Figuring Out How Much a Hybrid, Diesel, or Small Car Will Save Per Year

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "dbu." > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Campaign
>>>
>>> Michelle was in Army intellegence, she would know would'nt she? I
>>> would think. Maybe.....
>>>
>>> Sort of like John Kerry's trip up the Mekong, LOL.
>>
>> Were you duped by the Swiftboat Liars, or did you willingly believe
>> their lies?
>
> If you believe *anything* Kerry sez, you're dumber than you sound.

He (JT) believes the Swift Boaters.

> Kerry = Bucket of unwanted pig vomit

What were you asking earlier about intelligent discourse? LOL

If Kerry is "unwanted pig vomit", to use your phrase, what does that
make Bush?

Tegger wrote:
> Tony Harding > wrote in news:wFBUi.13493$BT5.3765
> @newsfe18.lga:
>
>> I thought you lived in Canada?
>
> I do.

Just making sure. Ever live in the US?

Tony Harding > wrote in news:YyeVi.643$FZ5.255
@newsfe12.lga:

> Tegger wrote:
>> Tony Harding > wrote in news:wFBUi.13493$BT5.3765
>> @newsfe18.lga:
>>
>>> I thought you lived in Canada?
>>
>> I do.
>
> Just making sure. Ever live in the US?
>


Nope. Been there lots of times though.

--
Tegger

Tegger wrote:
> Tony Harding > wrote in news:YyeVi.643$FZ5.255
> @newsfe12.lga:
>
>> Tegger wrote:
>>> Tony Harding > wrote in news:wFBUi.13493$BT5.3765
>>> @newsfe18.lga:
>>>
>>>> I thought you lived in Canada?
>>> I do.
>> Just making sure. Ever live in the US?
>
> Nope. Been there lots of times though.

Okay, welcome to the US of A, then.

> Well, not exactly what I had in mind, I was thinking more of hybrids
> being able to reduce Carbon emissions and that you cant put a price on
> that. That sort of stuff and no mass murder involved.
>

Ever wonder what the extra $5000 or so hybrids cost is for?
Largely energy.
To properly energy cost factor a car or anything else you must include
all inception to salvage.

Jesse wrote:
>
>> Well, not exactly what I had in mind, I was thinking more of hybrids
>> being able to reduce Carbon emissions and that you cant put a price on
>> that. That sort of stuff and no mass murder involved.
>>
>
> Ever wonder what the extra $5000 or so hybrids cost is for?
> Largely energy.
> To properly energy cost factor a car or anything else you must include
> all inception to salvage.


OTOH, the *source* of the energy needs to be considered in measuring
the carbon footprint. Hydro or nuclear (not that I support that) power
have little carbon emissions associated with them, but coal-fired power
plants are another story entirely. There are a lot of factors that need
to be considered, not just two or three.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:01:11 GMT, "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"
> wrote:

>Jesse wrote:
>>
>>> Well, not exactly what I had in mind, I was thinking more of hybrids
>>> being able to reduce Carbon emissions and that you cant put a price on
>>> that. That sort of stuff and no mass murder involved.
>>>
>>
>> Ever wonder what the extra $5000 or so hybrids cost is for?
>> Largely energy.
>> To properly energy cost factor a car or anything else you must include
>> all inception to salvage.
>
>
> OTOH, the *source* of the energy needs to be considered in measuring
>the carbon footprint. Hydro or nuclear (not that I support that) power
>have little carbon emissions associated with them, but coal-fired power
>plants are another story entirely. There are a lot of factors that need
>to be considered, not just two or three.

Nuke plants DO have a carbon footprint and it's pretty big. While
it's true that the plant doesn't put out any carbon while running it
needs enriched uranium to operate. Enriching the fuel requires a lot
of electricity. The concentration of uranium in the ore is very low
which requires a lot of processing (compared to coal). So getting the
fuel for a nuke plant will result in more CO2 output than just using
coal to generate the same amount of power.

Nuke plants really only make sense when you need them to generate the
material needed to make bombs.

