It's happening! Um... sort of.

On Tue, 27 May 2014 02:08:43 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Mon, 26 May 2014
08:31:46 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 25 May 2014 15:09:53 -0400, Radey wrote:

John B. writes:

On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Friday, May 23, 2014 3:37:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:

snip

We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use, not finding new and inventive
ways to smash the planet to release more of the stuff.
And the sooner we (as a global society) realise that and do something
about it, the less painful both the inevitable transition to a low
carbon economy and the long-term future will be for our children, and
theirs.

Anybody here existing without fossil fuels?

Your all-or-nothing response misses (sidesteps?) the point.

snip

What is the point then. I doubt that I use any more fossil fuel than
my grandfather did.

I'll be the food you eat, even in Thailand, was grown and transported
with a lot more fossil fuel than your grandfather's was.

True enough. It used to be buffalo carts but that died out when an
easier method came along. And it damnedly hard to grow stuff in
Bangkok although my wife does raise some spices in pots.

But of course the buffalo are ruminates and this emit methane so cut
20 buffalo out of the equation and add one 40 ton truck :-)

That only works if you are still only transporting the goods the same
distance, instead of tens or hundreds of times as far, as is actually
the case.

Of course. But I was speaking of my personal needs. Transporting 40
tons of rice from N.E. Thailand to Bangkok using one truck in about 12
hours or 40 water buffalo carts for 50 days.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Tue, 27 May 2014 02:32:25 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Mon, 26 May 2014
08:36:49 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 25 May 2014 22:09:17 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Frank Krygowski considered Fri, 23 May 2014
18:37:46 -0400 the perfect time to write:

On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:


Additional CO2 into the atmosphere cannot possibly be a net benefit to
the environment.

One main reason I like fracking is that it produces economic incentives
to burn natural gas instead of coal. That substitution greatly reduces
CO2.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...30751849503848

We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use, not finding new and inventive
ways to smash the planet to release more of the stuff.
And the sooner we (as a global society) realise that and do something
about it, the less painful both the inevitable transition to a low
carbon economy and the long-term future will be for our children, and
theirs.

Anybody here existing without fossil fuels?

Not quite, but close.
My car runs mostly on veggie oil, most of it used.
snipped
Re used vegetable oil?

Can you buy it easily? I ask as here used veggie oil isn't sold, at
least you can't go to McDonalds and get a tin or two as it apparently
goes to some large buyer, but for what use I can't imagine.

We do have diesel fuel that is a blend of diesel and palm oil though.

Ah yes, slash and burn a load of rain forest to produce some
bio-diesel, that'll really help.

Whatever are you talking about?

Palm oil comes from palm tree nuts - they harvest the nuts, not cut
down the trees. And what is the difference between some wilderness
area and a well planned and nurtured plantation?
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Tue, 27 May 2014 02:35:08 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Frank Krygowski considered Sun, 25 May 2014
23:23:00 -0400 the perfect time to write:

On 5/25/2014 5:09 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Fri, 23 May 2014
18:37:46 -0400 the perfect time to write:

On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:


Additional CO2 into the atmosphere cannot possibly be a net benefit to
the environment.

One main reason I like fracking is that it produces economic incentives
to burn natural gas instead of coal. That substitution greatly reduces
CO2.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...30751849503848

We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use, not finding new and inventive
ways to smash the planet to release more of the stuff.
And the sooner we (as a global society) realise that and do something
about it, the less painful both the inevitable transition to a low
carbon economy and the long-term future will be for our children, and
theirs.

Anybody here existing without fossil fuels?

Not quite, but close.
My car runs mostly on veggie oil, most of it used.
I have over 3kw of photovoltaic panels on the roof, although that
doesn't quite offset the full energy consumption of the household.
But as I gradually replace heating with heat-pumping (I can't afford
to do it all at once), it's getting closer, and could even end up
being carbon negative (my excess electricity is exported to the grid,
so any solar power I don't use isn't lost, but reduces the carbon use
of others)

I do have friends who claim that we must stop burning natural gas, oil
and coal. They're also against nuclear power. Only one of them, AFAIK,
has actually taken the step of installing solar panels. None of them,
AFAIK, use bikes for transportation, even occasionally. They all seem
to burn fossil fuels to get to their anti-fracking protests.

I think it's an example showing "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

Me, I'm green. I'm typing this on a pedal-powered Babbage computer. ;-)

Mine's about 90% solar powered, along with all the other electrical
goods in the house.
If I could afford all new (and therefore lower powered) equipment, I'd
do even better (but using 2nd hand stuff has it's own environmental
benefits, of course).
And I just wish I was fit and able to grow more of our own food - we
have space, but wheelchair gardening is limited to what I can grow in
pots.
I do at least buy as much food as practical from local growers.

