No announcement yet.

sorting out "green"

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Drifting Back On Topic.....

    Last year about this time people were discussing the FOOD for FULE discussion, and many on here did not think it was right, to use food producing land or food product to make fuels out of. (One bushel of Corn can produce, 2.8 gallons of Ethanol, 13.5 pounds of gluten feed, 2.6 pounds of gluten meal, and 1.5 pounds of corn oil.)

    the truth of it is and was, that about a third of Ethanol production was still used for feed grain, and the energy use is still nearly double effeciency the process of refining gasoline from crud oils, (Ethanol production 1 unit in, 1.7 units out, Gasoline production 1 unit in, 0.8 out), (in 1977 a acre of corn made 200 gallons of ethanol, to day it is 430 gallons of ethanol of acre of corn, in 1977 a barrel of oil made 19.5 gallons of gasoline, to day the same),

    last year the production of Ethanol saved the consumer approximately 50 cents a gallon in the cost of fuel, with a 10% blend, and in the process estimated the cost of food increases was only 1.5% increases, with a net savings to the average consumer of of approximately $591 per family last year.

    only a small portion of the NON human consumption of corn went to or goes to the production of ethanol, and even with ethanol production there was a 1.4 billion bushels carry over of corn last year, that is up 14% over the year before,

    But there is not enough farm ground IMO to totally replace the fuels in this country with ethanol's or Bio-diesel, and still provide foods to the world, if the Cellulose ethanol can be cracked the chances are much better, and you still have some needs for conventional oils and gases, as some of the very fertilizers are made from petroleum products,

    a lot is your views on "Fossil fuels" and if there the "EVIL" that the GREEN environmentalist says they are,

    I think our of national security and some what think there is a thing called peak oil, and do believe that we will need to find better ways to produce or get our energies, for the way we live.

    whether the answer is in renewable bio fuels, or wind or photovactics, or other I think the real answer is a blend of all the above with a weaning of the old,

    more or better efficiencies, less wast, and possibly some life style changes, (smaller foot print of homes, or at least a more efficient way of heating and cooling, more public transportation, more planed trips).

    IN many years past things were deconstructed, taken apart piece by piece and many times was recycled, to day they crush and destroy,
    in times past, things were repaired and to day there replaced, (at one time your mechanic rebuild your engine, to day you buy a rebuilt rebuilt, and he swaps it out, if you need a fuel pump fixed, you bought a kit, and replaced the diaphragm in it and any wear parts, to day you throw away the old pump and put new one on, out of the box, and there is not even a consumer way to repair it.)

    so there is a fundamental way of thinking that has developed, that is a disposable mentality, a person goes in to "remodel" to day more than likely it is striped to the studs and rebuilt. part of it is the materials used to day only last 20 to 30 years with our looking fairly ratty, dry wall over wet wall process, particle board cabinets over wood, (part of it is the mentality of people thinking NEW IS BETTER), and if you do not have NEW your wrong, like with the stadium of the last few years, some team wins the play offs. and there TEAM seems to think they need a new stadium to play in, and out with the OLD a whole 30 years old in some instances, and the NEED for specialized Items as well, Take Denver for instance, build a new stadium when El way won the super bowl for the team, and tore down the old, in the process they built the Rockies stadium, and at the same time tore down the old Mcnickles arena for the basketball and built new,
    (it did not help the teams win more, the way I remember it since the new has been built they have not done that well (except for the Rockies and getting to the wold sires a few years ago) but that appears to be a fluke, I really doubt if they would have been playing in the old mile high in the base ball configuration, it would have changed the way they played any,

    there just seems to be an attitude of cheapness and no desire to see things last and last, I walk into a old government building built in the 20's and 30's and much of it is as good yet as the day it was built, but the additional buildings that have been added to or around the buildings will be gone long before the old ones give in, if they have been maintained,

    Our local court house has terrazzo floors, heavy built doors, and frames even the rest rooms are nearly 100% original, your not going to find a fixture to day that will still be able to be repaired 80 years from now,

    my grand father and uncle if a building was to be tore down it was take apart piece by piece, and reused as much as possible or used for fire wood to heat that winter, the nails raked out and sold for scrap iron or even reused. (now I know commercially that is not practical, but that is being Green IMO), but
    Last edited by BHD; 11-03-2008, 11:05 AM.
    Push sticks/blocks Save Fingers
    "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good."
    attributed to Samuel Johnson
    PUBLIC NOTICE: Due to recent budget cuts, the rising cost of electricity, gas, and the current state of the economy............the light at the end of the tunnel, has been turned off.


    • #17
      Re: Drifting Back On Topic.....

      Originally posted by Keyser Soze View Post
      1. Green is a VERY fuzzy and nebulous term. It means 15 different things to 10 people.
      This is so true. I was installing a couple of flourescent tubes yesterday and they said "better for the planet" on the packaging; and the first thought that came into my head is how. I am sure they use less energy than the equivalent incandescent, but they are also more toxic. "Green" is really in the eye of the beholder.


      • #18
        Re: Drifting Back On Topic.....

        Originally posted by cpw View Post
        I am sure they use less energy than the equivalent incandescent, but they are also more toxic. "Green" is really in the eye of the beholder.
        You should be fine as long as you don't eat them

        Seriously though, you are right to a certain point. The problem with flourescent lamps is the small amount of mercury they contain which leaches into the enviroment when the lamps is discarded and broken. Most of it is actually absorbed into the glass and only a small percentage escapes into the enviroment. Recycling them is still a good idea if possible. Even so they are better overall. Technology advances have allowed for bulbs that use just a tiny fraction of the mercury used in older ones and is likely to keep going down. The main cause of mercury pollution is actually coal burning used to create electricity in the first place. While using an incandescent bulb will not release mercury at the end of the bulbs life, the coal that was likely burned to create that electricity released substantially more mercury than the flourescent lamp plus its lower electrical consumption and long service life would have.


        • #19
          Re: Drifting Back On Topic.....

          I don't disagree that they are better than incandescent, and the mercury for power is a good point. I guess I am more frustrated with the completely nebulous claims that marketing people come up with.