Climategate in the Popular Media

Topics of a general nature regarding snowsports, which don't easily fit into one of our other Liftlines categories. This is also the place to post Letters to the Editor.

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby jasoncapecod » Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:51 am

I flipped over to LED lighting for the lights that are used most often. I'm happy with the light from the new Philips bulbs. 12 watts vs 60 watts makes


Those bulbs are $40 each :shock:
User avatar
jasoncapecod
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:30 am
Location: NEW YORK

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Admin » Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:09 am

Patrick wrote:If you guys can dictate that China or India can't come even close to the North American standard of living even before we can make an effort.


Really? I should somehow feel guilty because I have a first world standard of living?

You're right. I'll give up my indoor plumbing. I'll ride a donkey to work. I'll live in a leaky hut and burn wood for fuel and heat until there are no more trees left for miles around. I'll have a dozen kids (oh, wait...I live in Utah...nevermind). What's this "skiing" thing you talk about?

Well, I'll be darned, you're right -- I feel better about myself already.

(Oh, and Geoff: +1 again.)
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9969
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Patrick » Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:39 am

rfarren wrote:
Patrick wrote:Stop looking and thinking about yourself first

I agree, and so should you. Stop flying to South America and Europe, quite driving to ski, and stop skiing. I think that should take a huge bite out of any carbon foot print. So, shall we start?

If not, that comment is no less than hypocritical.

BTW, just because one lives in the US doesn't meant they don't do their part. As you say, it's all about personal responsibility.


The "You" was a collective one. :roll: I didn't say I was perfect. Funny, each time someone is critical of the continental behaviour and asking for more action and effort, someone comes up with ... you fly, you drive, you heat your home without even looking in the mirror. Everyone can do better, including myself.

On the flying things or other aspect of the carbon footprint, I pretty comfortable with mine compare to some others. I rarely rent cars, limit flying, one car family with 2 kids and a Sentra that those 15000 miles a year. Garbage equivalent per week: 1 small plastic bag. Over the past 15 years always the same even when we had kid in diapers.

Whatever, there is problem...please continue as you were going.

Admin, the reason why China and other developing countries aren't going anything is the same reason why the US isn't moving. "We are not willing to sacrifice our growth or economy" Same debate in China as in the US or Canada. Anyway, everyone knows that GW is a socialist hoax. ](*,)
Ski Mad World
A blog of MadPat's World: A History of Skiing Geography
http://madpatski.wordpress.com
User avatar
Patrick
 
Posts: 4726
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:19 am
Location: The Great Trip 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Tony Crocker » Sat Nov 05, 2011 7:05 am

Patrick wrote:everyone knows that GW is a socialist hoax.

It really doesn't matter whether it's a hoax, 100% true, or as in my opinion a small and uncertain probability that we should be taking out some insurance against.

Geoff wrote:Economics controls people's energy behavior. If energy is expensive, people will take steps to be more careful. $4.00/gallon gasoline and $3.00/gallon home heating fuel is enough to change behavior.

This is the bottom line. People will not change behavior because Patrick or Al Gore want them to feel guilty. I have solar panels that cover 2/3 of my electric consumption because the federal and state incentives made it worth my while. I'm sure my carbon footprint is still obscene from all the plane travel.

As I've said before there is room to move the incentives some by increased energy taxes (half on carbon, half on OPEC imports would be my preference). These should be offset $ for $ by reduced payroll taxes to neutralize the issue of more government spending. Payroll taxes discourage entry level job creation and hit lower income people much more than energy taxes. So a win-win for the economy IMHO.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9790
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Marc_C » Sat Nov 05, 2011 9:03 am

Tony Crocker wrote:As I've said before there is room to move the incentives some by increased energy taxes (half on carbon, half on OPEC imports would be my preference).

Why target OPEC and not the producers from where we purchase the majority of our oil?
-marc
User avatar
Marc_C
 
Posts: 3172
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:32 am
Location: A Sandy place south of a Great Lake

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Tony Crocker » Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:12 pm

Because I would rather enrich our Canadian friends (even Patrick :lol:) than Hugo Chavez or the Saudis. Also, to be legalistic we have a free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. OPEC is a cartel openly committed to price fixing. It can't possibly violate any trade agreement to put an import tax on a price-fixing cartel's product.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9790
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Patrick » Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:43 pm

Tony Crocker wrote:Because I would rather enrich our Canadian friends (even Patrick :lol:) than Hugo Chavez or the Saudis. Also, to be legalistic we have a free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. OPEC is a cartel openly committed to price fixing. It can't possibly violate any trade agreement to put an import tax on a price-fixing cartel's product.