I must say, that all sounds very admirable.

It is almost entirely economically beneficial, as well.
Or at least, it is to me.
I doubt the oil companies view it as benevolently

"Energy use in the United Kingdom stood at 3,252 kilogrammes of oil
equivalent per capita in 2010 compared to a world average of 1,852"

"The United Kingdom is the largest producer of oil and the
second-largest producer of natural gas in the European Union."

"In 2008, some 450,000 jobs throughout the United Kingdom were
supported by the servicing of activity on the UKCS and in the export
of oil and gas related goods and services around the world"

"Jobs in the UK oil and gas industry are highly skilled and well
rewarded. 2008 salaries averaged circa £50,000 a year across a broad
sample of supply chain companies, with the Exchequer benefiting by
£19,500 per head in payroll taxes"

"The oil and gas sector is the UK's largest corporation tax payer,
contributing 16.4% of total Government corporation tax receipts - more
than many other significant industries combined."

Yes Sir! We need to get rid of those evil people.
(Is "cut your nose off to spite your face" an expression in England?)
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Tue, 27 May 2014 06:39:00 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/26/2014 7:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 10:41:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/26/2014 7:46 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2014 22:51:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/25/2014 4:20 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

I've wondered a bit about the commercial airplane effect. It seems to
me that the incremental effect of one passenger is negligible. IOW, if
one person chooses not to buy a ticket, the plane will fly anyway with
one more empty seat (assuming all else is equal). The fuel saving would
seem to be negligible.

Actually, air travel is one area where empty seats do save a
considerable amount of fuel - far more than is the case with
ground-based transport.

Explain, please. It looks like 750,000 pounds is a reasonable value for
a large airliner's total weight. One potential passenger who stayed
home reduces that by far less than 0.1%. How much fuel is actually saved?

Large aircraft calculate takeoff weight dependant on the empty
aircraft weight, the weight of cargo and the distance that they have
to fly. This gives them their gross weight for take off.

A 747-400, I believe, can carry something like 500,000 pounds of fuel
and something like 189,000 pounds of cargo, and has a maximum gross
weight for take off of 987,000 lbs. if we deduct the total fuel and
cargo weight we get an empty weight of something like 300,000 lbs.

Now suppose that our flight required 4 hours of flight time and we are
only carrying 90,000 lbs of cargo. To make this mission we will
require less power to maintain cruising speed because the airplane is
lighter. If we load maximum cargo and fuel, right up to the maximum
permitted weight for take off then the fuel consumption will be much
higher.

The actual calculation for max gross weight for take off is a bit more
complicated as runway lengths as well as altitude and temperature and
even dew point is also taken into consideration.

I understand that lower weight implies less fuel use by the plane. My
question was whether a one-passenger reduction (by a conscientious
objector to air travel who skips a flight) makes any significant - or
even detectable - difference. I suspect that unless a flight is
canceled, the fuel use is essentially the same; and that many people
must cancel their tickets to get a flight canceled.

I doubt that the addition or subreacti0n of one person, say 0.09% of
the cargo load, would have a measurable effect. As I said elsewhere a
bit more frequent washing would likely have a larger effect.

But, I believe that airlines must fly their routes and schedules
whether loaded or empty. I don't remember where I read that but I
think it is part of being granted a route.

Then we have to wonder about the alternatives, assuming those folks did
need to get to where the flight was going. According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...t_of_transport
it seems like air travel generates between 0.18 - 0.24 kg CO2 per
passenger mile. Cars, perhaps 0.35; long-distance buses perhaps 0.08,
and trains about 0.19 kg/passenger-mile.

If those figures are correct, then replacing one's air travel with
anything other than a bus trip could be a net loss.

(Walking or bicycling would be much more benign, of course; but then,
nobody considers bicycling and air travel to be realistic competitors
for the same journey.)

Or perhaps a sailing vessel.
"In 1850, with seven vessels taking part and large amounts of money
riding on the outcome. The vessel "Samuel Russel" took 109 days to
reach San Francisco from New York, shortening the existing record by
eleven days, and creating a sensation that was hard to overcome."


But, I believe that airlines must fly their routes and schedules
whether loaded or empty.

Because that plane will be needed for a different flight at
the destination later that day or tomorrow. Long ago there
were some ridiculously cheap flights on eerily empty planes
at odd times due to that plane shuffle. The system still has
to get planes into the right places every day, they just
manage it better now.

