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

You are entitled to your own opinion but my one son bought one, $1,700,
looks great, and has all the bells and whistles except for one problem, it
does not get the job done. When he questioned the manufacturer about the
problem he was told to run the load a second time. They suggested he try
running half the recommended clothing load. I can only imagine how bad
they are if one lives where they have hard water.



As to the toilets, they work fine for urine but they do not flush waste
properly and must be flushed a second time.



How does that make the washing the new machines and toilets save water?



Typical wacko ideas foisted upon the people by a government afraid of the
environuts. Wait untill they are done with us on the man destroying the
plant with CO2 crap LOL









"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:ighvj.59688$we5.57277@trnddc02...
> Mike hunt wrote:
>> It appears one will need to buy ones washing machines on line from
>> Canada, same as we buy new toilets, if we want machines that work well.
>> LOL
>>
>>
>>
>> "Jeff" > wrote in message
>> news:VQ6vj.58138$we5.6519@trnddc02...
>
> <....
>
>>> I suspect that the materials used to make the front-loading washers are
>>> a little more expensive. They may be more expensive to make just because
>>> the washer machine companies haven't been making them for some time.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>
> What is wrong with the toilets that we have in the US? You can buy ones
> that work well and save water here.
>
> What is wrong with the washing machines you can buy here? You can buy them
> for a few hundred dollars. And if you want higher quality, you have to pay
> for it.
>
> Jeff
>

Mike hunt wrote:
> You are entitled to your own opinion but my one son bought one, $1,700,
> looks great, and has all the bells and whistles except for one problem, it
> does not get the job done. When he questioned the manufacturer about the
> problem he was told to run the load a second time. They suggested he try
> running half the recommended clothing load. I can only imagine how bad
> they are if one lives where they have hard water.
>
>
>
> As to the toilets, they work fine for urine but they do not flush waste
> properly and must be flushed a second time.
>
>
>
> How does that make the washing the new machines and toilets save water?
>
>
>
> Typical wacko ideas foisted upon the people by a government afraid of the
> environuts. Wait untill they are done with us on the man destroying the
> plant with CO2 crap LOL
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> news:ighvj.59688$we5.57277@trnddc02...
>> Mike hunt wrote:
>>> It appears one will need to buy ones washing machines on line from
>>> Canada, same as we buy new toilets, if we want machines that work well.
>>> LOL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jeff" > wrote in message
>>> news:VQ6vj.58138$we5.6519@trnddc02...
>> <....
>>
>>>> I suspect that the materials used to make the front-loading washers are
>>>> a little more expensive. They may be more expensive to make just because
>>>> the washer machine companies haven't been making them for some time.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>> What is wrong with the toilets that we have in the US? You can buy ones
>> that work well and save water here.
>>
>> What is wrong with the washing machines you can buy here? You can buy them
>> for a few hundred dollars. And if you want higher quality, you have to pay
>> for it.
>>
>> Jeff

It's not my fault that you use appliances that don't work well. There
are very good toilets that flush well and don't use lots of water. And
there washing machines that clean well.

While quality does cost more, spending more does not ensure quality.

Jeff

Gordon McGrew wrote:


>
>
> It certainly takes energy (much of it necessarily in the form of
> fossil fuel) to mine and process the ore into nuclear fuel, but this
> doesn't mean that there isn't a big net savings in CO2 emission. A
> pound of nuclear fuel provides energy equivalent to 100,000 barrels of
> oil. Even if it takes a hundred barrels to refine it, that is still a
> huge reduction in CO2.
>
> This isn't an unqualified endorsement of nuclear energy, but it does
> have potential to reduce greenhouse gases.
>
>


But what about the fact that raw data indicates that CO2 levels indicate
a lagging property?

