Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CF] If You Recycle, It's Peachy Fine To Otherwise Kill The Planet

Expand Messages
  • Steven Schoeffler
    ... From: De Clarke ... Online sources seem to agree that the conversion factor is 3413 BTU / KWH:
    Message 1 of 30 , Oct 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "De Clarke" <de@...>

      > 400 watt/hours is .4 KWH ... and (hmmm)
      >
      > kWh x 3.6 = MJ x 0.2778 = kWh
      >
      > and
      >
      > Btu x 1.05506 = kJ x 0.9478 = Btu
      >
      > so if 3.6 KWH is a MJ and 1.055 BTU is a kJ, then
      > 1055 BTU is a MJ is 3.6 KWH
      >
      > which means that 293 BTU (1055/3.6) is 1 KWH

      Online sources seem to agree that the conversion factor is 3413 BTU / KWH:

      http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=%22btu+per+kwh%22+conversi
      on

      So you would need to deflate your can counts by a factor of about 11.6. So a
      Hummer owner needs to recycle 84 cans to drive 10 miles on the energy saved.

      Thanks for the number fun. Someone will be along any minute now to correct
      me.

      Steve


      >
      > so now we're getting someplace at last. we now know that
      >
      > 400 watt/hours is .400 * 1KWH, or .400 * 293 BTU, or 117.2 BTU.
      >
      > and we remember that there are 114K BTU in a gallon of gas. so...
      >
      > to "save" enough energy to be the equivalent of 1 gallon of gas, we need
      > to recycle on the order of 114,000/117.2 or 972.7 cans [assuming we accept
      > the peculiar notion of "saving" which means that the *more* cans we make
      > out of recycled metal, the more we "save" -- "the more you spend, the more
      > you save!" but let us assume for the moment, for sake of the thought
      > experiment, that the making of cans is a categorical imperative and our
      > only choices are whether to make them out of virgin metal or recycled
      metal...]
      >
      > we think a Hummer gets 10 MPG; so to drive a Hummer 10 miles on the
      energy
      > saved by recycling cans takes one gallon, or 972 recycled cans-worth of
      > energy savings. the average American drives about 10,000 miles per year
      > (or so I have read), so the Hummer-owning American would need to buy 1,000
      > (10,000Mi/10MPG) gallons of gas per year, or 1000 * 972 recycled cans,
      > or
      >
      > 972,000 cans
      >
      > now, tomfrostjr recently guesstimated that
      >
      > The rest area near me has enough aluminum cans going into its
      > dumpster to probably run a Hummer 50,000 miles per year on the amount
      > of energy that's being wasted by not recycling them.
      >
      > which is how I got to thinking about this little problem in the first
      place.
      >
      > 50,000 miles would be 5x the estimate above, or 4.86 million cans. now we
      > need another rough metric. how many cans can one individual account for
      per
      > year?
      >
      > 99 billion aluminum cans, or 374 cans per person were used in 1995.
      >
      > http://www.green-networld.com/tips/aluminium.htm
      >
      > so to run one Hummer 50,000 miles on "aluminum can recycling energy
      savings"
      > would require the total aluminum can discard of 12,994 people (as of 1995)
      to
      > be recycled. (4.86M/374)
      >
      > while it's quite possible for 13K people to visit a rest area on a major
      > insterstate highway in one day, let alone one year, they obviously only
      pass
      > through briefly and discard only a few, at most, of the hundreds of cans
      > they would use in one year -- the rest end up in home garbage cans, tossed
      > out the window onto the verge, or at other rest areas etc.
      >
      > if we posit that each person would throw away an average of, say, 2 cans
      > at the rest area during a brief stop, then we only need 2.43 million
      > people to use the rest area in a year, callously discarding recyclable
      > cans, for its dumpster(s) to yield enough wasted can-energy to run
      > that Hummer 50K miles. [if the rest area has recycling bins as well
      > as dumpsters then the problem becomes intractable, as we have a hard time
      > estimating the percentage of people who will use the recycle bins vs those
      > who will just toss a can into the garbage; so let's assume there are no
      > recycle bins at the rest area.]
      >
      > given all this, 13,315 cans per day would have to be tossed, or 459 lbs of
      > alloy per diem (I think there are about 29 cans to a pound of metal these
      days),
      > in order to waste enough energy in a year to drive that Hummer 50K miles.
      > that does seem like rather a lot of cans, but I guess it could be a very
      busy
      > and popular rest area.
      >
      > of course only *one* Hummer could be driven 50,000 miles on the saved
      > energy if those 2.43 million people all recycled their cans properly at
      > the rest area. GM, on introducing the H2, hoped to sell 40,000 of them in