Yes, true. But I was referring to a "route". I think I remember a
discussion of airlines fighting over a "route" from Australia to
California which seemed to entail permission from the U.S. and as part
of the agreement the airline was required to fly on an agreed upon
schedule..
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On 5/27/2014 7:48 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 3:57:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2014 4:00 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 9:27:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2014 3:12 AM, Dan O wrote:

I often see people riding in the bike lane on a road that
really sucks, when I know of a *much* more pleasant (and
sometimes faster) route a block or two over. But they
either don't know about it, or maybe they *are* just
transportation bicyclists and haven't made the leap to
the joy of it ;-)

So what are you doing about it?

Using it to illustrate my point about bike lanes.

In our bike club, some of us transportational cyclists realized the same
thing, that we were aware of streets others didn't know about - pleasant
streets that formed a useful network for transportation.

My awareness of this is no secret knowledge. An interesting
way of putting it is that I *know* that there's much I don't
know (yet). So I know routes that _I_ think are better, and
I will share this with others...

When? How?

Mostly just when the opportunity arises (e.g. at a stoplight,
at the water cooler, etc.), but for a published example, see
the comments section of:

http://btaoregon.org/2009/03/alice-a...-janet-taylor/

(Notice how I don't just give directions, but "teach them to
fish".)


Um... wow. How educational!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 8:38:27 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2014 7:48 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 3:57:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2014 4:00 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 9:27:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2014 3:12 AM, Dan O wrote:

I often see people riding in the bike lane on a road that
really sucks, when I know of a *much* more pleasant (and
sometimes faster) route a block or two over. But they
either don't know about it, or maybe they *are* just
transportation bicyclists and haven't made the leap to
the joy of it ;-)

So what are you doing about it?

Using it to illustrate my point about bike lanes.

In our bike club, some of us transportational cyclists realized the same
thing, that we were aware of streets others didn't know about - pleasant
streets that formed a useful network for transportation.

My awareness of this is no secret knowledge. An interesting
way of putting it is that I *know* that there's much I don't
know (yet). So I know routes that _I_ think are better, and
I will share this with others...

When? How?

Mostly just when the opportunity arises (e.g. at a stoplight,
at the water cooler, etc.), but for a published example, see
the comments section of:

http://btaoregon.org/2009/03/alice-a...-janet-taylor/

(Notice how I don't just give directions, but "teach them to
fish".)

Um... wow. How educational!

Can we see your "pamphlet"?

On 5/28/2014 12:16 AM, Dan O wrote:


Um... wow. How educational!

Can we see your "pamphlet"?

Sure! Come on over and buy a bike. You'll get one, free! ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/27/2014 9:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2014 06:39:00 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/26/2014 7:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 10:41:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/26/2014 7:46 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2014 22:51:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/25/2014 4:20 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

I've wondered a bit about the commercial airplane effect. It seems to
me that the incremental effect of one passenger is negligible. IOW, if
one person chooses not to buy a ticket, the plane will fly anyway with
one more empty seat (assuming all else is equal). The fuel saving would
seem to be negligible.

Actually, air travel is one area where empty seats do save a
considerable amount of fuel - far more than is the case with
ground-based transport.

Explain, please. It looks like 750,000 pounds is a reasonable value for
a large airliner's total weight. One potential passenger who stayed
home reduces that by far less than 0.1%. How much fuel is actually saved?

Large aircraft calculate takeoff weight dependant on the empty
aircraft weight, the weight of cargo and the distance that they have
to fly. This gives them their gross weight for take off.

A 747-400, I believe, can carry something like 500,000 pounds of fuel
and something like 189,000 pounds of cargo, and has a maximum gross
weight for take off of 987,000 lbs. if we deduct the total fuel and
cargo weight we get an empty weight of something like 300,000 lbs.

Now suppose that our flight required 4 hours of flight time and we are
only carrying 90,000 lbs of cargo. To make this mission we will
require less power to maintain cruising speed because the airplane is
lighter. If we load maximum cargo and fuel, right up to the maximum
permitted weight for take off then the fuel consumption will be much
higher.

The actual calculation for max gross weight for take off is a bit more
complicated as runway lengths as well as altitude and temperature and
even dew point is also taken into consideration.

I understand that lower weight implies less fuel use by the plane. My
question was whether a one-passenger reduction (by a conscientious
objector to air travel who skips a flight) makes any significant - or
even detectable - difference. I suspect that unless a flight is
canceled, the fuel use is essentially the same; and that many people
must cancel their tickets to get a flight canceled.

I doubt that the addition or subreacti0n of one person, say 0.09% of
the cargo load, would have a measurable effect. As I said elsewhere a
bit more frequent washing would likely have a larger effect.