JT

Like I said you are entitled to your own opinion


"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:qjivj.59699$we5.40648@trnddc02...
> Mike hunt wrote:
>> You are entitled to your own opinion but my one son bought one, $1,700,
>> looks great, and has all the bells and whistles except for one problem,
>> it does not get the job done. When he questioned the manufacturer about
>> the problem he was told to run the load a second time. They suggested he
>> try running half the recommended clothing load. I can only imagine how
>> bad they are if one lives where they have hard water.
>>
>>
>>
>> As to the toilets, they work fine for urine but they do not flush waste
>> properly and must be flushed a second time.
>>
>>
>>
>> How does that make the washing the new machines and toilets save water?
>>
>>
>>
>> Typical wacko ideas foisted upon the people by a government afraid of the
>> environuts. Wait untill they are done with us on the man destroying the
>> plant with CO2 crap LOL
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Jeff" > wrote in message
>> news:ighvj.59688$we5.57277@trnddc02...
>>> Mike hunt wrote:
>>>> It appears one will need to buy ones washing machines on line from
>>>> Canada, same as we buy new toilets, if we want machines that work well.
>>>> LOL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Jeff" > wrote in message
>>>> news:VQ6vj.58138$we5.6519@trnddc02...
>>> <....
>>>
>>>>> I suspect that the materials used to make the front-loading washers
>>>>> are a little more expensive. They may be more expensive to make just
>>>>> because the washer machine companies haven't been making them for some
>>>>> time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>> What is wrong with the toilets that we have in the US? You can buy ones
>>> that work well and save water here.
>>>
>>> What is wrong with the washing machines you can buy here? You can buy
>>> them for a few hundred dollars. And if you want higher quality, you have
>>> to pay for it.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>
> It's not my fault that you use appliances that don't work well. There are
> very good toilets that flush well and don't use lots of water. And there
> washing machines that clean well.
>
> While quality does cost more, spending more does not ensure quality.
>
> Jeff

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:13:57 -0600, Gordon McGrew
> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:55:29 GMT, Retired VIP
> wrote:
>
>>Nuke plants need a certain percentage of U235 (an isotope of uranium).
>>I don't know the exact percentage of U235 needed but the overwhelming
>>majority of all mined uranium is U238 which is only mildly radioactive
>>and won't sustain a nuclear chain reaction in the type of reactors
>>used in the US.
>
>I think you have that backwards but you seem to correct it below.

No, I got it right. U235 is the less stable isotope, U238 is more
stable and is the more common isotope. U238 contains small amounts of
U235 and since the only difference between them is the atomic weight
(number of protons & neutrons) the only way to separate them is by
using the weight of the atom. That's how centrifuge enrichment works.
>
>> Enrichment requires a lot of energy to generate the
>>magnetic fields and to convert the U238 into a gas. The gas is passed
>>through the enrichment process several times as the process takes
>>place at the atomic level (you might say one atom at a time).
>>
>>Most of the electrical power in the US is generated by coal fired
>>plants. Add in the CO2 produced by the mining machines and trucks
>>needed to haul the ore. CO2 used by the manufacturing processes to
>>produce the fuel tubes and build and maintain a long-term storage site
>>and you're talking about a lot more CO2 than would be produced by the
>>coal-fired plant supplying the load directly.
>
>It certainly takes energy (much of it necessarily in the form of
>fossil fuel) to mine and process the ore into nuclear fuel, but this
>doesn't mean that there isn't a big net savings in CO2 emission. A
>pound of nuclear fuel provides energy equivalent to 100,000 barrels of
>oil. Even if it takes a hundred barrels to refine it, that is still a
>huge reduction in CO2.
>
>This isn't an unqualified endorsement of nuclear energy, but it does
>have potential to reduce greenhouse gases.
>
You would be right if all of the potential energy of a pound of
nuclear fuel could be used, but it can't be for a lot of different
reasons. Currently we can only extract a small percentage (less than
10%) of the total before the fuel has to be re-processed to remove the
byproducts of the chain reaction. The byproducts will poison the fuel
by acting as chain reaction dampeners. This reduces the amount of
heat the pile can develop and the amount of work the reactor can
provide. Re-processing a pound of fuel is more energy intensive and
much more dangerous than make a new pound of fuel. These byproducts
are highly radioactive and their half life ranges from around 10 years
to well over 100,000 years.

I am against generating electrical power using nuke plants. Not
because of environmental issues but because it is not an economical
method of generating electricity when you consider ALL of the costs
associated with it.

