Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,597 Year: 4,854/9,624 Month: 202/427 Week: 12/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush vs. Gore in energy consumption
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 31 of 77 (399862)
05-08-2007 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by riVeRraT
05-08-2007 9:23 AM


Re: A few facts, whether you like 'em or not
Yes, it cost much to add radiant, but as I have stated, with the tax breaks, and low interest loans available from governemt, it pratically pays for itself.
Over a very long time. Perhaps much longer than the Gores intend to reside there.
I still think it's a lot more expensive than you say, and moreover, the Gores may not want to tear up the floors and walls of a hundred-year-old house that they're living in right now to install such heating. It's just not feasible - otherwise they'd have done it.
Er what?
The gas the drilling machine burns. The power used to manufacture the materials for the geothermal loops. The transportation costs of all that equipment.
Uh?
offsetting the carbon emissions?
Carbon emission offsets.
You have no idea what we're talking about, do you?
There is wind everywhere, in case you didn't notice, and while it may not be as effcient as a wind tower on top of a hill, it still is free energy.
Ugly free energy. And while its true that a wind plant is carbon-free power, much carbon is used in manufacture and transport. And there are serious questions about the environmental effects of such generators on indigenous bird populations, etc.
Again, if it were feasible and desirable, I'm sure the Gores would have done it. As it is, they pay a premium to have their power generated purely by carbon-free wind and geothermal sources, already. So it's not like they're not using wind and geothermal power right now. They just don't feel the need to generate the power themselves.
I think we can see now, from his Texas whitehouse, to the actual energy saving steps taken in the actual white house, that Bush does care somewhat about the enviroment.
Do you think that was the point of your email? Don't be naive. And when are you going to address the laughably false contention that "you won't hear this on the mainstream media?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by riVeRraT, posted 05-08-2007 9:23 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by riVeRraT, posted 05-08-2007 4:28 PM crashfrog has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 32 of 77 (399877)
05-08-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by crashfrog
05-08-2007 2:02 PM


Re: A few facts, whether you like 'em or not
Over a very long time. Perhaps much longer than the Gores intend to reside there.
Does not matter if you are that energy conscience. You will also get your money back if you decide to sell.
So what you are saying is that Gore is only concerned about the enviorment, and global warming if it suits him finacially.
I still think it's a lot more expensive than you say,
I don't care about what you think. I own a HVAC and plumbing company, and have been doing it for 24 years now. I am authorized in Wirsbo, and Embassy suites radiant heating.
Like I said it pays for itself, you will not loose money installing it.
the Gores may not want to tear up the floors and walls of a hundred-year-old house that they're living in right now to install such heating. It's just not feasible - otherwise they'd have done it.
It is very feasable. You do not have to tear up anything, you can lay it right over what you got, or go from underneath.
But radiant floor is not the end all to saving on your energy bill. I happen to pride myself in finding ways to save people money.
I just had a customer save over 50% on a house that did not have radiant(complete), and uses oil for heat, by doing some simple modifications that cost him less than $3000 total. That included his kitchen in radiant. Without the kitchen, he still would have saved 40% and spent less than $1000.
The gas the drilling machine burns. The power used to manufacture the materials for the geothermal loops. The transportation costs of all that equipment.
You are joking right? You do realize how ridiculous you sound right now. I know you are smarter than that.
If I have walked away from anything in this thread, it is to know that crash definately blurts things out, he has no idea what he is saying. Something he has accused me of several times.
That was worth the price of admission.
Carbon emission offsets.
You have no idea what we're talking about, do you?
Of course I do, I just do not understand how you are applying it to this conversation.
Cutting your energy costs, and upgrading your heating and AC equipment is offsetting your carbon emmisions.
And while its true that a wind plant is carbon-free power, much carbon is used in manufacture and transport
There you go again.
You are going to have to justify yourself there.
How does saving fuel over a period of 30+ or more, have anything to do with the small amount of emissions used to make the equipment?
You could always not do anything, and then over the course of your life burn a 1000 times more emissions. Shit I shouldn't even buy a new car, my 68 big block camaro works just fine, after all, a new car plant makes emmisions int he manufacturing process doesn't it?
And when are you going to address the laughably false contention that "you won't hear this on the mainstream media?"
Because I do not know the answer to that, but I did not hear on the media, I heard it from a friend.
I am not sticking up for the validity of the article, but I am surprised that Bush does have such an eco-friendly home, and took the extra steps to make one.
Listen, we are all faced with the problem of trying to save the planet. It will hit us all in the pocket. We can pay now, or we can pay later.
Are you 100% sure that Gore has taken every step possible to make his home effcient? Or is he just slightly above average?
Shouldn't the guy who wants to be a leader of the free world, at least lead by example?
Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2007 2:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by kuresu, posted 05-08-2007 4:44 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2007 6:57 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2594 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 33 of 77 (399880)
05-08-2007 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by riVeRraT
05-08-2007 4:28 PM