All Oil isn't created equal. Alberta's Oil Sands is probably the least green of all.
Ski Mad World
A blog of MadPat's World: A History of Skiing Geography
http://madpatski.wordpress.com
User avatar
Patrick
 
Posts: 4726
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:19 am
Location: The Great Trip 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby jamesdeluxe » Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:25 am

Tony Crocker wrote:I'm sure my carbon footprint is still obscene from all the plane travel.

How does one calculate non-automobile travel in the carbon footprint? Obviously, people in large metro areas like NY, Chicago, Boston get a pat on the back for using subways/commuter trains a good portion of the time.

Question: Flying in a plane must be better than driving a car on a certain level (?), but are we saying that buying a plane ticket creates a market for an environmentally unfriendly mode of transportation? I guess if enough people stop flying to a certain destination, the airlines will react to market forces and eliminate/consolidate flights, thus creating less of a carbon footprint.

Sorry if it's a dumb question; I usually stay out of this conversation.
User avatar
jamesdeluxe
 
Posts: 3318
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:19 pm
Location: South Orange, NJ

Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby lookn4powder » Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:40 pm

Patrick wrote:...the reason why China and other developing countries aren't going anything is the same reason why the US isn't moving. "We are not willing to sacrifice our growth or economy" .....(*,)


As the study financed by the GW-antagonist Koch brother's finds "Humans are driving global warming and the effect is real."

The Chinese are playing this whole game shrewdly. Although the country opens a new coal mine every month to fire its new power plants, it is also investing heavily in alternate energy companies. In the long run this strategy will likely place them as the leading manufacturer for the low-impact energy industry--mainly solar and wind.

The difference between the USA and China is the long term planning. Since 1973 when our country was caught short in the supply-demand market, our country has developed neither a national energy policy nor any contingency energy policies. But I believe that those countries with poor environmental policies will eventually be caught in international trade restrictions. China is anticipating this event and will likely drop its coal mines as a bargaining chip, as it sells alternate energy devices hand over fist. China might become the future OPEC.

But I don't see much actionable information here that allows me to plan my next ski season. To minimize my travel energy footprint this season, I plan to travel to ski areas accessed via Mississippi barge.
When encountering a skier, turn. Same goes for a tree.
-2nd Law of Skiing
User avatar
lookn4powder
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Rockville, MD; Avatar: Late Spring descent inside the cirque on Mt. Bachelor.

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Geoff » Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:24 am

jamesdeluxe wrote:Question: Flying in a plane must be better than driving a car on a certain level (?), but are we saying that buying a plane ticket creates a market for an environmentally unfriendly mode of transportation? I guess if enough people stop flying to a certain destination, the airlines will react to market forces and eliminate/consolidate flights, thus creating less of a carbon footprint.


A totally full 737-300 (what I usually get stuck on flying Southwest) burns 5500 pounds of Jet A per hour at cruise. At 6.84 pounds per gallon, that's 804 gallons per hour. Assume 130 passengers and Mach 0.8 and you get about 6 gallons per passenger per hour.

In terms of miles per gallon, the numbers look a little better. If the flight is 100% full and there isn't a big head wind, you see about 50 miles per gallon per seat. About the same as a family of 4 in a full size SUV on a ski trip. The problem is that with the SUV, you're likely only driving 100 to 200 miles. On the airplane, you're flying 1000 to 2000 miles so your carbon footprint is about 10x worse.
User avatar
Geoff
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 1:38 pm
Location: Killington, VT

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Skiace » Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:07 am

lookn4powder wrote:
Patrick wrote:...the reason why China and other developing countries aren't going anything is the same reason why the US isn't moving. "We are not willing to sacrifice our growth or economy" .....(*,)


As the study financed by the GW-antagonist Koch brother's finds "Humans are driving global warming and the effect is real."

The Chinese are playing this whole game shrewdly. Although the country opens a new coal mine every month to fire its new power plants, it is also investing heavily in alternate energy companies. In the long run this strategy will likely place them as the leading manufacturer for the low-impact energy industry--mainly solar and wind.

The difference between the USA and China is the long term planning. Since 1973 when our country was caught short in the supply-demand market, our country has developed neither a national energy policy nor any contingency energy policies. But I believe that those countries with poor environmental policies will eventually be caught in international trade restrictions. China is anticipating this event and will likely drop its coal mines as a bargaining chip, as it sells alternate energy devices hand over fist. China might become the future OPEC.