As for greenhouse gases, why do you not want to reduce the greatest
greenhouse gas of all, water vapor? Water vapor has been proven to be
a very effective greenhouse gas, we prove that on cloudy nights when
the temperature stays high. On clear nights, the temperature drops a
lot. Spend the night in a desert sometime and see, 100+ during the
day and close to freezing at night.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:59:49 -0000, "Chas Gill"
> wrote:

>
>"Jeff" > wrote in message
>news:VQ6vj.58138$we5.6519@trnddc02...
>> Jesse wrote:
>>> we have carbon
>>>> footprint in manufacturing washing machines but we still buy and use
>>>> them. who would want to wash clothes with their hands by the river. We
>>>> did not have mobile phones years ago, but now leaving your mobile
>>>> phone when you go out is like you have a feeling that you forgot to
>>>> wear your pants. Yep, there is no free lunch, but with this lunch your
>>>> next meal would be breakfast on the next day and not dinner time
>>>
>>> The comparison is not of Hybrids or walking.
>>> The Hybrid car's additional cost to make is due to what?
>>
>> The cost of the batteries (which are expensive and use relatively new
>> technology compared to the lead-acid batteries that usually start cars),
>> the electric motor, and the electronics to control the hybrid system.
>> There might also be an additional cost for the transmission or device that
>> connects the motor to the rest of the drive train.
>
>Yes, the batteries are costly, but it's hardly fair to refer to them as "new
>technology" - Ni-MH batteries have been around for a very long time now.
>And the transmission device is far simpler than the average auto box and
>much cheaper to manufacture. Maintenance costs for it reflect that
>simplicity, i.e. zero. Much of what is said about the Prius is hearsay and
>guesswork (Note "there might also be and additional cost...", rather than
>"the cost difference is..."). I confess I don't know the whole life carbon
>load of a Prius when compared to a non-hybrid equivalent vehicle, but until
>somebody actually comes up with verifiable facts and figures I will continue
>to drive it believing that I am doing considerable good rather than
>considerable evil in terms of the environment - and the improved gas
>performance is really a bonus. Oh, and by the way, here in the UK the Prius
>starts at around £18,000, which appears to be getting on for twice what it
>costs in the States. If I were living over there I would be biting your
>hand off (a quaint British expression to indicate enthusiasm;-)) to get one.
>
>Chas

Based on my experience in London last year, if something costs $50 in
the US, it will cost about £50 in London.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:58:11 GMT, Retired VIP
> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:13:57 -0600, Gordon McGrew
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:55:29 GMT, Retired VIP
> wrote:
>>
>>>Nuke plants need a certain percentage of U235 (an isotope of uranium).
>>>I don't know the exact percentage of U235 needed but the overwhelming
>>>majority of all mined uranium is U238 which is only mildly radioactive
>>>and won't sustain a nuclear chain reaction in the type of reactors
>>>used in the US.
>>
>>I think you have that backwards but you seem to correct it below.
>
>No, I got it right. U235 is the less stable isotope, U238 is more
>stable and is the more common isotope. U238 contains small amounts of
>U235 and since the only difference between them is the atomic weight
>(number of protons & neutrons) the only way to separate them is by
>using the weight of the atom. That's how centrifuge enrichment works.
>>
>>> Enrichment requires a lot of energy to generate the
>>>magnetic fields and to convert the U238 into a gas. The gas is passed
>>>through the enrichment process several times as the process takes
>>>place at the atomic level (you might say one atom at a time).
>>>
>>>Most of the electrical power in the US is generated by coal fired
>>>plants. Add in the CO2 produced by the mining machines and trucks
>>>needed to haul the ore. CO2 used by the manufacturing processes to
>>>produce the fuel tubes and build and maintain a long-term storage site
>>>and you're talking about a lot more CO2 than would be produced by the
>>>coal-fired plant supplying the load directly.
>>
>>It certainly takes energy (much of it necessarily in the form of
>>fossil fuel) to mine and process the ore into nuclear fuel, but this
>>doesn't mean that there isn't a big net savings in CO2 emission. A
>>pound of nuclear fuel provides energy equivalent to 100,000 barrels of
>>oil. Even if it takes a hundred barrels to refine it, that is still a
>>huge reduction in CO2.
>>
>>This isn't an unqualified endorsement of nuclear energy, but it does
>>have potential to reduce greenhouse gases.
>>
>You would be right if all of the potential energy of a pound of
>nuclear fuel could be used, but it can't be for a lot of different
>reasons.

My approximation was based on the delivered KWH from uranium without
reprocessing. With reprocessing, you can get about ten times as much.