      > the first year. to fuel all those Hummers at 10MPG and 50K miles per year
      > each, busy little recycling bees would have to "save" the energy from the
      alloy
      > cans used by (hmmm) 2.43 million people per year using 40,000 major rest
      areas.
      > a sobering thought... especially since the H2 has been on the market for
      more
      > than one year.
      >
      > if a Hummer gets 10 MPG and 40,000 Hummers drive 50K miles per year, then
      > collectively they consume 5000 gallons * 40K or 200 Mgals per year.
      > and since 972 cans roughly equals a gallon, that means 200M * 972 or
      > 194K-million (billion) cans... which is almost twice the total number
      > of cans produced in the US in 1995 (99 billion vs 194 billion). another
      > sobering thought -- Hummers are a niche vehicle and represent only one
      > small elite slice of FUV-dom; we can breathe a sigh of relief because
      > they don't all drive 50K miles per year, only to gasp in dismay as we
      > realise how outnumbered they are by the legions of other FUVs on the road.
      >
      > a perhaps more interesting sidelight is this: if you have to drive
      > 10 miles in your Hummer to the recycling centre and 10 miles back, how
      > many cans must you carry with you for recycling in order to make the
      > trip a net energy savings?
      >
      > looks like the answer is: 20 miles round trip, 10 miles is 972 cans,
      > so 20 miles is 1944 cans, or the average yearly can-consumption of 5.2
      > people. so if the trip is made any more than once yearly for a family of
      > 5, or if each person in the family doesn't consume their quota of 374
      > cans per annum, the trip would be a net loss. (and of course we're not
      > counting the trips made to the grocery store at 10 MPG to buy the cans
      > in their filled incarnation...)
      >
      > more vividly yet, if you were to drive a 30 mpg car rather than a 10
      > mpg car, you might then buy only 300 gallons rather than 1,000 gallons
      > of gas for your average-American 10K miles per year of driving. the 700
      > gallons you didn't buy would be the equivalent of recycling 700*972 or
      > 680,000 cans that year, at 972 recycled cans per gallon -- or 1819
      > years' worth of your average American alloy can consumption at 374 cans
      > per annum.
      >
      > oh well... enough fun with numbers. like I say, someone should
      double-check
      > 'em because it's late at night and zeroes can get misplaced when one is
      sleepy.
      >
      > on the whole I'd say a pretty good case can be made that no matter how
      > much you recycle, your gasoline consumption is likely to be a far bigger
      > contributor to your net energy footprint -- even scrupulous recycling
      > for a family of 5 would only "pay" for one 20 mile round trip per year
      > in the Hummer...
      >
      > de
      >
      > --
      >
      ............................................................................
      .
      > :De Clarke, Software Engineer UCO/Lick Observatory,
      UCSC:
      > :Mail: de@... | Your planet's immune system is trying to get rid
      :
      > :Web: www.ucolick.org | of you. --Kurt Vonnegut :
      > :1024D/B9C9E76E | F892 5F17 8E0A F095 05CD EE8B D169 EDAA B9C9
      E76E:
      >
      >
      >
      > To change your settings (such as receiving CarFree in digest form or read
      the archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CarFree
      > To Unsubscribe by email; CarFree-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > For problems email; CarFree-owners@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • De Clarke
      ... interesting! told you there could be an order of magnitude error at that time of night :-) but I wonder, why the discrep between the conversion table I
      Message 2 of 30 , Oct 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Steven Schoeffler (steve@...) wrote:
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "De Clarke" <de@...>
        >
        > > 400 watt/hours is .4 KWH ... and (hmmm)
        > >
        > > kWh x 3.6 = MJ x 0.2778 = kWh
        > >
        > > and
        > >
        > > Btu x 1.05506 = kJ x 0.9478 = Btu
        > >
        > > so if 3.6 KWH is a MJ and 1.055 BTU is a kJ, then
        > > 1055 BTU is a MJ is 3.6 KWH
        > >
        > > which means that 293 BTU (1055/3.6) is 1 KWH
        >
        > Online sources seem to agree that the conversion factor is 3413 BTU / KWH:
        >
        > http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=%22btu+per+kwh%22+conversi
        > on

        interesting! told you there could be an order of magnitude error at
        that time of night :-) but I wonder, why the discrep between the conversion
        table I found (above) and the 3.4K BTU number from your other source?
        if it were exactly a factor of 10 I would think "simple typo", that
        whoever set the table I was looking at got a dp in the wrong place. but
        a factor of 11.6 is odd.