But I don't see much actionable information here that allows me to plan my next ski season. To minimize my travel energy footprint this season, I plan to travel to ski areas accessed via Mississippi barge.
This is spot on. China may be belching out coal plants as fast as anyone, but they are also throwing more money at renewable/clean research than anyone else. A good example is molten salt thorium fission which the US first developed in the 1950's but abandoned in favor of uranium because the thorium fuel cycle can't be weaponized. It also happens to be more efficient, cleaner, and safer than uranium. China is also spending as much or more as anyone else on solar (both thermal & pv).

The US could very well find itself importing all this technology from China in 10 years.
User avatar
Skiace
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 4:16 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Geoff » Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:42 pm

jasoncapecod wrote:
I flipped over to LED lighting for the lights that are used most often. I'm happy with the light from the new Philips bulbs. 12 watts vs 60 watts makes


Those bulbs are $40 each :shock:


No they're not. A non-dimmable Philips 60w equivalent LED A19 bulb is $14.97 at Home Depot. They were about $20.00 this summer and the price is dropping quickly. The dimmable ones are still $40-something.

http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R ... ogId=10053
User avatar
Geoff
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 1:38 pm
Location: Killington, VT

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby EMSC » Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:16 pm

Geoff wrote:No they're not. A non-dimmable Philips 60w equivalent LED A19 bulb is $14.97 at Home Depot. They were about $20.00 this summer and the price is dropping quickly. The dimmable ones are still $40-something.

http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R ... ogId=10053


Geoff, your link says they are $24.97 at the moment... Which I would think is still outside of economic payback not to mention the upfront cost compared to a CFL... Though prices are dropping fairly quickly and, I'd wager, they will be at a point of economic payback vs incandescent somewhere in the next 12-18 months. Vs CFL is tougher since those bulbs are now so cheap to buy and these LED's are only a bit more efficient than CFL's (16 watts -CFL vs 12 watts -LED vs 60 watts -incandescent).

No mercury and instant-on is a big plus for LED. Color Temperature of the light is still a negative for LED from what I have seen thus far (though improving).
User avatar
EMSC
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:54 pm
Location: Front Range of Colorado

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Geoff » Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:59 pm

EMSC wrote:
Geoff wrote:No they're not. A non-dimmable Philips 60w equivalent LED A19 bulb is $14.97 at Home Depot. They were about $20.00 this summer and the price is dropping quickly. The dimmable ones are still $40-something.

http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R ... ogId=10053


Geoff, your link says they are $24.97 at the moment... Which I would think is still outside of economic payback not to mention the upfront cost compared to a CFL... Though prices are dropping fairly quickly and, I'd wager, they will be at a point of economic payback vs incandescent somewhere in the next 12-18 months. Vs CFL is tougher since those bulbs are now so cheap to buy and these LED's are only a bit more efficient than CFL's (16 watts -CFL vs 12 watts -LED vs 60 watts -incandescent).

No mercury and instant-on is a big plus for LED. Color Temperature of the light is still a negative for LED from what I have seen thus far (though improving).


Still clicks through as $14.97 here. Home Depot must be location-sensitive based on IP address.

I can't stand the monochromatic light out of CFL. I tried CFL in my summer house for 1 day and swapped it back out for incandescent. I now use those CFL bulbs in applications where I don't care about the light quality. Closets, cellar, porch light, etc. I bought a couple of LED bulbs as an experiment to see whether I wanted to start hoarding incandescent bulbs. I can live with the light from a Philips A19 LED bulb. The Philips LED bulbs use three different colored LEDs in a matrix so they do a pretty good job approximating incandescent lighting.

If you look at the technology, there's no reason why an LED bulb can't cost $1.00 eventually. It's a cheap switching power supply and an LED matrix.

...anyways, I'm not going to be buying any more LED bulbs until they get a lot cheaper. ...but I'm also not filling a closet with incandescent bulbs before they stop selling them.
User avatar
Geoff
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 1:38 pm
Location: Killington, VT

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Marc_C » Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:58 pm

EMSC wrote:Color Temperature of the light is still a negative for LED from what I have seen thus far (though improving).

There is no technical reason for this, just a manufacturing choice. Some indeed have a warmer color temperature than others. If they use an RGB matrix, then theoretically they can produce anywhere from 512 to 16M colors, depending on the number of intensity levels for each LED. For example, most of the lights in this shot of RUSH are LED based and the live video image backdrop is produced with a huge LED array:

Image
-marc
User avatar
Marc_C
 
Posts: 3172
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:32 am
Location: A Sandy place south of a Great Lake

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


All content herein copyright © 1999-2017 First Tracks!! Online Media

Forums Terms & Conditions of Use

cron