as to offsetting carbon emissions:
I work at REI. At our store, all of our power comes from non-renewable resources.
However, we don't pay just for that electrical power. We pay X amount more so that 40% of the power we use is offset by the production of electricity by renewable resources. Even though the specific store I work at does not get the renewable energy, someone is.
Gore is doing something similar. Even if his house itself is not using renewable energy, he's paying for the creation of such, and someone is using it.
The whole idea behind offsetting carbon emmissions is this:
My carbon footprint is 100 lbs per year (just a random figure). To offset that, I'll pay extra so somewhere along the line, 100 lbs of carbon is not being produced. Note that that's the ideal situation, which REI doesn't do (yet).
What you mention
Cutting your energy costs, and upgrading your heating and AC equipment is offsetting your carbon emmisions.
is actually called reducing your carbon emmissions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by riVeRraT, posted 05-08-2007 4:28 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by riVeRraT, posted 05-08-2007 8:19 PM kuresu has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4140 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 34 of 77 (399882)
05-08-2007 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
05-04-2007 3:36 PM


The Snopes article, of course, misrepresents the big electricity bill as a symptom of being wasteful, rather than the truth - it costs a lot more to buy "green", carbon-free energy than the regular energy that heats Bush's ranch mansion.
I have to pitch in here to defend Snopes. Snopes does an amazingly good job of investigating urban legends, and this is no exception.
The Snopes article says there's "mitigating factors" and they link to their own article giving the mitigating factors. Gore pays $432/mo, a figure snopes.com provides, toward getting SOME green energy. That $432 represents about 16% of his electric bill. Since his house is 4 times the normal size and consumes at least 12 times the average, he's still looking at around 2.5 normal energy consumption.
So, it's not really true, unless you can provide a source for your statement, that Gore's house uses ONLY green sources for power, and it's also not true that this is why the bill is so high, though it does account for 16% of the bill.
You can claim it's conservative misinformation. I don't think you've proven that, and snopes.com did an excellent job of providing both sides of the story. You will note that Gore's rep has 3 paragraphs of direct quotes on snopes.com.
I live in Tennessee and I've lived close enough to Crawford, TX to know its weather. There's not a real significant difference in energy needs. Nashville is colder in winter, so there would be more of a heating need.
Gore was doing something about his energy use even before the article and perhaps more afterward. Bush is doing a lot, too. However, someone putting out a video like "an inconvenient truth" had better expect to be raked over the coals when he's got a house like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 05-04-2007 3:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2007 8:57 PM truthlover has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4140 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 35 of 77 (399884)
05-08-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by arachnophilia
05-05-2007 11:45 AM


crash, you should write snopes. they're not usually wrong,
They're not wrong here, either. They were VERY fair. I think Crash was complaining mostly about the original piece, and he surely must not have followed their link to the "mitigating factors."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 05-05-2007 11:45 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4140 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 36 of 77 (399885)
05-08-2007 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by riVeRraT
05-07-2007 9:21 AM


Re: A few facts, whether you like 'em or not
I believe the bible says that the message is more important than the person telling it.
Off topic? hmm... Seems to apply enough for me to try responding.
I don't believe that. The prophet is tested by his fruit, according to the Bible, and Jesus sent his apostles out with the statement that "he who receives you receives me, and he who rejects you rejects me."
Maybe in environmentalism the message can be separated from the messenger, but you can't use the Bible to justify that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by riVeRraT, posted 05-07-2007 9:21 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 37 of 77 (399895)
05-08-2007 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by riVeRraT
05-08-2007 4:28 PM