        > So you would need to deflate your can counts by a factor of about 11.6. So a
        > Hummer owner needs to recycle 84 cans to drive 10 miles on the energy saved.

        so they can go recycling more often :-)

        > Thanks for the number fun. Someone will be along any minute now to correct
        > me.

        thanks for the new data. I'll try to find out the reason for the discrep
        between the kJ-MJ table of conversions I was using, and the 10x greater
        factor that you found.

        de

        --
        .............................................................................
        :De Clarke, Software Engineer UCO/Lick Observatory, UCSC:
        :Mail: de@... | Your planet's immune system is trying to get rid :
        :Web: www.ucolick.org | of you. --Kurt Vonnegut :
        :1024D/B9C9E76E | F892 5F17 8E0A F095 05CD EE8B D169 EDAA B9C9 E76E:
      • De Clarke
        ... too bad, it looks like they needed some proof reading! I ll have to resolve that BTU to KWH issue for my own satisfaction as well as to improve the
        Message 3 of 30 , Oct 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          David Hansen (davidh@...) wrote:
          > On 2 Oct 2003 at 23:16, De Clarke wrote:
          >
          > > > However, if
          > > > messages are too long then my eyes tend to glaze over and I press the
          > > > button for the next message.
          > >
          > > <grin> as a chronic verbosity offender I apologize for the daunting
          > > line-counts.
          >
          > My eyes don't glaze over with your messages though. Most are
          > interesting enough to read at least once.
          >
          > However, I did skim the aluminium can calculations:-)

          too bad, it looks like they needed some proof reading! I'll have to
          resolve that BTU to KWH issue for my own satisfaction as well as to
          improve the thought experiment -- since energy is the only real currency
          of civilisation, it seems like we all should be at least as conversant
          in energy units as we are in nickels, dollars, pounds and pennies, etc.

          it's rather sad to me that we all come out of school with a pretty good
          grasp on feet and yards, pounds and gallons (well most of us anyway), but
          relatively few people I know -- including myself -- have a good grasp on
          quantitative energy. it would be fun to put up an educational web page
          for people who want to "think green", documenting useful unit conversions
          and equivalences. how hard would you have to pedal a bicycle for how
          long in order to generate enough power to run a 27 inch TV for 1 hour?
          if you leave a 100w light bulb burning all night, how many square feet
          of Nevada desert under direct noon sunlight would recapture that
          amt of energy? how efficient is a solar panel, and how many MORE sq
          feet of Nevada desert would be needed to *really* recapture that energy
          with technology available to us today? how much energy do I save by
          buying a local piece of fruit vs a long-distance piece of fruit? what
          are the energy inputs in petro fuels per food calorie produced, for
          an organic farm vs an industrial farm?

          tomfrostjr's initial speculation about the waste of potential energy
          savings incurred by tossing Al cans into the trash, opens the door to
          a whole set of vexing questions which the average person doesn't have
          enough information to answer. the fact that we are not schooled from
          an early age in energy units the way we are in other units of time,
          distance, volume and weight, imho says something about the societal
          assumption that energy is "free", but also about a deliberate erasure
          of the real-world energy economy, in favour of that collective fantasy
          or game called the money economy. we "use" physical units all the time
          in building stuff, figuring out whether a new couch will fit in the
          living room, deciding whether we can lift that heavy sack of taters,
          etc. but we don't "use" energy units in a meaningful way unless we
          are off-the-gridders or longhaul sailors counting milliamps and tweaking
          our windmills/solar panels.