But, I believe that airlines must fly their routes and schedules
whether loaded or empty. I don't remember where I read that but I
think it is part of being granted a route.

Then we have to wonder about the alternatives, assuming those folks did
need to get to where the flight was going. According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...t_of_transport
it seems like air travel generates between 0.18 - 0.24 kg CO2 per
passenger mile. Cars, perhaps 0.35; long-distance buses perhaps 0.08,
and trains about 0.19 kg/passenger-mile.

If those figures are correct, then replacing one's air travel with
anything other than a bus trip could be a net loss.

(Walking or bicycling would be much more benign, of course; but then,
nobody considers bicycling and air travel to be realistic competitors
for the same journey.)

Or perhaps a sailing vessel.
"In 1850, with seven vessels taking part and large amounts of money
riding on the outcome. The vessel "Samuel Russel" took 109 days to
reach San Francisco from New York, shortening the existing record by
eleven days, and creating a sensation that was hard to overcome."


But, I believe that airlines must fly their routes and schedules
whether loaded or empty.

Because that plane will be needed for a different flight at
the destination later that day or tomorrow. Long ago there
were some ridiculously cheap flights on eerily empty planes
at odd times due to that plane shuffle. The system still has
to get planes into the right places every day, they just
manage it better now.

Yes, true. But I was referring to a "route". I think I remember a
discussion of airlines fighting over a "route" from Australia to
California which seemed to entail permission from the U.S. and as part
of the agreement the airline was required to fly on an agreed upon
schedule..

There's no human activity that some regulator at a desk in
an office far away cannot make less efficient, less
productive, less rewarding. It's what they do.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 8:38:27 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2014 7:48 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 3:57:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2014 4:00 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 9:27:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2014 3:12 AM, Dan O wrote:

I often see people riding in the bike lane on a road that
really sucks, when I know of a *much* more pleasant (and
sometimes faster) route a block or two over. But they
either don't know about it, or maybe they *are* just
transportation bicyclists and haven't made the leap to
the joy of it ;-)

So what are you doing about it?

Using it to illustrate my point about bike lanes.

In our bike club, some of us transportational cyclists realized the same
thing, that we were aware of streets others didn't know about - pleasant
streets that formed a useful network for transportation.

My awareness of this is no secret knowledge. An interesting
way of putting it is that I *know* that there's much I don't
know (yet). So I know routes that _I_ think are better, and
I will share this with others...

When? How?

Mostly just when the opportunity arises (e.g. at a stoplight,
at the water cooler, etc.), but for a published example, see
the comments section of:

http://btaoregon.org/2009/03/alice-a...-janet-taylor/

(Notice how I don't just give directions, but "teach them to
fish".)

Um... wow. How educational!

It won't do any good to try and fit me into your cubby. It
might help you congratulate yourself for being superior, but
it doesn't faze me, and it doesn't negate my arguments about
infrastructure, education, and bicycling (though I know you
believe it does, but that is only your own distorted
rationalized delusion). Inside your cozy little cubbyhole,
though, believe whatever you want to believe.

I could dredge up many *published* examples of sharing my
approach to finding better ways to get around on a bike,
and the theme would be apparent: I don't map it out and
tell people, "This is the way to go." That would be dumb
because I can't decide for them what they value, so it
would be a waste of time for me to presume what they will
like, and impossible for me to spend enough time documenting
all the pertinent attributes of the various options -
_especially since I have not found the best way yet myself_

Which points straight to the reason I view such mapping as
a waste of time: The search for a better way is both the
means *and* the end. The better way is temporary sustenance
on the journey. Picking up a map and following the directions
is not the journey. (Neither is following the lines painted
on the road. If somebody chooses to do that, they do so at
their own risk.)

(Come to think of it... Dude! Which one of us truly rides
anywhere they want to go; and which of us needs a facility.
Think about that.)

Now, many people might have no desire to take that journey,
and just want a map - like the guy I mentioned who maybe
just hasn't made the leap to the joy and isn't ever going
to; he just wants to get to work and save money on gas and
get some exercise and congratulate himself on being green.
That's ~okay, and if he wants a map he can get one from
Krygowski's crew (or the guy the BTA tried to hook me up
with here in Oregon to tap my (extensive) knowledge for
his map).

I will share (much of) my experience with others, and point
the way if they're interested. But pretending I've got the
answers to anybody else's life questions for anybody else
would just be stroking myself.

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 9:43:52 AM UTC-7, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 8:38:27 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

Um... wow. How educational!

It won't do any good to try and fit me into your cubby.

.... and do you *really* want *me* teaching people? :-)

snip