Global Warming The debbil made me do it

In article Bertie the Bunyip writes:
(Alan) wrote
So, will you be scrapping the Debonair and ceasing flying to help do
your part? Each gallon/hour is about 18.5 pounds of CO2 per hour
added to the atmosphere.


Really? I stink at chemistry, but I can't see how 6 pounds of gas oline
can release 18.5 pouunds of CO2. Still, the point is valid even if the
numbers arenot. OTOH, if he sells the Debonair someone else will pollute
with it.

Gasoline is about 84 percent carbon by weight. Thus, a gallon of
gasoline at 6 pounds has 6 * .84 = 5.04 pounds of carbon. Each carbon atom
weighs about 12 atomic mass units. It combines with 2 oxygen atoms at 16
atomic mass units each to form a CO2 molecule weighing 44 atomic mass
units. Thus 12 units of carbon by weight forms 44 units of CO2 by weight.
This has the weight increasing by a ratio of 44/12 or about 3.667 times as
much. Remembering that the weight of the carbon is .84 times the weight of
the gasoline, we get .84 * (44 / 12) = 3.08 pounds of CO2 for each pound of
gasoline, or 18.48 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline.

Diesel fuel is very slightly more carbon by weight, more like .85, but
diesel engines deliver almost twice the useful work for the same amount
of fuel, so one comes out way ahead using them.


Buying indulgences doesn't solve the problem.

True. What's needed is a change in the fuel used. Various things have
been tried but the biofuel thing is not going to work unless the
tecnhology is developed to make a viable fuel out of things like corn
stalks. IOW using the waste of crops already grown. There;s little point
in cutting down forest to make them, is there? NASA ran a Musketeer on
hydrogen in the 70s. could be practical for cars, but I can't see it
working for airplanes unless fuel cell technology take s few farily
large leaps. Airplanes are getting to be more efficient, of course.
though there are some anteeks that can still put any modern to shame..

As you point out, current biofuels are limited in production, and
are expensive to produce.

I think we need inexpensive electric cars recharged by inexpensive
nuclear generated power -- if the cost of the car and the use is low
enough, people will not object to using one car with limited range
for the local trips which are the majority of their driving. Then
use the turbo-diesels for the long trips.


What does this have to do with airplanes? Well, we probably can't
build useful electric airplanes - so it seems that we really need to
stop burning airplane fuel for surface transport and uses.

Alan

Well, an interesting thread...
First, I am not against the theory that burning fossil fuels is
speeding up climate change... Entirely possible, and even likely...
Second, climate change in the warm direction has been going on
continuously between 15,000 and 20,000 years, now... This started when
a 1,500,000 year roughly period of glaciation came to an end... The
Laurentian Ice Sheet finished melting some 13,000 years ago that was
across the Northeast of this continent - including my Michigan...

So, that raises the question, why did the climate change when there
was no human activity to 'cause it'?
That is unknown, but the most likely answer is a miniscule change in
solar output... We know that there is an 11 year cycle, and a 22 year
cycle, and a 60 some year cycle, and so on... What we don't know is
that maybe there is a 1.5 million year cycle...
Or it could be that a carbon/soot containing asteroid strike put
enough black particles in suspension in the atmosphere that it
absorbed a fraction of a percent more of solar infrared, warming the
air and triggering the change...
Or it could be that a large body passed close to the earth and tugged
its orbit closer to the sun by a tiny fraction of one percent...
Or it could be that the earths core changed rotation just enough to
slightly increase the production of magma and ground heat...
Or the earth's tilt changed (it perturbates around the mean) or that
the earth's orbit around the sun changed also suffers perturbations
Whatever it was/is, it happened roughly 20,000 years ago... It has
been going on since then with the usual perturbations and nothing
that man does is going to change global warming in the forseeable
future...

But, I can tell you what I am going to do about global warming..

WARNING - AIRPLANE PORN FOLLOWS -
Tree huggers and Al's posse, best avert their eyes..

After I am finished at the office at noon I am going to the airport
and gasp start two engines count em and go out and wildly blow
enough dino dung out the exhaust to send the climate to temperatures
that might even bring the dinosaurs back... T. Rex will worship me...
And I will continue to do this as long as I have breath and enough
money to by fuel...

denny

Denny wrote in news:f37acdc7-54eb-461f-b3cd-
:

Well, an interesting thread...
First, I am not against the theory that burning fossil fuels is
speeding up climate change... Entirely possible, and even likely...
Second, climate change in the warm direction has been going on
continuously between 15,000 and 20,000 years, now... This started when
a 1,500,000 year roughly period of glaciation came to an end... The
Laurentian Ice Sheet finished melting some 13,000 years ago that was
across the Northeast of this continent - including my Michigan...

So, that raises the question, why did the climate change when there
was no human activity to 'cause it'?