          most people (self included) are equally illiterate in water consumption.
          I had a hose burst in the garden a while back and was embarrassed to realise
          afterwards that I didn't have in the front of my brain (or even the back)
          a basic sense of "gallons per hour lost from wide-open tap." I didn't know
          my local water pressure and even if I had known this number, I had no idea
          how to guesstimate the number of gallons wasted -- other than "really a lot"
          and "I feel very bad about this," which was not useful. in the end I settled
          for empiricism and measured the time needed to fill a 5 gallon container,
          then guesstimated the number of hours (!) that elapsed while the hose was
          burst. the answer was a large scary number. but it illustrated for me that
          while I know that "leaving the tap running" wastes water, I have no
          quantitative idea how much water is lost per minute from my kitchen tap,
          bathroom tap, etc.

          the inability to do basic resource accounting is imho a major cause/result
          of the engineered divorce between consumer society and physical reality...
          one reason why people don't understand the true cost of driving.

          de

          --
          .............................................................................
          :De Clarke, Software Engineer UCO/Lick Observatory, UCSC:
          :Mail: de@... | Your planet's immune system is trying to get rid :
          :Web: www.ucolick.org | of you. --Kurt Vonnegut :
          :1024D/B9C9E76E | F892 5F17 8E0A F095 05CD EE8B D169 EDAA B9C9 E76E:
        • Steven Schoeffler
          ... From: De Clarke ... Don t megaflops count?
          Message 4 of 30 , Oct 3, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "De Clarke" <de@...>

            > since energy is the only real currency
            > of civilisation

            Don't megaflops count?
          • De Clarke
            ... rediscovered source of this table:
            Message 5 of 30 , Oct 3, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              De Clarke (de@...) wrote:
              > Steven Schoeffler (steve@...) wrote:
              > >
              > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > From: "De Clarke" <de@...>
              > >
              > > > 400 watt/hours is .4 KWH ... and (hmmm)
              > > >
              > > > kWh x 3.6 = MJ x 0.2778 = kWh
              > > >
              > > > and
              > > >
              > > > Btu x 1.05506 = kJ x 0.9478 = Btu

              rediscovered source of this table:

              http://www.actionenergy.org.uk/NR/exeres/000012cduuelfposuwdqqjky/main_template.asp?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fActionEnergy%2fInfo%2bcentre%2fFacts%2band%2bfigures%2fConversion%2bfactors%2fConversion%2bfactors%2ehtm&NRNODEGUID=%7b464AEB47-132F-4480-9E1D-A7C3239C227F%7d&NRQUERYTERMINATOR=1&cookie%5Ftest=1

              (sorry about the hideous URL).

              yes, these additional quotes resolve the problem.

              "The equivalent imperial measure to joules is British Thermal Units (BTU).
              One kilojoule = 0.9478 BTU."

              http://www.santos.com.au/investor/conv_calc/default.asp

              1055 Joules = 1 Btu
              252 calories= 1Btu
              1 kilowatt-hour of electricity = 3413 Btu's
              1 cubic foot of natural gas = 1030 Btu's
              1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's

              http://www.unep.or.kr/highlight/energy/main/reenergy.htm

              1 kWh means 1 kW of power being used for 1 hour.

              Kilowatt-hours relate to megajoules as follows:

              1 kWh = 1 kJ/s x 3600 s = 3600 kJ = 3.6 MJ

              http://www.seav.vic.gov.au/glossary.html

              it's quite obvious when fully awake :-) stupid me -- I was reading the
              LHS of the table when I shoulda been reading the RHS.
              "BTU *times* 1.05506 = Kj", not "1.0556 BTU make a Kj"...

              OK, so, having got our East and West sorted out :-)

              1 MJ is .2778 KWH, not 3.6 KWH.
              1 MJ is 947.8 BTU, not 1055 BTU.

              and 947.8/.2778 is... 3411.80705544 BTU/KWH

              or 3412, which is quite close enough to 3413 to keep us all happy.

              and the factor of 11 was a compound error, not a single error.

              and I'd-a known (at the gut level) that the numbers were wrong, if
              (reverting to my subsequent grumbling) we were all fundamentally
              energy-literate -- just as I'd know that a price label was wrong if I
              found a loaf of bread in the local market marked $32.50 instead of $3.25.
              my ability to read a table wrong (even in haste and when sleepy) and not
              immediately suss the oom+ error, is more evidence of not having the same
              basic grasp on energy units that we all do on weights, measures, etc.
              even half asleep I would know that the loaf of bread was mispriced, or
              that a sack of potatoes of a certain size has to be 5 lbs, not 50 lbs;
              and if the human race is to survive I think we'd all better learn to
              know in our guts how much everything costs in kJ and BTU :-) [project
              for this winter: work on that energy units and equivalences webpage].

