A half reasonble attempt at global energy useage

derry

A half reasonble attempt at global energy useage so as to compare more fairly modes of trasport

http://www.gizmag.com/environmental-assessment-passenger-transport/11953/

Global energy useage looks at the total energy story to get the tmore true effeciency of a mode of transport

example a car returns global effiency is at best case ~10% when outside energy inputs is left out of the equasion .(30% engine effiency drops to less after other factors like friction is worked into the eqasion )

If the outside energy is included that can drop to closer to ~5%.
Outside inputs are the five tons of oil used to make the car and if the car is scrapped at 100,000 miles that means if the car diod 20MPG the twenty tons of fuel used means that we have to aloow that the total to be 25 tons .It take about ~8 tons of oil to produce 25 tons of oil into the eqasion so the final total is more like 33tons of oil total life of car .The more true MPG is more like ~12MPG when all the oil energy eqasion is done

If the car spends most of it time transporting one person and smaller part of it time 4 people and we assume that 4 people is 100% useage and one person is 25% useagae and we work out the average is 30% then the 5% gloabal efeincy drops further down to closer to 2%

Thats roughly how they come up with the PKE passenger kilometer equivalent for the car as trasport and they do similar for the other modes of transport


Using full global energy effeciency story when we compare trains planes busses cars with each other we find that the story is interesting

From that planes which mostly travel with ~80% load factors and car which travel with mostly with ~30% load factors and trains that average with ~30% load factors (best i can tell )shows that aircraft are often as good as other modes of transport in PKE measures.This translates in as you will often use the same amount of fuel equivalent to go the same distance when you fly.

If you adhaere to the CO2 equasion having an impact on the climate this would translate to flying is creating roughly the same amount of CO per kilometer as other forms of transport.


However its a no brainer that cars trucks busses with cats produce a lot of NO2 and bad gasses for the first part of the journey until the engine heats up and that can often be 10% of the running time of the cars making a lot of smog stuff in cities .Trucks and busses produce lots cancer forming types of particulates in cities .The tonage of this polution is greaer when the fuel is not bio fuels as bio fuels burn much more cleaner but bio fuels will produce more CO2 which is a harmless gas to humans and for many like me who study the subject a harmless gas for the planets climate story

But at least the PKE measure is some sort of attempt to measure apples versus oronges in energy terms


Derry

djpbarry

derry wrote: »

The tonage of this polution is greaer when the fuel is not bio fuels as bio fuels burn much more cleaner but bio fuels will produce more CO2 which is a harmless gas to humans and for many like me who study the subject a harmless gas for the planets climate story

You study the impact of CO[latex]_2[/latex] emissions on the planet’s climate? In what capacity? Care to point us in the direction of some of your published research, showing that CO[latex]_2[/latex] is “a harmless gas for the planets climate story”?

derry

djpbarry wrote: »

You study the impact of CO[latex]_2[/latex] emissions on the planet’s climate? In what capacity? Care to point us in the direction of some of your published research, showing that CO[latex]_2[/latex] is “a harmless gas for the planets climate story”?

The last time I showed the forum all that in the thread gloabal warming AGW CO2 Climate change I was jumped on from on high from a supermoderator god figure who banned me from that thread.
So a lot of the stuff your looking for on that debate you have to to go that thread as I have decided from now on that my policy is I have satified myself after many years of being a beliver in the AGW CO2 hoax also that when I really checked that CO2 science it came up to be a hoax junk scioence .Thats now my opinion and any attempt to show that to be the case will often be jumped on from the brain washed CO2 belivers who still belive that hoax and many of them havent even checked out any of the science for themselfs.As I say Hitler didnt invent racial policy or eugenics he got it handed to him on a plate from the top univercities of the planet who also belived that hoax science .

This thread is about the the measures of differnet transport and some attempt to see which types really pose the most pollutions

I still remain interested to remove the real in your face pollutions that most of us have to breath daily with city life like Sulfer,ozone and nitrix products These polutants still come from all modes of energy production and modes of transport including the bycyle which requires metals and plastics to manufacture the bikes
A lot of these pollutants contaminate the air and water and the land even spreading onto farming land and can create hazards such as local acidity of the land or lakes but this type of real in your face polution has been sidelined for the new boogie man suedo pollution CO2 and means the the other polutions are best I can figure out increasing unnessarily .

So to qwell a debate on the CO2 side of the argument I say CO2 is harmless and others say it isnt and those who want to debate that can go off to the global warming thread where only the CO2 is going to cook our goose believers can debate to each other as decenters are banned from that thread

In the mean time this thread can decuss the methods of measure of different types of transport or energy useage relitive to this type of articale or similar articales as real accurate measures are hard to find and much false info exists out there.Lots of deabtes will trys to demonise one form of transport over another in a religious zelot way where in fact the whole subject is just another form of science which can be measured if the total inputs are all included .Its quite enough to try and measure appple verus oroanges or total energy inpuits in this thread without throwing in CO2 .
CO2 emmission s are fairly easy to figure roughly ~2.5 kilos of CO2 are made for every kilo of fuel burned (less for lighter carbons like gas and lighter oils and more for heavy oils and carbons like coal) .

I for one have calcullated the KPE for a ship a cruise liner and it came out a pretty miserable ~30MPG per gallon per passenger (~9.5 liters per 100 kilometers per passenger)which is lworse than most modern arcraft coming in at averages of 70MPG per gallon per passenger ( 4 liters per 100 kilometers per passenger ) and that not total global thats just simplex before I work out the rest of the equasions .On this simplex level it seeems that the jet aircraft KPE is twice as good as the KPE for that cruise liner

Thats not to say all ships are bad as that as some of the older fashioned feriries/ships which were slow were using a lot less fuel than the newwer ultra faster modern ferries/ships which proably gussle more fuel on a KPE ratio than aircraft KPE ratios


What isnt well known is that older and some newwer ships use heavy fuel oil which is bascially the toxic crud that oil companies want to get rid of on the cheap rather than use expensive disposal solutions . The prefered solution for the oil refineries is to sell the heavy fuel oil to ships real cheap with a huge element of that oil containing added in waste oil products nearly unuseable often highly toxic and often full for heavy metals . Because the heavy fuel oil it is realitivly cheap and the ships can just about burn the stuff it ejects the bad stuff up the smoke stack mostly onto the sea . When you go on those type of ships which burn the heavy oils and you are subjected to the smoke for some reason your probably breathing in heavy metals and toxic stuff to beat the band while taking in the lovely fresh sea breeze.

Many modern ships now often are jet turbines and need cleaner avaition type fuels and therefore dont suffer from this problem so bad but they consume often a lot more fuel so the KPE will often be more like modern aircrafts

So in case others dont get it for me I now dont debate as in not allowed to debate CO2 AGW Climate change with this forum anymore on CO2 as it only gets me banned when I start to show the real proof that that CO2 AGW is a hoax as the belivers in CO2 AGW will throw a wobbly


Derry

djpbarry

derry wrote: »

This thread is about the the measures of differnet transport and some attempt to see which types really pose the most polutions

And yet you still feel the need to mention climate change. You also mentioned it on another thread. And here. For somebody who claims not to be interested in debating this subject, it has a strange habit of popping up in your posts. If you’re not prepared to discuss something, then don’t post it - you were already warned about this here. If you persist in making these pronouncements while refusing to respond to any challenges, you will be assumed to be soap-boxing and dealt with accordingly.