[RWB929]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

After spending a day walking around downtown London, you'll blow black boogers. Ew. I was appalled when I saw there are American cab companies looking at buying British cabs.

I was in Paris last year, and the trees along the roadways are covered in black soot.

Have you ever been to London actually? or even Paris for that matter? I lived in Paris for over 6 years and never once seen "soot" on trees.If you blow black boogers after a day in London then can you explain to me how people actually live there and not die of lung/throat cancer?

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I am glad you bring up diesel though. The assertion I see by Euros that diesels are better for the environment is laughable at best.

Diesel is more polluting than petrol if used in the same quantities as petrol but as diesel can give a far higher MPG than petrol it is far less polluting as less is used.I don't know how much it costs in the US but diesel costs less than petrol in most European countries.

[abtech]

Originally Posted by RWB929

Have you ever been to London actually? or even Paris for that matter? I lived in Paris for over 6 years and never once seen "soot" on trees.If you blow black boogers after a day in London then can you explain to me how people actually live there and not die of lung/throat cancer?.

I have been to both areas several times, and believe the black boogers are a understatement if you spend any time on the street. Maybe you have been over there for so long you no longer notice the soot on everything. I made the mistake of leaning against the wall of my hotel in Paris while waiting on a cab only to discover that I had ruined my suit coat as 3 different cleaners were unable to get all of the crap off of the coat.

I agree that certain vehicles may in fact get better mileage with a diesel powerplant than an equivalent gas version, but diesel is not only toxic, it is cumulative and most vehicles manufactured in the past 12 years or so couldn't meet a "gas" emissions test if they were never started.

[RWB929]

I do notice the soot on buildings etc but wouldn't go so far as to say that it's on everything.Buildings in Rome (where I live) would certainly be dirty enough to destroy clothes but then most large cities worldwide are the same.I've been to Athens and some of it is filthy despite the fact that it's considered to be a city with a low pollution level.
I think the biggest problem with diesel is that the emission particles are so small compared to a petrol engine.New diesel engines produce even smaller particles than old ones and it's the size of the particles that is the problem as the human nose is not capable of filtering anything that small so we breath a greater percentage of emissions than a comparative petrol engine.That is the main reason why all trams and subways in Italy now run on electricity in an effort to reduce pollution.However here in Europe emission tests are extremely strict so I think you would find diesel cars pass those "gas" tests despite the small particles.

Originally Posted by Skully

I think the huge market for small cars in Europe has more to do with the high taxes to cover "free" medical care and paying the career unemployed.

That's a slight generalisation.Italy does have free medical care but a lot of European countries don't and we also don't have career unemployed here as there is no such thing as welfare.Some countries do pay it but the majority of European countries do not have a welfare system of any kind.

[Cowboy1600]

Originally Posted by rocket

A great quote from our online scholar nomad that I think is applicable to this thread, "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie.... did we not teach ya nothin'? This whole thread was to sucker someone in so they could pick a fight. It's a little game. You shouldn't fall for these obvious baited questions. You KNOW this thread wasn't meant in ernest."

Hmmmm....Im not picking a fight, I am just trying to gauge some general opinions. These things are of interest to me. I, personally, are worried about what kind of planet we are leaving the next few generations. I guess that can be an effect of education, actually making you think about things.

[Baketech]

Since someone already blew apart your efficiency theory, and before we move on to a hydrogen discussion...how about explaining where you came up with the notion that we use oil to generate even more than a token percentage of our electricity?

[Cowboy1600]

Originally Posted by Baketech

Since someone already blew apart your efficiency theory, and before we move on to a hydrogen discussion...how about explaining where you came up with the notion that we use oil to generate even more than a token percentage of our electricity?

Blew apart my efficiency theory? WTF?? Have a look at the figures

Originally Posted by Cowboy

Research I hear you say? Well I see youve obviously researched your argument. Hmmmm China is inefficient you say?

Perhaps not?

And while your there have a little looksie at other developed nations. Now times you useage with GPD per capita.

usage 240 * 37,000 = 8880000 <-- Us oil usage per capita per annum

usage 234 * 28,900 = 6762600 <-- Oz oil usage per capita per annum

And hell, we still live the good life down here

BTW, we're all getting owned by the scandanavian countries.