              speaking of units, how many folks I wonder have an intuitive grasp of disk
              storage space, now that computers are so ubiquitous among the middle and
              upper classes? I suspect that many of us are far more gut-level comfortable
              with units of MB and KB, floppies and thumbdrives and MP3 player NVRAM and
              so forth, than we are with watt-hours. we know what "big" is and about
              how many files of size X will fit on our floppy/hard drive/palmpilot etc.

              we also, as "consumers," know how long batteries last (thinking in Time
              units, not Energy units) and how long (Time again) it takes to recharge
              one. but I bet we don't know the efficiency of our charger and how many
              real-world energy units E1 it takes to recharge a battery in order for
              that battery to yield us discharge units E2 over the useable period.
              lossiness in particular is something we neither know nor care (yet!)
              about.

              similarly, drivers know how far (Miles) they can get on a tank of gas,
              or how long (Time) they can drive between refilling the tank. they may
              know how many dollars (Money) it takes to fill up. but they have no idea
              how much energy they use, or how efficient (inefficient!) their car is.

              de

              --
              .............................................................................
              :De Clarke, Software Engineer UCO/Lick Observatory, UCSC:
              :Mail: de@... | Your planet's immune system is trying to get rid :
              :Web: www.ucolick.org | of you. --Kurt Vonnegut :
              :1024D/B9C9E76E | F892 5F17 8E0A F095 05CD EE8B D169 EDAA B9C9 E76E:
            • Whitney Turner
              ... Sure do! How many megaflops/watt-second does your box do? ;-)
              Message 6 of 30 , Oct 3, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                At 01:21 PM 10/3/03 -0500, Steven Schoeffler wrote:
                >Don't megaflops count?

                Sure do! How many megaflops/watt-second does your box do? ;-)
              • De Clarke
                ... Hmm, I think I can work that out. ah, but how many furlongs per fortnight can you travel on your bike? and how many MPB (miles per bagel) can the average
                Message 7 of 30 , Oct 3, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Whitney Turner (wturner@...) wrote:
                  > At 01:21 PM 10/3/03 -0500, Steven Schoeffler wrote:
                  > >Don't megaflops count?
                  >
                  > Sure do! How many megaflops/watt-second does your box do? ;-)

                  Hmm, I think I can work that out. ah, but how many furlongs per fortnight
                  can you travel on your bike? and how many MPB (miles per bagel) can the
                  average cyclist achieve, without a head wind and on flat paved surface?

                  :-)

                  de

                  --
                  .............................................................................
                  :De Clarke, Software Engineer UCO/Lick Observatory, UCSC:
                  :Mail: de@... | Your planet's immune system is trying to get rid :
                  :Web: www.ucolick.org | of you. --Kurt Vonnegut :
                  :1024D/B9C9E76E | F892 5F17 8E0A F095 05CD EE8B D169 EDAA B9C9 E76E:
                • Steven Schoeffler
                  I ve thought about this a little.... to the extent of noting that a pound package of spaghetti contains 8 servings of 15% each of the Daily Value of calories
                  Message 8 of 30 , Oct 3, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I've thought about this a little.... to the extent of noting that a pound
                    package of spaghetti contains 8 servings of 15% each of the Daily Value of
                    calories on a 2000 calorie diet: so 1 pound of spaghetti will approximately
                    run one human for one day.

                    Steve

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "De Clarke" <de@...>

                    > how many MPB (miles per bagel) can the
                    > average cyclist achieve, without a head wind and on flat paved surface?
                    >
                    > :-)
                    >
                    > de
                  • RIIN GILL
                    ... Eew. Meet http://tinyurl.com/ It converted the hideous thing to the nice short http://tinyurl.com/pmmv
                    Message 9 of 30 , Oct 3, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, De Clarke wrote:

                      > http://www.actionenergy.org.uk/NR/exeres/000012cduuelfposuwdqqjky/main_template.asp?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fActionEnergy%2fInfo%2bcentre%2fFacts%2band%2bfigures%2fConversion%2bfactors%2fConversion%2bfactors%2ehtm&NRNODEGUID=%7b464AEB47-132F-4480-9E1D-A7C3239C227F%7d&NRQUERYTERMINATOR=1&cookie%5Ftest=1
                      >
                      > (sorry about the hideous URL).