Getting hit by an act of nature is one thing. Sticking a gun in your mouth
is another.

But, I can tell you what I am going to do about global warming..

WARNING - AIRPLANE PORN FOLLOWS -
Tree huggers and Al's posse, best avert their eyes..

After I am finished at the office at noon I am going to the airport
and gasp start two engines count em and go out and wildly blow
enough dino dung out the exhaust to send the climate to temperatures
that might even bring the dinosaurs back... T. Rex will worship me...
And I will continue to do this as long as I have breath and enough
money to by fuel...


Me too, but finding another way would be a lot of fun as well. Seen the
rubber band powered airplane?


Bertie

After I am finished at the office at noon I am going to the airport
and gasp start two engines count em and go out and wildly blow
enough dino dung out the exhaust to send the climate to temperatures
that might even bring the dinosaurs back... T. Rex will worship me...
And I will continue to do this as long as I have breath and enough
money to by fuel...

Amen, brother! Hallelujah!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:37:13 -0700 (PDT), Denny
wrote:

snip

After I am finished at the office at noon I am going to the airport
and gasp start two engines count em and go out and wildly blow
enough dino dung out the exhaust to send the climate to temperatures
that might even bring the dinosaurs back... T. Rex will worship me...
And I will continue to do this as long as I have breath and enough
money to by fuel...

One of the things I like about Denny; you always know where he stands.
Another is he doesn't come up with a buch of lame assed excuses.


denny
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:12:47 +0000 (UTC),
(Alan) wrote:

In article Roger writes:

In previous cycles the temperature rose and then "carbon forcing"
caused the CO2 to rise. This time the CO2 rise is leading the
temperature rise making it one of the causes rather than a result.

So much for out-of-date "facts" when the same scientist says
differently.

The above remarks by Hansen can be found at
www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/temptracker/

So, will you be scrapping the Debonair and ceasing flying to help do
your part? Each gallon/hour is about 18.5 pounds of CO2 per hour added
to the atmosphere.
Strange you should mention that:-))

Efficiency...Efficiency.

Go Diesel!

Also I only fly a fraction of what I used to, but I will readily admit
that is not by choice. I'm serious about the diesel. If I get back
into flying and the engine becomes available the Deb will become a
diesel if the current IO-470N holds out long enough for the major..
The new engines are far more fuel efficient than out current aircraft
engines and the new diesels have far less particulates in the
emissions. OTOH the US currently has some rather poor quality diesel
fuel compared to the EU.


I say this with some seriousness. If people really believe that
releasing CO2 into the atomsphere is risking disaster, they should be
willing to abandon use of fuels for transportation, heating their homes,
and electrical power generation.

IF the figures are correct we could reach acceptable levels by simple
conservation along with renewable energy/fuels OTOH it would require
we change our way of doing things and truely abandon the American love
affair with the automobile including abandoning "flex fuel" credits
except when the vehicle actually uses something other than a fossil
based fuel.
We've also installed automatic/programmable set back thermostats in
the house and shop. We've installed new windows and additional
insulation in the attic and installed a new high efficiency natural
gas furnace . The shop is also well insulated and has 16" of blown in
cellulose overhead. I've looked into both active and passive solar
energy, but in Michigan we aren't even on the "pay-back scale" maps.
In addition I can find no subsidies available for residential sites in
our state and the only federal for residential I find is available for
contractors and new sites. Our zoning makes it difficult for the
individual to build anything substantial. We have low rates coupled
with low sunlight (lotsa clouds) which reduces the payback on a
reasonable system to well beyond 20 years. For us to be independent
of the mains about 75% of the time comes out to about a $50,000
investment. (and that's for a house of only 1000 ft^2)

Here, We've reduced our electrical usage by some 40% plus change in
the last two years. ALL screw in bulbs have been changed to CFLs.
We've gone to a Hybrid car that is currently averaging about 46 MPG.
It does a bit better in the summer.
I only drive the relatively small SUV when I need it to haul *stuff*
that is either to big, too heavy, or too dirty/greasy to put in the
car. I only make a couple trips a week into town and even coordinate
my route/stops to minimize the miles driven. In the warmer weather my
wife rides her bike into town (bout 30 miles round trip by roads for
her) and we've both been retired for some years. She rides about
3,000 miles a year and is an activist in alternative forms of
transportation. So in addition to the increased fuel efficiency we've
cut our miles per year by more than 50%