Yeah.....really efficient

And the above formula needs a /1000. so the actual numbers are:

Us - 8880l of oil per capita per annum

Aus - 6762l oil per capita per annum

How do you make something move? With energy right? Do you own a car or bike? Does it move? How do you produce the energy? Burning fossil fuels? Well cut off my legs and call me stumpy.....you burn oil to make energy!!!

How about you read the argument.

Electricity is a major user of oil along with many other things. Regardless how much of your electricity % wise is made from burning fossil, its still a **** load of oil.

The most recent figures I can find, from 1999, show the 12.5% of the US electricity production is from oil

Look

And again

Thats hardly a tiny percentage. And as you can see when you combine oil, gas and coal that accounts for almost 80% of you electricity production.

So, what have we learnt? How about you understand the question and argument before giving your worth?

The original question why doesnt the US invest some of its war chest, that it uses to secure oil fields, into renewable energy sources?

This would ease the reliance on fossil fuels which would have many positive effects, eg. less pollution, longer supplies, less involvement in the Middle East....

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

Blew apart my efficiency theory? WTF?? Have a look at the figures

Yes, but this is just one of your misunderstandings of mathematics. The figures you quote are consumption figures, not efficiency. LTL explained this well, but you apparently cannot understand this simple principle. We consume more energy, but we create more value with it, hence we are more efficient than you...period.

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

How do you make something move? With energy right? Do you own a car or bike? Does it move? How do you produce the energy? Burning fossil fuels? Well cut off my legs and call me stumpy.....you burn oil to make energy!!!

How about you read the argument.

I've read your argument, and from the beginning it has been a litany of unqualified assertions punctuated with statements ignorant of the facts.
This last post is a perfect example...

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

The most recent figures I can find, from 1998, show the 18% of the US electricity production is from oil

That is not what the statistics on that page state...you are misinterpeting them.....please read YOUR quoted source again.

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600 in Post#3

Nah seriously tho, The US is hell bent on oil. As a nation you guys consume like 18 million barrels a day. I think its still your major source of electricity.

This was your original (false) assertion....now you claim it's 18% based upon your misinterpretation of a web page you obviously do not understand.

So...I've read your arguments, but they have no solid underpinning, rendering them basically rubbish....

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

The original question why doesnt the US invest some of its war chest, that it uses to secure oil fields, into renewable energy sources?

This would ease the reliance on fossil fuels which would have many positive effects, eg. less pollution, longer supplies, less involvement in the Middle East....

Again, assumption and misunderstanding...
Of course US government, and private energy companies invest heavily in alternate energy sources....to think otherwise shows that you haven't done your homework on the issue.

If you are gonna troll effectively, you gotta be ready to understand the issue, and that includes the math behind it....

[Cowboy1600]

Originally Posted by Baketech

Yes, but this is just one of your misunderstandings of mathematics. The figures you quote are consumption figures, not efficiency.

the quote from luvtolean - "Our oil consumption is very in-line with our GDP. Let me go look, but last time I checked, the US was more fuel efficient than Aus."

My figures show how much oil we use per $ of GDP we make. They clearly show that we produce GDP more oil efficiently.

Originally Posted by Baketech

LTL explained this well, but you apparently cannot understand this simple principle. We consume more energy, but we create more value with it, hence we are more efficient than you...period

No, no you dont....period. Look at the numbers. What dont you understand? We use 234 litres of oil to make $1 GDP, the US use 240 litres. We also use 6762 litres of oil per person each year, the US use 8800 litres per person per year (what I previously refered to as per capita per annum). Yes, you guys also make more $$$ per capita, but still less as a proportion of how much oil you use. As I said, we make less $$$ per capita but still lead the good life

Originally Posted by baketech

I've read your argument, and from the beginning it has been a litany of unqualified assertions punctuated with statements ignorant of the facts.

I have made one assumption, which I also highlighted with "I think" and that was on your methods electricity production. Granted burning oil isnt the main method of producing oil, altho at 18% thats quite a bit, and much more than what is made with renewable sources even when you factor in hydro electricity, which isnt actually a renewable energy source.