                      Eew. Meet http://tinyurl.com/

                      It converted the hideous thing to the nice short http://tinyurl.com/pmmv

                      ***********************************************************
                      Riin Gill
                      Interlibrary Loan 734-615-6168
                      Taubman Medical Library fax 734-763-1473
                      University of Michigan
                      ***********************************************************
                      If you were riding your bike, you'd be having fun by now.
                    • tomfrostjr
                      Steven Schoeffler corrects De: (snip) ... 11.6. So a ... energy saved. TF: Thank you. 84 is at least in the ball park of the number I got: 20 (aluminum cans
                      Message 10 of 30 , Oct 4, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Steven Schoeffler corrects De:

                        (snip)
                        > So you would need to deflate your can counts by a factor of about
                        11.6. So a
                        > Hummer owner needs to recycle 84 cans to drive 10 miles on the
                        energy saved.


                        TF: Thank you. 84 is at least in the ball park of the number I got:
                        20 (aluminum cans needing to be recycled, to save the energy
                        equivalent of a gallon of gas; that's what my guesstimate of how far
                        a Hummer could be run on the energy savings, was based on).

                        Here's how I got the number 20 (or 21 1/3 now that I've aroused
                        nitpickers): You don't have to look far in aluminum can recycling
                        propaganda to see the boast that recycling an aluminum can saves the
                        energy equivalent of half its contents in gas. Well that's 6 ounces.
                        6 goes into 128, 21 1/3 times.

                        In short, the _real_ Enemy of the Environment in the news story that
                        started this thread, was the vandalizer of the recycler's Hummer.


                        Also, part of De's calculations had included:

                        (snip)
                        > > if the rest area has recycling bins as well
                        > > as dumpsters then the problem becomes intractable, as we have a
                        hard time
                        > > estimating the percentage of people who will use the recycle bins
                        vs those
                        > > who will just toss a can into the garbage; so let's assume there
                        are no
                        > > recycle bins at the rest area.


                        TF: You mean you have that much faith in the kind of bureaucrats who
                        run rest areas? The rest area does indeed have several "aluminum cans
                        only" containers, but the attendants are instructed to just throw the
                        contents thereof into the dumpster!


                        - Tom Frost Jr.
                      • De Clarke
                        With corrected figures, and with briefer text (for which I m sure all and sundry will be grateful ) let s re-do the can math. I d like to get this as
                        Message 11 of 30 , Oct 4, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          With corrected figures, and with briefer text (for which I'm sure all
                          and sundry will be grateful <grin>) let's re-do the can math. I'd like
                          to get this as close to right as possible, 'cos it could be the first
                          example of energy-literacy for the proposed web page [one of my astrophysics
                          buddies at work is rather interested in this and is working on a set
                          of questions involving equivalents of work done, weight moved, heat
                          dissipated, etc, such as "how many bricks would you have to lift to
                          the roof of your 1-storey home in order to store/use as much power as
                          your TV set uses in an hour?"]

                          so, back to our cans, Hummers, and gallons:

                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                          ONE GALLON OF GAS 114,000 BTU

                          ALLEGED E-SAVINGS OF .4 KWH
                          RECYCLING ONE AL CAN

                          BTU PER KWH 3413 BTU

                          BTU SAVED PER RECYCLED CAN .4 * 3413 or
                          1365 BTU

                          CAN-SAVINGS-EQUIV per GALLON 83.5 CANS

                          MPG of HUMMER 10 MPG

                          BTU to drive HUMMER 10 MILES 114,000 BTU
                          = 1 GALLON

                          CAN-SAVINGS-EQUIV to drive HUMMER 83.5 CANS
                          10 MILES (1 GALLON)

                          CSE to drive HUMMER 10,000 MILES 84,000 CANS
                          (Average American driver's
                          annual mileage)

                          CSE to drive HUMMER 50,000 MILES 420,000 CANS
                          (TFJ thought experiment
                          referencing rest-area
                          can discards)