Re: A few facts, whether you like 'em or not
So what you are saying is that Gore is only concerned about the enviorment, and global warming if it suits him finacially.
No. I'm saying that global warming isn't caused by one mansion in Tennessee, and I would prefer Gore keep on doing what he's already been doing - buying carbon-free electricity and offsetting the carbon that he does use, while campaigning and lecturing about global warming issues - rather than expend all his time and money to make one single house just a little bit more environmentally friendly. Are you familiar with the idea of "diminishing returns?" Please apply it here.
It is very feasable.
We don't know anything about his house. If it were feasible and cost-effective, they would have done it already.
You are joking right? You do realize how ridiculous you sound right now. I know you are smarter than that.
I guess I don't understand. What are you saying? That your drilling machines don't run off of diesel or gasoline? That they show up at the site by magic teleportation? That they were constructed by hand by gnomes in Siberia?
I don't understand what you're trying to argue, here. It looks like you have literally no idea how to think through your carbon use, so you're just calling me names. That's always been a winning strategy for you, sure.
Of course I do, I just do not understand how you are applying it to this conversation.
I don't know how I could be any clearer. He heats his house by burning natural gas (pretty common.) He offsets the carbon that emits by buying carbon offset credits.
If you know what a carbon offset is, then it should be abundantly clear. If you're still confused it's because, contrary to what you said, you don't know what carbon offsetting means.
How does saving fuel over a period of 30+ or more, have anything to do with the small amount of emissions used to make the equipment?
It's basic economics. Eventual gains only offset initial expense if the eventual gains are larger than the initial expenses. That applies to cost, sure, but it also applies to carbon. You don't gain anything by putting in a new system if the initial carbon emissions of installation (running machinery, energy to manufacture, transportation - any place fossil fuels are used) exceed the carbon use of your current system, especially if you factor in offsetting your current carbon use.
Cutting your energy costs, and upgrading your heating and AC equipment is offsetting your carbon emmisions.
No, it's not. That's not what carbon offsetting is.
As I suspected, you have no idea what we're talking about. Why don't you go look it up and then the conversation can proceed from a place where we both understand what the hell we're talking about.
I am not sticking up for the validity of the article, but I am surprised that Bush does have such an eco-friendly home, and took the extra steps to make one.
Bush didn't. He bought it that way. And he only lives there 2-3 months out of the year, so it's not a surprise that it uses a bunch less power.
Are you 100% sure that Gore has taken every step possible to make his home effcient?
I have no idea if he's taken every step. I have no idea if Bush's ranch house has taken every possible step. My guess is that if there were obvious things Gore could do to reduce his carbon footprint, he's done them. And the stuff he hasn't done, he hasn't done it because the gains don't justify the expense, especially when you factor in the fact that installation, manufacture, and transportation of materials aren't carbon-neutral activities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by riVeRraT, posted 05-08-2007 4:28 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by riVeRraT, posted 05-08-2007 8:37 PM crashfrog has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 38 of 77 (399903)
05-08-2007 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by kuresu
05-08-2007 4:44 PM


Re: as to offsetting carbon emissions:
Got it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by kuresu, posted 05-08-2007 4:44 PM kuresu has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 39 of 77 (399905)
05-08-2007 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by crashfrog
05-08-2007 6:57 PM