Originally Posted by baketech

This last post is a perfect example...
That is not what the statistics on that page state...you are misinterpeting them.....please read YOUR quoted source again.

WTF? This pages shows that in 1998 - and I stated that these were a few years old - 18% of the US electricity production was from oil. What do my stats say if this isnt so? How am I misinterpreting them?

I predict that one day vehicles run on renewable energy. Some already do. My question is about renewable energy sources. Vehicles require energy to run do they not? Im not concentrating on residential or commercial energy production. Im looking at everything that requires oil to work eg. cars, motorbikes, lighting, whatever....

Originally Posted by baketech

This was your original (false) assertion....now you claim it's 18% based upon your misinterpretation of a web page you obviously do not understand.

Please educate me then. How am I wrong?

Originally Posted by baketech

So...I've read your arguments, but they have no solid underpinning, rendering them basically rubbish....

On the contrary Ive backed up all my claims and assumptions with figures and facts from reliable sources.

Originally Posted by baketech

Again, assumption and misunderstanding...
Of course US government, and private energy companies invest heavily in alternate energy sources....to think otherwise shows that you haven't done your homework on the issue.

What assumption? Once again, the original question "why doesnt the US invest some of its war chest, that it uses to secure oil fields, into renewable energy sources? "

Once again $US2.7 trillion over 4 years on military. And thats just what we know of. How much on Renewable energy? I cant find any figures, but Im sure that they could probably do more. (<----assumption)

Originally Posted by baketech

If you are gonna troll effectively, you gotta be ready to understand the issue, and that includes the math behind it....

Im not trolling. I dont get it, Im asking genuine questions that im interested in getting an answer and opinions for. I value your argument, and opinion, but so far Ive managed to show your ignorance in the subject. So far I havent got an answer. I think its you that doesnt understand the question, nor the figures

[rocket]

Cowboy,
You may not be trolling but your opening statement/question infers that the evil USA is using up all the world's resources and polluting it to boot.

The bottom line is whether or not you believe that the US has had any other choice but to use the "war chest" in the MI. Not another terrorist attack on our soil since we decided totake the fight to them. The fact that they have to behead people (an act of desparation)as opposed to winning military victories shows our efforts are paying off...that we have hit a nerve in the terrorist network.

So maybe I'm wrong but it seems that you believe this war chest money was burning a hole in our pockets over here so we had to spend it pronto. Someone would have to be in line with that thought process to procede further with your statement.

Not a flame.

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

Im not trolling. I dont get it, Im asking genuine questions that im interested in getting an answer and opinions for. I value your argument, and opinion, but so far Ive managed to show your ignorance in the subject. So far I havent got an answer. I think its you that doesnt understand the question, nor the figures

Exactly why I'm not going to refute your points. Study your math, then you will get it...

The U.S. is more energy efficient than you....it's simple arithmetic.

[oldfogey]

If anyone wants facts, this International Energy Association publication might be useful but it costs $100. The summary on this page is interesting:

http://www.iea.org/dbtw-wpd/bookshop/add.aspx?id=174

The IEA is a useful source of information on the topic of energy use.

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by Baketech

This was your original (false) assertion....now you claim it's 18% based upon your misinterpretation of a web page you obviously do not understand.

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

Please educate me then. How am I wrong?

Because the web page you give as an example, says NOTHING about fuel stock percentages used for electrical generation....duh...

Personally, I don't think you understand what that web page data shows, or you wouldn't be citing it. It's completely unrelated to the point you are "trying" to make.

Currently we only use oil for 2-4% of our electrical generation...look it up.

[Cowboy1600]

Originally Posted by Baketech

Because the web page you give as an example, says NOTHING about fuel stock percentages used for electrical generation....duh...

Personally, I don't think you understand what that web page data shows, or you wouldn't be citing it. It's completely unrelated to the point you are "trying" to make.

Currently we only use oil for 2-4% of our electrical generation...look it up.

