human powered approaches vs heli, planes, skidoos

[tvashtarkatena]

A gallon of biodeisel or ethanol (by far the more common fuel product from this source, and one that contains far less energy per gallon than gasoline) made from corn oil grown by conventional agricultural means takes more than a gallon of gas in fertilizer, pesticides, transport, and processing costs to produce.

 

1) No, it doesn't. The best estimates (from Scientific American article on biofuels) is that a gallon of fossil fuel will get you approximately 1.3 gallons of ethanol from corn. Or 1.9 gallons of biodiesel from soy. or ~20 gallons of ethanol from brazilian sugarcane.....

 

2) you don't get biodiesel from corn. Mazola aside, corn doesn't make a lot of oil. You get biodiesel from oilseed crops like soy, sunflower, etc.

 

Yes, I read the article, but your synopsis of it is flawed. For example, you're ignoring the fact that a gallon of ethanol has far less energy than a gallon of gasoline, negating the 'net gain' of producing ethanol from corn. Secondly, you're not addressing the long term environmental damage from conventional corn production. Third, Brazil does enjoy the ability to produce biofuels sustainably: because it's on the fucking equator and has more solar energy to put into plant biomass production. Last time I checked, we were in a temperate zone that does not have that luxury.

[counterfeitfake]

Aaaaaanyway, some of you jackasses are totally missing the point of the original poster.

 

umm - isn't it like, hard or something, to get to pakistan, nepal and patagonia (the kinda tr's you usually see in said magazines) from the usa via a subaru?

 

I acutally laughed when I read this- that's the whole point. You don't have to go to Pakistan, Nepal, and Patagonia.

 

I think if you boil this down you get the point that climbing is at it's root a selfish activity. I don't see this as being particularly damming- selfishness is the primary motivator for most of us. We want to have fun, we want things to be convenient. I'm not different, I'll hop a plane or a helicopter to get to a destination I'm interested in.

 

But I think it's valid when someone asks me to think about the impact I'm having. Why do some of you get so bent out of shape?

[fenderfour]

This report focuses only on the emissions produced from the final burning of the fuel, and does not include the emissions from it's production.

 

Yes. I should think that the emissions from the production of gasoline are of a similar quantity if not the same chemically.

 

As I spent 10 minutes googling and skimming. One of the major accounted benefits of biodiesel is that producing more biodiesel pulls more CO2 out of the air.

[ClimbingPanther]

Maybe we should look at fuel rationing without price increase. Keeps consumption low without screwing the poor.

 

:lmao: :lmao:

 

is it really that crazy? why? curtails the practice of commuting from LA-San Diego and other ridiculous uses of fuel while allowing a reasonable amount of use for everyday needs of people of all economic standing.

[cj001f]

But I think it's valid when someone asks me to think about the impact I'm having. Why do some of you get so bent out of shape?

 

Not bent out of shape, I just think it silly given the rudimentary tools the individual has to measure their total impact to parade private perhaps virtue in public. Their is such wide variety in impact between various modes and methods and so little information judging the impact that it's all rather farcical.

[tvashtarkatena]

This report focuses only on the emissions produced from the final burning of the fuel, and does not include the emissions from it's production.

 

Yes. I should think that the emissions from the production of gasoline are of a similar quantity if not the same chemically.

 

As I spent 10 minutes googling and skimming. One of the major accounted benefits of biodiesel is that producing more biodiesel pulls more CO2 out of the air.

 

Not if produced by conventional 'factory farm' agricultural practices, and that is the main catch.

[G-spotter]

I reread the article and it's not 1.3 gallons of ethanol per gallon of gasoline, but 130% efficiency. So that's more than 1.3 gallons of ethnol because of the reduced energy density.

[G-spotter]

This report focuses only on the emissions produced from the final burning of the fuel, and does not include the emissions from it's production.

 

Yes. I should think that the emissions from the production of gasoline are of a similar quantity if not the same chemically.

 

As I spent 10 minutes googling and skimming. One of the major accounted benefits of biodiesel is that producing more biodiesel pulls more CO2 out of the air.

 

Not if produced by conventional 'factory farm' agricultural practices, and that is the main catch.

 

Yeah and organic farming will do a better job, since organic yields are ~50% of factory farm yields?

[ClimbingPanther]

With all the talk about industrial carbon caps and rationing, why is it crazy to talk about private caps?

[tvashtarkatena]

This report focuses only on the emissions produced from the final burning of the fuel, and does not include the emissions from it's production.

 

Yes. I should think that the emissions from the production of gasoline are of a similar quantity if not the same chemically.

 

As I spent 10 minutes googling and skimming. One of the major accounted benefits of biodiesel is that producing more biodiesel pulls more CO2 out of the air.

 

Not if produced by conventional 'factory farm' agricultural practices, and that is the main catch.