                          NUMBER OF AL CANS PER YEAR PER 374 CANS
                          PERSON (1995 datum)

                          NUMBER OF AL CANS MFRD PER ANNUM 99,000,000,000 (99B) CANS
                          (1995 datum)

                          NUMBER OF PEOPLE'S annual 1122 PEOPLE-YEARS
                          CSE NEEDED TO
                          drive HUMMER 50K miles

                          NUMBER OF CAN DISCARDERS at rest 210,000 PEOPLE
                          area (at 2 cans per person)
                          needed to drive HUMMER
                          50K MILES, in 1 year

                          NUMBER OF CSE PER DAY to drive HUMMER 1150 CANS
                          50K miles in one year

                          NUMBER OF CAN DISCARDERS per day 575 PEOPLE
                          to achieve this rate at
                          rest area

                          NUMBER OF CSE needed to drive 3,360,000,000 CANS
                          40,000 HUMMERS (one years'
                          projected unit sales)
                          10K MILES per year

                          NUMBER OF CSE needed to offset 167 (83.5 * 2) CANS
                          20 MILE round trip in
                          10 MPG HUMMER

                          NUMBER OF CSE achieved by driving 58,450 CANS
                          30 MPG car intstead of 10
                          MPG car 10,000 MILES

                          YEARS OF INDIVIDUAL CAN CONSUMPTION 156.3 YEARS
                          equiv to above CSE

                          NUMBER OF CSE achieved by not driving 333 GALLONS = 27,805 CANS
                          a 30 MPG car as opposed to
                          driving one, for one year at
                          an assumed 10,000 miles

                          NUMBER OF PERSON/CAN/YEARS equivalent 74
                          to above

                          [once again, I invite y'all to double check these figures]

                          In English: 1122 people would have to recycle every single Al can
                          they use in one year, to "save" enough energy to offset the energy consumption
                          of driving one Hummer 50K miles. (And those people would have to recycle
                          their cans without incurring any further energy costs, such as driving
                          to the recycling centre or using an electric can-crusher). If that Hummer
                          only drove the national average of 10K miles in one year, then "only"
                          1/5 as many people -- 224 people -- would have to dedicate their recycling
                          lives to compensating for the gas consumption of this Hummer. As my
                          yuppie neighbour memorably said, some years ago "Oh, it's so nice that
                          you're conserving water -- that means we can use more!"

                          You would have to recycle every Al can you use for 156 years, to produce
                          the same "energy savings" benefit you would achieve by driving a 30 MPG
                          car rather than a 10 MPG car for just one year. Since you won't live
                          156 years, it appears you'll need a friend or two to participate in this
                          justification of a 10 MPG car :-)

                          The Hummer driver who drives 20 miles r.t. to recycle cans must carry
                          at least 167 cans per trip to make the "savings" from the cans offset
                          the energy cost of the trip -- for a zero-sum game. The cyclist who
                          eats organic and locally-grown food would have a much higher "profit
                          margin" on this trip (not to mention the benefits of exercise and
                          improved humour) for far fewer cans.

                          And we are still begging the question of why the H we "need" to manufacture
                          99 Billion cans per annum to contain watered-down sugar syrups with fizz,
                          produced and marketed via an insanely wasteful web of long-haul transit.
                          We wouldn't need high-tech light containers for drinks if the drinks weren't
                          being hauled by air and truck several thousand miles before reaching their
                          consumers... glass (also recyclable, at lower temps) would work fine if
                          we weren't obsessed with reducing freight weight and packing more cans in
                          each cu ft of container space, or making the containers proof against the
                          violent stresses of longhaul transit and repeated middleman handling.

                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                          So, to dwell a little longer on the implications of the above:
                          The Hummer driver who thought better of it and decommissioned his Hummer
                          in favour of a 30 MPG compact, would save more energy than he could ever
                          achive in 2 lifetimes of recycling cans, in just one year of average
                          driving mileage (10,000 miles).

                          Or looked at another way: if a person could, by reason or wheedling
                          or flattery or shaming or tax disincentives, be persuaded to trade in
                          their 10 MPG Hummer for a 30 MPG compact -- then the carping critic, nagging
                          spouse or preachy enviro who persuaded them to take this step would have
                          achieved 2 lifetimes' worth of can recycling activity in energy savings,
                          in just the first year of that Hummer's inactivity, and the same savings
                          for every year thereafter. That seems worth nagging about.