My bad, electricity production 2-4%. It is however very related to the point Im making, that the US relies very heavily on oil. Once again the original question, for about the 4th time, "why doesnt the US invest some of its war chest, that it uses to secure oil fields, into renewable energy sources? "

The figures I quoted for electricity were indeed for energy production. There I stand corrected. But my argument still stands. The use of fossil fuel, and especially oil, to produce energy sees the US having to invade countries in order to secure oil fields. Its great that Saddam is gone, but surely you cant be so naive as to believe that that was the primary objective of Bush. He was interested in one thing and one thing only, oil. WMD my ass. He created a false mandate in order to storm the country so the US can rape it for all its oil. Why not invest more into renewable energy sources, which would speed up their development, hence the decrease in reliance on oil?

You keep telling me to research, get the facts straight, im wrong blah blah blah. I dont see a shred of evidence anywhere in your argument. You havent one backed a claim or assumption with any facts. Yes, I made an error, substituting energy for electricity, but my figures are still correct.

[firedawgon929]

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

My bad, electricity production 2-4%. It is however very related to the point Im making, that the US relies very heavily on oil. Once again the original question, for about the 4th time, "why doesnt the US invest some of its war chest, that it uses to secure oil fields, into renewable energy sources? "

The figures I quoted for electricity were indeed for energy production. There I stand corrected. But my argument still stands. The use of fossil fuel, and especially oil, to produce energy sees the US having to invade countries in order to secure oil fields. Its great that Saddam is gone, but surely you cant be so naive as to believe that that was the primary objective of Bush. He was interested in one thing and one thing only, oil. WMD my ass. He created a false mandate in order to storm the country so the US can rape it for all its oil. Why not invest more into renewable energy sources, which would speed up their development, hence the decrease in reliance on oil?

You keep telling me to research, get the facts straight, im wrong blah blah blah. I dont see a shred of evidence anywhere in your argument. You havent one backed a claim or assumption with any facts. Yes, I made an error, substituting energy for electricity, but my figures are still correct.

Secure oil fields ... nice. I'm not going to get into that topic with you because I'll be here all night.

I'll agree that I depend "heavily" on oil. My truck needs it in the engine, and it's needed for the gas in my tank. Without it, I wouldn't be able to get to work.

How about you Cowboy? Do you ride a horse to work? Or are you the pot calling the kettle black?

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

My bad, electricity production 2-4%. It is however very related to the point Im making, that the US relies very heavily on oil. Once again the original question, for about the 4th time, "why doesnt the US invest some of its war chest, that it uses to secure oil fields, into renewable energy sources? "

The figures I quoted for electricity were indeed for energy production. There I stand corrected. But my argument still stands. The use of fossil fuel, and especially oil, to produce energy sees the US having to invade countries in order to secure oil fields. Its great that Saddam is gone, but surely you cant be so naive as to believe that that was the primary objective of Bush. He was interested in one thing and one thing only, oil. WMD my ass. He created a false mandate in order to storm the country so the US can rape it for all its oil. Why not invest more into renewable energy sources, which would speed up their development, hence the decrease in reliance on oil?

You keep telling me to research, get the facts straight, im wrong blah blah blah. I dont see a shred of evidence anywhere in your argument. You havent one backed a claim or assumption with any facts. Yes, I made an error, substituting energy for electricity, but my figures are still correct.

LOL.....finally we get to the reason for this thread, and it isn't to discuss energy, but rather for you to pontificate about what you think the war is about. I knew this was a disingenuous thread from the beginning....

But hey I'll play along for sport...

You aren't going to get any answers to your phony question for about 3 reasons....

Reason #1
Early in the thread you stated that "nearly all" of US electricity comes from oil... (bogus)
When called on it, you say it's 18%, and give a source....(also wrong)
Then you change it to 12%....(not sure why, but still bogus)
Finally when confronted, you realize you "made an error", but then say you "meant" something else....
In short, you blew your credibility on the issue because you proved you don't have a clue about the issue, or better yet how to do the simple research to educate yourself....

Reason #2
You can't seem to accept the fact that the US is more energy efficient, even though that information is widely available on the web and elsewhere. Probably because it doesn't support your premise...? Again, you aren't going to get many people to answer your questions when you demonstrate that you don't understand some basic concepts...