 

Yeah and organic farming will do a better job, since organic yields are ~50% of factory farm yields?

 

It's apparent from this blanket statement that you not only do not know a thing about organic farming, but that you also don't know how to put together an argument. It's well known that organic agricultural yields per unit of fuel are far, far higher than factory farms. It's also well known that they maintain sustainable top soil health; something factory farms do not.

[ClimbingPanther]

I don't think that was Dru's point, and he does have an argument. Half the yield means twice the cleared land required to produce it which means we leave a bigger footprint. The savings in fuel come with a huge spike in manpower. It's not a very viable alternative, even if it truly is an attractive option from the standpoint of the energy efficiency equation.

[justplanecrazy]

Aaaaaanyway, some of you jackasses are totally missing the point of the original poster.

 

umm - isn't it like, hard or something, to get to pakistan, nepal and patagonia (the kinda tr's you usually see in said magazines) from the usa via a subaru?

 

I acutally laughed when I read this- that's the whole point. You don't have to go to Pakistan, Nepal, and Patagonia.

 

I think if you boil this down you get the point that climbing is at it's root a selfish activity. I don't see this as being particularly damming- selfishness is the primary motivator for most of us. We want to have fun, we want things to be convenient. I'm not different, I'll hop a plane or a helicopter to get to a destination I'm interested in.

 

But I think it's valid when someone asks me to think about the impact I'm having. Why do some of you get so bent out of shape?

 

That's the key right there. Now that we're talking about industry and how they can save the environment, we're all being very professional and cooperative. The moment you point your finger at someone's obviously needless fuel consumption, then it's personal and many people take offence. Saving the world is great as long as I don't have to change anything I'm already doing.

[tvashtarkatena]

I don't think that was Dru's point, and he does have an argument. Half the yield means twice the cleared land required to produce it which means we leave a bigger footprint. The savings in fuel come with a huge spike in manpower. It's not a very viable alternative, even if it truly is an attractive option from the standpoint of the energy efficiency equation.

 

Dru's made up his 50% figure and, of course, it's bullshit. Also, organic farming often requires the same or less manpower than conventional. Here's an example from an organic dairy I just visited: Instead of keeping the cows penned up and bringing them siloed grass and hay (conventional farm), they graze their cows on a rotation schedule that allows native grasses to grow sustainably. Their calves are healthier. Their vet bills are lower. And the kicker: WAY less manpower for the same yield: and they loose 100 times less soil per acre during heavy rains than their conventional neighbors.

 

What you read from guys like Dru is a non-practitioner's erroneous opinion of an industry he knows little to nothing about in any depth. Unfortunately, this kind of ignorance is widespread. Gee, I wonder why?

[ClimbingPanther]

OK, so for animals that may be true, but we're not talking about animals for fuel. I've actually DONE some crop work on an organic farm and I can promise you the yield is lower and manpower way higher than if they'd just bought a bottle of pesticide.

[tvashtarkatena]

That's the key right there. Now that we're talking about industry and how they can save the environment, we're all being very professional and cooperative. The moment you point your finger at someone's obviously needless fuel consumption, then it's personal and many people take offence. Saving the world is great as long as I don't have to change anything I'm already doing.

 

Since you're refering to my previous post, I'll answer your question. BTW, 2 out of the three main sources of I mentioned previously happen to be commuting and home energy usage: not industry.

 

In the past 5 years I've installed an energy efficient refrigerator, dishwasher, furnace, on demand water heater, switched to compact flourescents, timed low volume irrigation, an organic garden, cancelled my yard waste and do full composting, started riding a motor cycle, and stopped commuting. My home energy consumption is now 20% of other similar households in my area (our utilities provide this statistic).

 

So...what have YOU done, heli-boy?

[tvashtarkatena]

OK, so for animals that may be true, but we're not talking about animals for fuel. I've actually DONE some crop work on an organic farm and I can promise you the yield is lower and manpower way higher than if they'd just bought a bottle of pesticide.

 

Well, I hate to refute an expert who has DONE some crop work, but...

 

...the amount of our total annual corn production used for feed (and associated byproducts) is twice as much as for all other uses...so I think the way we raise animals has just a little bit to do with the issue. Graze 'em and the corn issue (and a whole bunch of other environmental and health issues) go away. The majority of the remaining corn production goes into high fructose corn syrup production: an absolutely essential ingredient for a balanced diet.

 

The idea is not to hoe corn by hand: it's to stop growing so much of the shit altogether.

 

Everything you never wanted to know about corn

 

 

Edited August 29, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[ClimbingPanther]

while we're discussing issues related to the energy efficiency of producing corn organically or not, let's have a show of hands for who loves David Hasselhoff

[tvashtarkatena]

As long as those leathers were produced sustainably, I love him.