However IF I used the Deb to visit the kids it's less than a one day
trip. If we drove it'd be several days, two hotel stays, and 12 meals
that could be eliminated so again, even though the Deb currently gets
fewer MPG than the car, flying saves energy and money for long trips.
Unless you keep a car until the wheels are ready to fall off they are
EXPENSIVE to drive when the expenses are calculated in the same manner
as flying. I calculated the cost of flying Vs driving to the Denver
area to visit my daughter. The cheapest two were flying commercially,
or *renting* a car. the Deb came in just under a single non discount
coach class fare. The most expensive was driving our own car.
NOTE the following ignores depreciation: Take for example a car like
ours that gets an average of 46 MPG. Say $30,000 over 5 years
including interest. That's $6000 per year. add to that the $700 plus
or minus a bit for insurance. (plus a lot in some areas). IF you
drive 10,000 miles a year that works out to 67 cents per mile before
we figure gas. OTOH gas at $3.25 is 6.9 cents per mile. IOW the gas at
a bit less than 10% of the total 73.9 cents per mile is still by far
the smallest cost in driving. However, keeping that car just one year
beyond the point where it's paid for drops the cost per mile (assuming
no additional maintenance) by a tad over 10 cents per mile. Like
airplanes, the more you drive/fly the cheaper your cost per hour as
the majority is in fixed costs. BUT with cars and particularly the
new ones and hybrids even more so, the cost of keeping one beyond a
given point can almost become prohibitive UNLESS you do your own work
and have connections for parts. the battery in the hybrid is guarantee
for which ever comes first 8 years or (80 or 100,000 miles - I forget
which) an that sucker costs over $4,000.

Current operational const of the Deb (Including insurance is about
$130/hr. At 13 hours total (6.5 each way) that works out to $1,690
round trip. By road it's about 1,300 miles each way for a total of
2600 @ 73.9 cents a mile or $1921.40 or $231 cheaper not counting
meals for two days plus lodging. Of course, going commercial, shopping
for airfares, and scheduling ahead we could do it for less than $800
for the two of us.

BTW dropping the MPG to 18 just happens to raise the cost to 18 cents
per mile for gas at $3.25 a gallon.
From a practical standpoint/approach we (as a society) aren't going to
eliminate the energy usage, but we can conserve to the point of making
a substantial difference. If our current fleet average (cars AND
trucks) averaged 30 MPG we wouldn't even have to import crude for
motor fuel.


Buying indulgences doesn't solve the problem.

Agreed.



Alan
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

In article Roger writes:

So, will you be scrapping the Debonair and ceasing flying to help do
your part? Each gallon/hour is about 18.5 pounds of CO2 per hour added
to the atmosphere.
Strange you should mention that:-))

Efficiency...Efficiency.

Go Diesel!

Also I only fly a fraction of what I used to, but I will readily admit
that is not by choice. I'm serious about the diesel. If I get back
into flying and the engine becomes available the Deb will become a
diesel if the current IO-470N holds out long enough for the major..
The new engines are far more fuel efficient than out current aircraft
engines and the new diesels have far less particulates in the
emissions. OTOH the US currently has some rather poor quality diesel
fuel compared to the EU.

A good answer for improving efficiency. Other advantages are that
Diesel engines don't spew lead into the atmosphere like running on
100LL does. But, clearly I am a fan - I drive a turbo-diesel car.
However, the current price of Diesel aircraft engines is a pretty
big dis-incentive.

The Diesel fuel is not really an issue to us, since the FAA apparently
doesn't approve use of Diesel fuel in aircraft, so we have to burn Jet-A
instead. Not quite as good performance in the gallons/hour category, but
still lots better than avgas, and a lot easier to get at an airport.


Current operational const of the Deb (Including insurance is about
$130/hr. At 13 hours total (6.5 each way) that works out to $1,690
round trip. By road it's about 1,300 miles each way for a total of
2600 @ 73.9 cents a mile or $1921.40 or $231 cheaper not counting
meals for two days plus lodging. Of course, going commercial, shopping
for airfares, and scheduling ahead we could do it for less than $800
for the two of us.

This is the total cost, but if you are making the decision, you are
really deciding on the marginal cost of the trip, you already have the
car and the airplane. By marginal cost, the car operates for a lot less
than the airplane.

If you are concerned about global warming, you are also needing to
consider the marginal cost of operating either vehicle. The car gets
46 mpg, and I presume the Debonair gets a lot lower mileage (and has
higher startup and shutdown fuel costs operating at each end of the
trip). Since they both burn gasoline, the CO2 emissions are pretty
much determined by the gallons of fuel burned.


From a practical standpoint/approach we (as a society) aren't going to
eliminate the energy usage, but we can conserve to the point of making
a substantial difference. If our current fleet average (cars AND
trucks) averaged 30 MPG we wouldn't even have to import crude for
motor fuel.

And we might discover that turbo-diesels are fun to drive, as well.

If we are serious about CO2 emissions, we should be building nuclear
power plants, and equipment to recycle the spent fuel (which still has
most of its energy left).


Buying indulgences doesn't solve the problem.

Agreed.


Alan