>Currently we can only extract a small percentage (less than
>10%) of the total before the fuel has to be re-processed to remove the
>byproducts of the chain reaction. The byproducts will poison the fuel
>by acting as chain reaction dampeners. This reduces the amount of
>heat the pile can develop and the amount of work the reactor can
>provide. Re-processing a pound of fuel is more energy intensive and
>much more dangerous than make a new pound of fuel.

I don't know about that but even if it is so, the net CO2 reduction is
still enormous. Simple logic tells you that they must be getting a
lot more energy out than they are putting in or no one would bother.

> These byproducts
>are highly radioactive and their half life ranges from around 10 years
>to well over 100,000 years.

And it's a big problem but there is still a CO2 reduction.

>I am against generating electrical power using nuke plants. Not
>because of environmental issues but because it is not an economical
>method of generating electricity when you consider ALL of the costs
>associated with it.

Tell me about it, I am paying the bills. However, you do have to also
consider the environmental costs. If everything goes right, the nuke
will do a lot less harm than a coal-fired plant. However, one little
oops and the costs - fiscal and environmental -- skyrocket.

>As for greenhouse gases, why do you not want to reduce the greatest
>greenhouse gas of all, water vapor? Water vapor has been proven to be
>a very effective greenhouse gas, we prove that on cloudy nights when
>the temperature stays high. On clear nights, the temperature drops a
>lot. Spend the night in a desert sometime and see, 100+ during the
>day and close to freezing at night.

Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas and man has
negligible direct effect on it. OTOH CO2 and methane are rising
dramatically due to human activities and their influence on total
warming is very significant. As the planet warms, the level of water
vapor increases. Thus man's effect on water vapor is indirect but
very real. Note that increased water vapor warms the planet which
causes a further increase in water vapor. This is one of the factors
in the runaway warming model and you do not want to go there.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:33:11 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
> wrote:

>
>
>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> It certainly takes energy (much of it necessarily in the form of
>> fossil fuel) to mine and process the ore into nuclear fuel, but this
>> doesn't mean that there isn't a big net savings in CO2 emission. A
>> pound of nuclear fuel provides energy equivalent to 100,000 barrels of
>> oil. Even if it takes a hundred barrels to refine it, that is still a
>> huge reduction in CO2.
>>
>> This isn't an unqualified endorsement of nuclear energy, but it does
>> have potential to reduce greenhouse gases.
>>
>>
>
>
>But what about the fact that raw data indicates that CO2 levels indicate
>a lagging property?

You are referring to geologic data indicating that in past (natural)
warming cycles, warming preceded CO2 rises by about 1000 years. This
is because past warming events weren't initiated by CO2. However, once
initiated, warming causes increased CO2 levels which cause further
warming. Even though the cycle wasn't initiated by a rise in CO2,
rising CO2 drove it further than it would have gone otherwise.

This new cycle is different. It is initiated by CO2 and it is
advancing very rapidly. If we reach a tipping point (and some
scientists believe that we are getting close) the process will start
running away and no one can say how far it will go.

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

The CO2 (and SO2, NOx - you forgot these) from coal power far, far exceeds
the total "carbon footprint" of a modern nuclear plant *including* the
construction of the plant and production of the fuel.

http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/phys/nukew...uc_v_coal.html

And don't forget - coal extraction can be devastating to the environment:
90 million gallons of waste slurry produced every year while preparing coal
to be burned, 1,200+ miles of streams that have been buried or polluted -
just in in the Appalachia region because of mountaintop removal mining, 260
million gallons of water used for coal mining in the U.S. every day, 12,000
miners died from black lung disease between 1992 and 2002...

a

a wrote:
> 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
>
> The CO2 (and SO2, NOx - you forgot these) from coal power far, far
> exceeds the total "carbon footprint" of a modern nuclear plant
> *including* the construction of the plant and production of the fuel.
>
> http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/phys/nukew...uc_v_coal.html
>
> And don't forget - coal extraction can be devastating to the environment:
> 90 million gallons of waste slurry produced every year while preparing
> coal to be burned, 1,200+ miles of streams that have been buried or
> polluted - just in in the Appalachia region because of mountaintop
> removal mining, 260 million gallons of water used for coal mining in the
> U.S. every day, 12,000 miners died from black lung disease between 1992
> and 2002...
>
> a

Stop it! Please don't confuse the members of the group with facts. It
only clarifies issues.

Jeff