Reason #3
Your original question is phony.
It's not constructed to stimulate constructive debate about energy efficiency or energy research. It's crafted so that an answer appears as if the respondent buys into your premise that the war is about oil. Simply stated, your question is merely a ruse to state your belief about current world affairs....
I have no problem with that, but why not just start a thread to discuss that issue rather than hiding behind the "energy research" issue that you obviously don't understand anyway?

It's a crude trolling technique at best...for example, how about this thread title?

Why doesn't Australia stop buying expensive F16 fighters, and use the money for education in mathematics which they so clearly need?

[Cowboy1600]

Originally Posted by rocket

Cowboy,
You may not be trolling but your opening statement/question infers that the evil USA is using up all the world's resources and polluting it to boot.

The bottom line is whether or not you believe that the US has had any other choice but to use the "war chest" in the MI. Not another terrorist attack on our soil since we decided totake the fight to them. The fact that they have to behead people (an act of desparation)as opposed to winning military victories shows our efforts are paying off...that we have hit a nerve in the terrorist network.

So maybe I'm wrong but it seems that you believe this war chest money was burning a hole in our pockets over here so we had to spend it pronto. Someone would have to be in line with that thought process to procede further with your statement.

Not a flame.

The US government doesnt care 1 iota about the people of Iraq. Oil was the one and only reason for going there. WMD's were nothing but a concoction to give mandate to attack. Your government wanted to remove anti-US Saddam and replace with pro-US someone.

What is happeneing there is appauling, no person deserves that kind of fate. The perpertraters need to be found and brought to justice quickly. This also goes to highlight my point. The peoples doing these heinous things are nothing but opportunist, taking advantage of unarmed and unprotected people in order to gain advantage. Its deplorable. If the US wasnt desperate for oil then those poor souls wouldnt be in that position. They are just over there trying to make ends meet. However, you cant use whats happened recently as a retrospective mandate to attack Saddam.

Afghanistan is where the terrorists are, Iraq is where the oil is. Hence the reason so much effort has been made in Iraq, yet only token action happened in Afghanistan. Bush used 9/11 as a political pawn. Looked all tough going into Afghanistan and kicking theie asses, as soon as the momentum fell away that place it was dropped. Why hasnt anything been heard from there in ages?

Just between you and I, the US doest consume the bulk of the worlds resources, with very little concern as to what pollution it creates. Why wont the US ratify the Kyoto Protocol? Because it doesnt care about the effects of greenhouse gas on the environment.


The U.S. Consumer

The United States, with less than 5 % of the global population, uses about a quarter of the world’s fossil fuel resources—burning up nearly 25 % of the coal, 26 % of the oil, and 27 % of the world’s natural gas.
As of 2003, the U.S. had more private cars than licensed drivers, and gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles were among the best-selling vehicles.
New houses in the U.S. were 38 % bigger in 2002 than in 1975, despite having fewer people per household on average.

Reference

[Baketech]

Told ya....

[firedawgon929]

Afghanistan is where the terrorists are, Iraq is where the oil is. Hence the reason so much effort has been made in Iraq, yet only token action happened in Afghanistan. Bush used 9/11 as a political pawn. Looked all tough going into Afghanistan and kicking theie asses, as soon as the momentum fell away that place it was dropped. Why hasnt anything been heard from there in ages?

I'm in the Air Force. We are still in Afghanistan.

Just because you don't see it on CNN or whatever else you choose to watch, doesn't mean it's not happening. Get a clue dude.

[Cowboy1600]

Originally Posted by Baketech

LOL.....finally we get to the reason for this thread, and it isn't to discuss energy, but rather for you to pontificate about what you think the war is about. I knew this was a disingenuous thread from the beginning....

No, my original desire was to gauge opinion on resource consumption in the US. Yes, I made a boo boo when I said electricity, but as you can see from the original question I was looking at energy. Once again, my whoopsie.

Originally Posted by Baketech

Reason #1
Early in the thread you stated that "nearly all" of US electricity comes from oil... (bogus)

How convienient you leave out the little bit where I said "I think". This would infer that I was unsure about my claim as I had yet to properly research it.

My quote: "The US is hell bent on oil. As a nation you guys consume like 18 million barrels a day. I think its still your major source of electricity."