> While I agree that modern cars are much more efficient, travelling with
> our new VW bus to the UK means I only use two thirds of the fuel we used
> to BUT we have to factor in the cost to the environment of manufacturing
> a new vehicle, which is often not included in the sums.
I believe that factoring in cost of manufacturing is not always
properly applied into the equation. If you would not have acquired a
new vehicle at all, then yes, the environmental cost of manufacturing
is a valid number to throw in there. But you were probably going to
get a new vehicle regardless.
I see numbers thrown about for the Toyota Prius. These numbers pretty
much always assume zero recycling and reuse of materials. That's not
even realistic. Those motors and batteries are high value items and
cars are stolen just to get those parts. Rare-earth materials are in
high demand and they aren't getting wasted into a landfill. And then
the same calculations are not applied to the alternative vehicles that
don't use hybrid energy.
Same thing about ethanol production. While it may not seem like the
most efficient use of land, even without using the byproduct as feed,
it still is an energy gain. With the feed byproduct, it's just fine.
Yet, to influence the numbers, there are all sorts of stupid things
factored in like "cost of marketing" and so forth. Really? When we
apply the same cost factors into oil production, we come close to that
being an energy negative too! Ditto for wind energy.
Speaking of wind energy, I listened to a pointy-headed professor from
Yale or Harvard going on about how a wind turbine sucks the wind
energy out of the air and calculated the density of wind turbines per
square km as a result. I doubt he ever visited a wind energy "farm".
I've stood downwind from a half-dozen turbines lined up perfectly into
the wind and I still had wind blowing in my face. In spite of all the
massive wind farms here in Iowa, the wind STILL blows. How can that
be?
And then my favorite saw is about how cattle farming consumes
trillions of gallons of water. Depending on which study you go by, it
takes anywhere from 441 gallons of water to 12008 gallons of water to
produce one pound of beef. Really? 441 gallons to 12008 gallons?
That's a pretty good stretch in somebody's imagination.
But let's say it is true that it takes 441 gallons of water to produce
one pound of beef. Where is that water coming from and where is it
going? Obviously, if you are looking at just California, then every
ounce of water means something, but that's because people are living
where they shouldn't be living. Duh! People have no business living in
California unless they MUST live there because that's the only place
they can be to do what what they do. For example, it makes no sense
for a farmer to live in the desert, and it makes no sense for Wells
Fargo to build an office building on 600 acres of prime farm land.
Frankly, the water problem in California would be a non-issue if all
unemployed people were expelled from the state.
I digress.
Here in the midwest, where the majority of the beef is raised, where
is that water coming from? Is it pumped from the ground through the
city water supply? Nah. It comes from rain. Some of it comes from
shallow wells that tap into underground streams that drain the rain
from the surrounding land. Some of it comes from the surface streams
themselves that have been ponded up. It rains, it fills the ponds, the
cows drink from the ponds. The cows pee, the pee makes its way back
into the ponds and streams again.
Water does not disappear. It is not destroyed. A cow might drink
thousands of gallons of water over its short life, but that water does
not go away. That's why so many of these calculations and cost of
production/manufactuing numbers are nothing more than lies meant to
manipulate an ignorant public into believing whatever it is you want
them to believe.
Excuse me, I have a wind turbine I need to go tilt at.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|