[justplanecrazy]

That's the key right there. Now that we're talking about industry and how they can save the environment, we're all being very professional and cooperative. The moment you point your finger at someone's obviously needless fuel consumption, then it's personal and many people take offence. Saving the world is great as long as I don't have to change anything I'm already doing.

 

Since you're refering to my previous post, I'll answer your question. BTW, 2 out of the three main sources of I mentioned previously happen to be commuting and home energy usage: not industry.

 

In the past 5 years I've installed an energy efficient refrigerator, dishwasher, furnace, on demand water heater, switched to compact flourescents, timed low volume irrigation, an organic garden, cancelled my yard waste and do full composting, started riding a motor cycle, and stopped commuting. My home energy consumption is now 20% of other similar households in my area (our utilities provide this statistic).

 

So...what have YOU done, heli-boy?

 

Good on you, my post was directed at those that continue to use heli's for an added convenience without second thought.

 

I've done what I can, living in a condo that is energy efficient unlike 3,000sq' houses, flourescent bulbs, good fuel mileage vehicles, riding pedal bike to work, wearing underwear multi days, and using energy efficient restaurant kitchens. The last two may be due to my bachelor tendencies. Most importantly reducing my gas consumption by 50% by not using helis on uneeded approaches.

[dan_forester]

THE SOLUTION:

 

 

Powered by the Rasta Bivy Kit?

[tvashtarkatena]

wearing underwear multi days, and using energy efficient restaurant kitchens.

 

The former should cut the latter down by half, as you don't have to worry about taking anyone out for a bite.

[hefeweizen]

while we're discussing issues related to the energy efficiency of producing corn organically or not, let's have a show of hands for who loves David Hasselhoff

 

DON'T HASSEL THE HOFF!!

[JayB]

The common thread here is that subsidizing corn-ethanol production to the tune of 50 cents a gallon, while imposing a ~50 cent a gallon tarriff on ethanol imports from poorer countries that can produce ethanol way more efficiently with way less impact is just as dumb as all hell - both from an environmental and economic standpoint.

 

 

[David Trippett]

Helicopters are aid.... so?

 

if you choose to make the argument that you make your decisions based on some far reaching altruism for planet saving, then I would argue you need to learn more about earth history and evolutionary biology.

 

since this conversation seems to have civilized a bit, let's take this down a critical path........my question is:

 

Why should I give a rat's ass about the current state of the earth? Before you even attempt to respond, really try to think about how much you actually know about the answer and how much is garbage you've been fed without examining critically. This is a serious question....those of you who honestly believe that you have some role in saving the the universe please feel free to respond.

 

To me it seems that humans have some how become so completely alienated from the same process that made them and every other living thing as well, that we somehow think that the way we act is unnatural. The same process that made every living thing on this planet made us and it's primary goal seems to be the diversification and spread of DNA. We are astonishingly good at that apparently.Perhaps too good. I know I've been working vigourously at spreading mine.

 

The history of the planet is filled with the stories of countless terminal lineages, why should I really care if we as a species live or die? I can tell all of you that the Earth has gone through events violent and unparalleled in modern history, and will again.... and comes out the other end in fine shape. The Earth is DYNAMIC, that means always changing. Get your head out of your own time-scale.

 

The survival of a species has always been largely based upon its ability to innovate survival mechanisms and propegate faster than the species is terminated by various environmental factors. Many humans seem to think that they are no longer part of this system. We are right in the thick of it. Only this time termination may come at our own hands, a relatively novel idea in earth history, although not unique.

 

So, what it comes down to is that I am a fan of nature, not man. I personally, am rooting for the process that made us, not us...because it is so infinitely beautiful, ruthless and economical that I must delight.

 

You, Mr. Human, are a slimy, large-lobed bottom feeder that lives at the depths of an ocean of nitrogen on a sand grain floating through a sea of cosmos... a better version of the DNA spreader is already in the works at some deep oceanic vent or other such cess-pool and is just waiting in queue for it's chance to fuck itself into oblivion like you are.

 

 

I hold some vague hope that our species will hold it together, and things like jazz, art and (most) climbers give me hope. Ultimately, I find "environmentalists" are the most selfish becuase they seek to preserve the earth in some arbitrary state that they have deemed satisfactory....and for what? To save the planet? The planet is fine....you just want to save yourself and preserve things as they are so you can go climb some route or look at a glacier.....well, dude I want Gondwana back so I can walk to Africa....but it's gone man, let it go.

 

I think a better term for the "environmentalist" movement is the "static preservationalist" movement as it so much better describes what you kooks are up to. (movement is such a good word, like a bowel movement)

 

 

 

The game was over before it started: Earth-1 Humans-0

 

 

 

...Some may confuse this as fatalist and laissez faire, but it's not. I love my home and all it's wonders, particularly Brazilian women, that's why I take care of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bug]

I suspect you don't have any children.