Jack

Retired VIP wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:01:11 GMT, "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Jesse wrote:
>>
>>>>Well, not exactly what I had in mind, I was thinking more of hybrids
>>>>being able to reduce Carbon emissions and that you cant put a price on
>>>>that. That sort of stuff and no mass murder involved.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ever wonder what the extra $5000 or so hybrids cost is for?
>>>Largely energy.
>>>To properly energy cost factor a car or anything else you must include
>>>all inception to salvage.
>>
>>
>> OTOH, the *source* of the energy needs to be considered in measuring
>>the carbon footprint. Hydro or nuclear (not that I support that) power
>>have little carbon emissions associated with them, but coal-fired power
>>plants are another story entirely. There are a lot of factors that need
>>to be considered, not just two or three.
>
>
> Nuke plants DO have a carbon footprint and it's pretty big. While
> it's true that the plant doesn't put out any carbon while running it
> needs enriched uranium to operate. Enriching the fuel requires a lot
> of electricity. The concentration of uranium in the ore is very low
> which requires a lot of processing (compared to coal). So getting the
> fuel for a nuke plant will result in more CO2 output than just using
> coal to generate the same amount of power.
>
> Nuke plants really only make sense when you need them to generate the
> material needed to make bombs.
>
> Jack


That illustrates my point about complexity, anyway. Thanks for the
correction. Do you have any figures to support the 'worse than coal'
claim, though? Coal puts out a *lot* of CO2...

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:18:46 GMT, Retired VIP
> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:01:11 GMT, "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"
> wrote:
>
>>Jesse wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, not exactly what I had in mind, I was thinking more of hybrids
>>>> being able to reduce Carbon emissions and that you cant put a price on
>>>> that. That sort of stuff and no mass murder involved.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ever wonder what the extra $5000 or so hybrids cost is for?
>>> Largely energy.
>>> To properly energy cost factor a car or anything else you must include
>>> all inception to salvage.
>>
>>
>> OTOH, the *source* of the energy needs to be considered in measuring
>>the carbon footprint. Hydro or nuclear (not that I support that) power
>>have little carbon emissions associated with them, but coal-fired power
>>plants are another story entirely. There are a lot of factors that need
>>to be considered, not just two or three.
>
>Nuke plants DO have a carbon footprint and it's pretty big. While
>it's true that the plant doesn't put out any carbon while running it
>needs enriched uranium to operate. Enriching the fuel requires a lot
>of electricity. The concentration of uranium in the ore is very low
>which requires a lot of processing (compared to coal). So getting the
>fuel for a nuke plant will result in more CO2 output than just using
>coal to generate the same amount of power.

That doesn't sound right. Since CO2 is (more or less) directly
proportional to energy when burning fossil fuels, the above statement
implies that it takes more energy to make the enriched uranium than
what you get out of it when it powers the reactor. I am pretty sure
that isn't true. Reactors are cheap to run (for the energy they
generate.) It is the construction and dismantling of the plants that
is so expensive.








>
>Nuke plants really only make sense when you need them to generate the
>material needed to make bombs.
>
>Jack

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:18:46 GMT, Retired VIP
> > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:01:11 GMT, "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Jesse wrote:
>>>>> Well, not exactly what I had in mind, I was thinking more of hybrids
>>>>> being able to reduce Carbon emissions and that you cant put a price on
>>>>> that. That sort of stuff and no mass murder involved.
>>>>>
>>>> Ever wonder what the extra $5000 or so hybrids cost is for?
>>>> Largely energy.
>>>> To properly energy cost factor a car or anything else you must include
>>>> all inception to salvage.
>>>
>>> OTOH, the *source* of the energy needs to be considered in measuring
>>> the carbon footprint. Hydro or nuclear (not that I support that) power
>>> have little carbon emissions associated with them, but coal-fired power
>>> plants are another story entirely. There are a lot of factors that need
>>> to be considered, not just two or three.
>> Nuke plants DO have a carbon footprint and it's pretty big. While
>> it's true that the plant doesn't put out any carbon while running it
>> needs enriched uranium to operate. Enriching the fuel requires a lot
>> of electricity. The concentration of uranium in the ore is very low
>> which requires a lot of processing (compared to coal). So getting the
>> fuel for a nuke plant will result in more CO2 output than just using
>> coal to generate the same amount of power.
>
> That doesn't sound right. Since CO2 is (more or less) directly
> proportional to energy when burning fossil fuels, the above statement
> implies that it takes more energy to make the enriched uranium than
> what you get out of it when it powers the reactor. I am pretty sure
> that isn't true. Reactors are cheap to run (for the energy they
> generate.) It is the construction and dismantling of the plants that
> is so expensive.

And the disposal of spent fuel and contaminated items.