                          The person who refrains from driving their 30 MPG car for *one year* or
                          10,000 miles, choosing to walk or bike instead, achieves an energy savings
                          in just that one year, equivalent to the average can-consumer recycling
                          every single can they use, faithfully, for 74 years (or an average lifetime).

                          The person who persuades, bribes, shames, begs or ridicules even one other
                          person to stop driving their 30 MPG car and ride a bike or walk instead,
                          has contributed to an energy savings in the first year that is equivalent
                          to a 74-year lifetime of faithful recycling.

                          The lesson I draw from this is that it is very much worth our while to
                          make every kind of outreach and effort to "uncool" gas guzzling SUVs and
                          encourage at least a return to moderate gas frugality, and at best, an
                          increased popularity of carfreedom. Each year of the difference between
                          Hummer and subcompact or moped is worth 2 lifetimes of can recycling,
                          and each year of the difference between subcompact and feet/bike is worth
                          1 recycling lifetime.

                          And the choice of vehicle we make seems to outweigh the importance of
                          our recycling activity by about the ratio of 1 or 2 lifetimes to one year.

                          [ BTW, "recycled" Al cans are not made from 100 pct recycled alloy. some
                          virgin metal is also introduced into the process. the "savings" is a reflection
                          of the percentage of recycled material and the E-cost of resmelting it as opposed
                          to the cost of refining virgin ore. but virgin ore is still dug and refined
                          and smelted in the making of "recycled" cans.

                          Axiomatically, the savings accrued not *not making 1 can* will always be far
                          larger than the savings accrued by making 1 can partly out of recycled metal. ]

                          de

                          --
                          .............................................................................
                          :De Clarke, Software Engineer UCO/Lick Observatory, UCSC:
                          :Mail: de@... | Your planet's immune system is trying to get rid :
                          :Web: www.ucolick.org | of you. --Kurt Vonnegut :
                          :1024D/B9C9E76E | F892 5F17 8E0A F095 05CD EE8B D169 EDAA B9C9 E76E:
                        • tomfrostjr
                          ... (snip) ... consumption ... TF: But 1121 of them don t. Therefore, those of us who do it for them are justified in using a cage to haul the cans. If De
                          Message 12 of 30 , Oct 5, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, De Clarke <de@u...> wrote:
                            (snip)
                            > In English: 1122 people would have to recycle every single Al can
                            > they use in one year, to "save" enough energy to offset the energy
                            consumption
                            > of driving one Hummer 50K miles.


                            TF: But 1121 of them don't. Therefore, those of us who do it for them
                            are justified in using a "cage" to haul the cans.

                            If De says I need to recycle 84 cans instead of 21 to save the energy
                            equivalent of a gallon of gas, that's no problem; I easily get 84 on
                            a bikeload. After I save up a few hundred cans, I use my 30 mpg
                            "cage" to take them to the deposit-law state that I live 30 miles
                            from, N.Y., to cash them in.

                            I also have an 8 mpg truck that I use for other things - things that
                            are _also_ permitted under 1) De's arithmetic, 2) the Bicyclists'
                            Rights Triad http://www.newmilfordbike.com/Triad.htm , and 3) this
                            list's own description at its homepage,
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CarFree (which, for the information of
                            my latest attacker Jason Neiss, includes the words "or reduce").


                            - Tom Frost Jr.
                          • Special Offers
                            ... Not me, though I did have a pretty good grasp of the far more sensible metres, kilogrammes and litres. ... I agree that it is relatively few. However,
                            Message 13 of 30 , Oct 6, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On 3 Oct 2003 at 10:41, De Clarke wrote:

                              > it's rather sad to me that we all come out of school with a pretty good
                              > grasp on feet and yards, pounds and gallons (well most of us anyway),

                              Not me, though I did have a pretty good grasp of the far more
                              sensible metres, kilogrammes and litres.

                              > but
                              > relatively few people I know -- including myself -- have a good grasp on
                              > quantitative energy.

                              I agree that it is relatively few. However, those of us with a good
                              grasp do not always want to do the same thing in our leisure as we do
                              during work time.
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.