The Cellar - Global warming?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Global warming? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=18734)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 571873)

I think it has more to do with taking into account all the aspects of running rail. Anyone who has ridden on Amtrack can tell you it hardly seems "carbon neutral", whatever the hell that is to those who want to sensationalize it.

And yet, after taking all aspects into account, your car has to be full before it "may" approach the efficiency of the train. Not particularly impressive.

What about the "efficiency" of the train when its almost empty?

This article is obvious and dumb. It invents unlikely scenarios to make its point. This is the definition of a strawman argument and doesn't belong in a scientific journal.

I take the train to work every day. It's always packed like sardines. I walk on sidewalks on either end of my commute, and see all the cars on the road. Virtually all of them contain the driver and no passengers. This has been my experience for 18 years of commuting in this city.

Ask yourself if you drive to work in a full car, or alone, and then apply your personal experience to this moronic article. I'm telling you the trains I take are full.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 572074)

What about the "efficiency" of the train when its almost empty?

Its mass transit. You can never guarantee that a train will be full or it ruins the entire point of it being there. What you can do is find ways of maximizing riders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 572074)

What about the "efficiency" of the train when its almost empty?

First, when making the decision between taking the train or driving, riding a train will improve its efficiency (and if it's almost empty, it will improve the efficiency by an even greater percentage), and if you drive, the total efficiency goes down as there is now an almost empty train AND a car making the trip.

Second, if the occurrence of empty trains isn't more than balanced by the times they are full, they should (and usually do) decrease the frequency and length of trains at the times it is almost empty.

Third, the completely full cars were compared with quarter-full trains already. I would expect trains are over a quarter full far more often than cars are completely full. Heck, I would think that trains are over 100% full (considering standing room) more often than cars are full.

My bad, I was being sarcastic guys. I was pointing out the stupidity of the article as well. It just didn't relate as well in my post.
My point was that you cannot compare the two without knowing how many are in either vehicle - as you all basically stated. If you take either example to either extreme, full vs empty then the authors point is worthless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 572123)

First, when making the decision between taking the train or driving, ...

I ask questions like... which one is cheaper? Well, as it turns out, taking the train costs about the same. Considering the roughly equivalent cost, the tiebreakers are the substantial inconvenience and the problem of turning a 45 minute commute into a 90 to 120 minute commute.

You live less than one mile from a train station. It makes sense for you.

Mass transit was supposed to be an alternative - another choice available to anyone interested.

But now, the global warming bandwagon has turned mass transit into an obligation. I have plenty of obligations. Getting on someone else's train isn't going to be one of them.

My train is full. I really don't want anyone else getting on it. That's why I oppose the extension of metro out to Dulles. Unless they are going to add more cars to all the trains and run them more frequently.

House Republicans Draft Energy Bill With Heavy Focus on Nuclear Power

Quote:

WASHINGTON — Badly outnumbered and months behind in the debate on energy and climate change, House Republicans plan to introduce an energy bill on Wednesday as an alternative to the Democratic plan barreling toward a House vote this month.

The Republican proposal, drafted by a group led by Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, leans heavily on nuclear power, setting a goal of building 100 reactors over the next 20 years. No new nuclear plants have been ordered in the United States since 1978 because of the high cost of construction and uncertainty about regulatory approval.

The bill also provides incentives for increased oil and gas production on public and private lands and offshore. It would also authorize oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, a focus of 30 years of controversy in Congress.

The Republican measure does not include any mandatory cap on emissions of heat-trapping gases, relying instead on nuclear energy, natural gas and renewable fuels like wind, solar and biomass power to reduce production of the gases, which have been linked to global warming.

“This is an alternative that takes us in the direction of energy independence and a clean environment without the national energy tax being offered by the Democrats,” Mr. Pence said.

At forums around the country, he said, people expressed a desire for more energy from domestic sources and concern about rising fuel prices. “A minority in Congress plus the American people equals a majority,” he said.

Republican officials said they were intending to offer the proposal, known as the American Energy Act, as a substitute for the bill sponsored by Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats. The Waxman-Markey bill has been through hundreds of hours of public hearings and committee deliberations and passed the Energy and Commerce Committee last month on a 33-to-25 vote.

The Democratic measure will be considered by other House committees in coming days, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California has made it clear that the bill is on a fast track to a vote in the full House before the July 4 Congressional recess. Committee leaders have been warned not to tinker too much with the substance of the 946-page bill, a product of extensive talks to win support from a number of Democrats worried about energy costs and job losses in their states.

Republican aides said they were hoping their bill would lure some of those Democrats away and give Republicans something to support, rather than simply opposing the Democratic plan.

As long as rational renewable sources of energy get pushed, I agree with the mindset of this bill more than the Democrat's. Instead of directly working against power, oil, coal companies, and industrial companies and setting a limit on the emittable greenhouse gases, encourage alternatives, especially nuclear, through other means.

Why not both the carrot and the stick instead of just one or the other?

Quote:

The Democratic measure will be considered by other House committees in coming days, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California has
made it clear that the bill is on a fast track ~
Committee leaders ~ warned not to tinker...

This may be the best thing in the world - who knows, but the last thing congress needs to do is rush into another decision because SHE wants it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt (Post 572543)

Why not both the carrot and the stick instead of just one or the other?

I have nothing against that.

Quote:

The Republican measure does not include any mandatory cap on emissions of heat-trapping gases, relying instead on nuclear energy, natural gas and renewable fuels like wind, solar and biomass power to reduce production of the gases, which have been linked to global warming.

Psst. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, burning it releases fossil carbon, which blah blah blah .... pass it on to the Rs, will ya?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 572631)

Psst. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, burning it releases fossil carbon, which blah blah blah .... pass it on to the Rs, will ya?

While true, its quite a bit better than petroleum-based fuels.

Natural gas versus gasoline as a vehicle fuel:

Reduces carbon monoxide emissions 90%-97%
Reduces carbon dioxide emissions 25%
Reduces nitrogen oxide emissions 35%-60%
Potentially reduces non-methane hydrocarbon emissions 50%-75%
Emits fewer toxic and carcinogenic pollutants
Emits little or no particulate matter
Eliminates evaporative emissions

From here.

True, but that's a bit like saying it's better to be shot with a .22 than a .38.