Warming is true, why don't they do
> > anything effective about it? The Kyoto protocol will have a negligible
> > effect, and there has been little progress on a replacement treaty. A
> > reduction of 80-90% in carbon emissions by industrialized nations
would =
be
> > required. This is what is needed to produce an overall 50% reductions
> > because 3rd world emissions are rising rapidly. To put this level of
> > reductions in context, 10% of your household electricity consumption
> > consists of appliances on standby.
>
> > If people really believed this, we would see radically different
> > behavior. Eg a massive switch to nuclear for electricity and
> > nuclear-generated hydrogen for trans****t. Greenhouse taxes to create
the=
> > right incentives across the economy.
>
When I was at school I was taught that any bio/chemical process was
inefficient and that by converting any thermal source to kinetic power
would, at best be 10% efficient. So, we use petrol to provide an
immediate source of power, loss 90% efficiency. If we convert nuclear
to heat to electricity to power we lose 90% converting nuclear to
steam, more converting steam to electricity, more carrying the
electricity through pylon cables and even more converting to power at
the users end.
All that you can possibly save on is pollution levels (non-CO2).
|
