AndyH
Posts: 6384
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Long commutes : Sustainable ?

Sun Jan 02, 2011 6:26 pm

johnr wrote:Wow. What a gloomy, argumentative thread this has become! :x


It's all good, John. I've learned a few things here - I hope it's been useful for others as well. :D


On that note - thanks very much, Gents, for having the courage to look at a challenging subject!

User avatar
evnow
Moderator
Posts: 11438
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:41 am
Delivery Date: 25 Feb 2011
Leaf Number: 303
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Long commutes : Sustainable ?

Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:21 pm

TRONZ wrote:I have honestly not been able to figure out what this thread is about ..... and I'm OK with that. Moving on.

Some of us are talking about Peak oil. Some others refuse to acknowledge such a thing is possible.
1st Leaf : 2/28/2011 to 5/6/2013
2nd Leaf : 5/4/2013 to 3/21/2017
Volt : 3/25/2017 to ?

User avatar
evnow
Moderator
Posts: 11438
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:41 am
Delivery Date: 25 Feb 2011
Leaf Number: 303
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Long commutes : Sustainable ?

Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:23 pm

johnr wrote:Wow. What a gloomy, argumentative thread this has become! :x

Unfortunately, reality doesn't follow Disney movies.
1st Leaf : 2/28/2011 to 5/6/2013
2nd Leaf : 5/4/2013 to 3/21/2017
Volt : 3/25/2017 to ?

User avatar
evnow
Moderator
Posts: 11438
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:41 am
Delivery Date: 25 Feb 2011
Leaf Number: 303
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Sustainable...Macro or Micro?

Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:24 pm

Adrian wrote:
Evnow wrote:You didn't answer my question about AGW.


And...?

Because you keep bringing up coal & gasification of it known since Hitler's days - as if it has no repercussions, even if it could be scaled up (zero evidence of that).
1st Leaf : 2/28/2011 to 5/6/2013
2nd Leaf : 5/4/2013 to 3/21/2017
Volt : 3/25/2017 to ?

mitch672
Posts: 1956
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:10 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Long commutes : Sustainable ?

Sun Jan 02, 2011 8:41 pm

AGW - Anthropogenic (human-induced) Global Warming
Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

check the "reference" links at the bottom of the above link, there are many sources "proving" AGW, there are also the non-believers. I guess they need to see the glaciers disapear before they'll believe it. All of the additional formerly sequestered CO2 in oil/coal/fossil fuels we are pumping into the atmosphere, will and does have an effect, to claim otherwise is ignorant. Now you know how I feel about the issue.

non-believers
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/ ... g_gun.html
http://agw-heretic.blogspot.com/

article on world oil production from 12/20/2010: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7258
2012 Advanced Plug in Prius (sold)
I Support OpenEVSE: http://code.google.com/p/open-evse/
My Fuelly page: http://www.fuelly.com/driver/mitch672/prius-plugin
Tesla Model S 85KW Dolphin Grey VIN: 03245, delivered 1/17/2013

Adrian
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:25 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Jun 2015
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: Sustainable...Macro or Micro?

Sun Jan 02, 2011 9:15 pm

evnow wrote:
Adrian wrote:
Evnow wrote:You didn't answer my question about AGW.


And...?

Because you keep bringing up coal & gasification of it known since Hitler's days - as if it has no repercussions, even if it could be scaled up (zero evidence of that).


Everything has consequences. I live in a world where one makes the best available choice, and going back to the stone age is not one of the choices. By the way if South Africa successfully implementing F-T half a century ago with less technology than what we have today is "zero evidence" of scalability to you, nothing will convince you. Yet they did so without your approval. Imagine that.

I joined this site to talk about the Nissan LEAF, learn more about it, get ready for owning one, etc. I've learned that I have something in common with some of the people I otherwise have several disagreements with: I don't like Fox News. I think we all like EVs. It stops there though. Beyond that any difference in choices one makes is "unsustainable", ignorant, etc. Newsflash..everyone has an opinion, and a right to it. Yours is not superior. I know you think it is. But since we seem to share our dislike of Fox news, I'll offer you on example you might be able to relate to. I find listening to your condescending and judgmental rhetoric as enjoyable as Fox News. Like a few others have already said, I am also moving on from this thread.
Last edited by Adrian on Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:49 pm, edited 4 times in total.
2013 grey Chevy Volt
2011 Red Leaf
Lease returned early due to battery capacity loss

AndyH
Posts: 6384
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Sustainable...Macro or Micro?

Mon Jan 03, 2011 9:49 am

Adrian wrote:
We're stuck in a box, Adrian. We absolutely CAN have completely independent buildings in urban settings. Self-sustaining homes that collect their own water, use the water four times before it's sent outside, process their own sewage, collect their own electricity and hot water, and can grow enough food for a family of four have been around for 40 years. They don't need sewers, septic tanks, gas lines, electric lines, or water lines.


I'm interested in hearing more. Maybe you can start a new thread on this.

There's a bit of starter info here on site, Adrian, for one method:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1008&p=20691
A documentary about these radically sustainable buildings, Garbage Warrior, is available from Netflix. Reynolds has designed multi-level high-density urban environments that maintain the fully independent nature of these buildings.

I hope you'll stick around the thread - I've learned from your participation. We all come here from different geographical and mental locations and that's the beauty - we bring different points of view that can help shake good ideas loose in each other. ;) Sometimes it can be a bit like labor, but the end result is usually worth the screaming for morphine. :lol:

User avatar
lne937s
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:15 am

Re: Long commutes : Sustainable ?

Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:40 pm

I wish I got in here earlier, but I thought I would add something about the long distance commutes and a couple of examples. I live in NYC. It is cold here right now and we just dug out of a major snow storm-- you need heat. It gets hot and very humid in the summer-- you need air conditioning. As heating/cooling is the largest consumer of energy, you would assume we have a fairly high CO2 footprint.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumption/index.html

However, according to the Vulcan project, the county with the highest CO2 output is the sprawling mega-suburban land of long commutes in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles has one of the mildest climates in the country, eliminating much of the need for the largest consumer of energy elsewhere in the US. They have a high density of people driving hybrids, lots of sun for solar panels and people wear their green credentials on their sleeves... but it is the worst CO2 polluter in the country (although some small towns are worse per capita). What LA lacks is any semblance of intelligent community planning.

To have distributed heat you need building density and centralized planning (my office is heated and cooled with steam). To have functioning mass transit, you need population density and planning of the communities it connects. Neighborhoods need to be planned and zoned. Leaving it up to individuals does not work. If you look at the places that are making real progress at reducing CO2, there is centralized planning involved.

California has plenty of carrots (incentives) to entice people to be more environmentally friendly, and these reward people who choose to do so. CA regulations are also pretty good—NY State has a law to adopt whatever automotive emissions regulations CA adopts. However, more sticks (disincentives) need to be used to make it uneconomical for people who are not environmentally motivated to be wasteful. Environmental fines for things like not recycling are stiff here in NY and electricity is close to $.30 per kWh (on average, not peak rates). Although not necessarily directly targeted at the environment, between the high tolls, taxes, parking spaces, $100+ parking tickets, higher gas prices, etc., driving is expensive here, so most people live closer to work and/or take mass transit. And we all know CA could use any additional money that could be raised.

Between disincentives for being wasteful and intelligent centralized planning of communities, sprawling places with long commutes like LA could potentially go from worst polluters to some of the cleanest places in the country.

User avatar
drees
Moderator
Posts: 6218
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:51 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: Long commutes : Sustainable ?

Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:32 pm

lne937s wrote:However, according to the Vulcan project, the county with the highest CO2 output is the sprawling mega-suburban land of long commutes in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles has one of the mildest climates in the country, eliminating much of the need for the largest consumer of energy elsewhere in the US. They have a high density of people driving hybrids, lots of sun for solar panels and people wear their green credentials on their sleeves... but it is the worst CO2 polluter in the country (although some small towns are worse per capita). What LA lacks is any semblance of intelligent community planning.

Do you have a reference to the data? The last data I saw had California with among the lowest per capita household electricity usage - combined with the low carbon footprint of CA electricity, was among the best. Of course, that doesn't take into account transportation, where New Yorkers will have a huge leg up thanks to their subway system.

Edit: Is this the Vulcan project you are referring to? http://www.purdue.edu/eas/carbon/vulcan/
'11 LEAF SL Powered By 3.24 kW Enphase Solar PV

User avatar
lne937s
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:15 am

Re: Long commutes : Sustainable ?

Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:48 pm

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/arc ... er-capita/

1. Los Angeles County, CA: 21.5 million tons in a year
2. Harris County, TX (Houston): 19.6
3. Cook County, IL (Chicago): 16.5
4. Cuyahoga County, OH (Cleveland): 12.1
5. Wayne County, MI (Detroit): 8.9
6. Hennepin County, MN (Minneapolis): 8.6
7. Wilcox County, AL (Camden): 8.5
8. San Juan County, NM (Farmington): 8.5
9. East Baton Rouge, LA: 7.6
10. San Diego County, CA: 7.5

In terms of major cities, LA really is not very efficient. Much of those CO2 emissions being for transportation, which is far less efficient than major east coast cities where the largest portion of CO2 goes to necessary heating and cooling.

California tends to win a lot of subjective awards (often from California-based organizations) calling it the "greenest" state for their incentives and renewable programs. There are a large number of people who see themselves as being "green" and some areas are better than others, but much of that is superficial. However, the fundamentally inefficient structure (detached houses, long car-based commutes, etc.) of how the sprawling areas in southern California are laid out means that despite the favorable climate and the role of renewables that they overall pale in comparison to East Coast cities. Hybrids and solar panels from a handful of eco-minded people doesn't overcome the overall inefficiency. Rural America can be even worse per capita. But many European cities are even better than East Coast cities.

drees wrote:
lne937s wrote:However, according to the Vulcan project, the county with the highest CO2 output is the sprawling mega-suburban land of long commutes in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles has one of the mildest climates in the country, eliminating much of the need for the largest consumer of energy elsewhere in the US. They have a high density of people driving hybrids, lots of sun for solar panels and people wear their green credentials on their sleeves... but it is the worst CO2 polluter in the country (although some small towns are worse per capita). What LA lacks is any semblance of intelligent community planning.

Do you have a reference to the data? The last data I saw had California with among the lowest per capita household electricity usage - combined with the low carbon footprint of CA electricity, was among the best. Of course, that doesn't take into account transportation, where New Yorkers will have a huge leg up thanks to their subway system.

Edit: Is this the Vulcan project you are referring to? http://www.purdue.edu/eas/carbon/vulcan/

Return to “Environmental Issues”