Re: A few facts, whether you like 'em or not
How does saving fuel over a period of 30+ or more, have anything to do with the small amount of emissions used to make the equipment?
It's basic economics. Eventual gains only offset initial expense if the eventual gains are larger than the initial expenses. That applies to cost, sure, but it also applies to carbon. You don't gain anything by putting in a new system if the initial carbon emissions of installation (running machinery, energy to manufacture, transportation - any place fossil fuels are used) exceed the carbon use of your current system, especially if you factor in offsetting your current carbon use.
I was not talking about expense. I am explaining to you that the emmisions caused from drilling do not superceed the savings in emmisions from the equipment being installed.
Your going to tell me that a one time drilling, from a vehicle that has emmision control on it already, is worse than the 30+ years of emmision cutting you will benefit from?
Besides, it doesn't matter what system you choose, each one is creating emmisions during the manufacturing process, so it is common sense to choose the better one.
Give me a break, and I haven't called you any names, so why get defensive?
As I suspected, you have no idea what we're talking about. Why don't you go look it up and then the conversation can proceed from a place where we both understand what the hell we're talking about.
I did look it up, but it just so happens that the web-site I refered too wasn't clear enough, and blended issues of cutting carbon, and offsetting carbon.
Anyway, I don't even see offsetting carbon as a real answer. I would rather shoot for reducing my carbon footprint, anyday, and then offset the remainder.
so it's not a surprise that it uses a bunch less power.
IT will always use less power, regardless of when he lives there. Relatively speaking.
And where does it say that Bush bought it like that?
I think it only mentions that an architect designed it.
And lastly, this is pretty funny, you say this:
I have no idea if he's taken every step.
Right after you say this:
If it were feasible and cost-effective, they would have done it already.
So which one is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2007 6:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Asgara, posted 05-08-2007 8:46 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2007 9:02 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2384 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 40 of 77 (399907)
05-08-2007 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by riVeRraT
05-08-2007 8:37 PM


Re: A few facts, whether you like 'em or not
Prairie Chapel Ranch - Crawford Texas
The Bush family bought the land in 1999. They commissioned an architect to design the house, and it was built by members of a nearby religious community. The house wasn't finished until after the inauguration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by riVeRraT, posted 05-08-2007 8:37 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 41 of 77 (399909)
05-08-2007 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by truthlover
05-08-2007 5:08 PM


Snopes does an amazingly good job of investigating urban legends, and this is no exception.
Well, I disagree - any analysis that labels this smear "basically true" and then proves it to be substantially false is clearly flawed.
I'd love to quote extensively from the Snopes page, but they've disabled cutting and pasting (which is a little ridiculous.)
The Snopes article says there's "mitigating factors" and they link to their own article giving the mitigating factors.
"Mitigating factors" is a misleading way to refer to the fact that Gore's house is both a year-round residence for the Gores, a residence for several live-in staff, and offices out of which several charitable organizations are managed, while Bush's ranch house is essentially a vacation home occupied only a few months out of the year - which Snopes doesn't mention at all on either page.
The Snopes article says that it's "surprising" that a home "four times" the size of an average American home uses "12 times the power", and neither that article nor the other one mentions that Gore's house uses 19.1 kwh/ft^2, compared to the region's average usage of 19.83 kwh/ft^2.
So Gore's house actually uses less energy for its size than the average house in the region. That's a point that neither article on Snopes sees fit to report, and I don't see how the claim that Gore's use of energy is "extravagant", which Snopes called "true", is supportable.
Gore pays $432/mo, a figure snopes.com provides, toward getting SOME green energy. That $432 represents about 16% of his electric bill.
No, you're reading it wrong. Gore pays $432 more for clean energy than he would pay if the same amount of energy were supplied by "dirty" sources. Neither article claims that only %16 of Gore's energy is clean.
The Gores pay $432 more than they would otherwise (that's what a "premium" means) because all of their power is clean. Not that they only buy $432 worth of clean power, as you misunderstood.
Since his house is 4 times the normal size and consumes at least 12 times the average
Well, wait now. Is it 12, or is it 20? The second email, which again Snopes said was "true", says 20. But Snopes refers to the AP's direct investigation of Gore's power bill that came to the conclusion that they only use 12 times the national average.
But, despite the fact that the numbers claimed by the TCPR were inflated by nearly 30,000 kwh, and that the TCPR
quote:
said it got its figures from the Nashville Electric Service. Yet NES spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never received a request from the group and never gave it any information,
No webpage found at provided URL: http://tinyurl.com/2wklnq
Snopes determined that the claim that Gore house uses "20 times the national average" was "true."
So I'm not terribly impressed by Snopes' commitment to the facts. I mean, if you can be that wrong on the facts, and clearly have just been pulling numbers out of thin air - and still be considered "true" by Snopes, just what the hell do you have to say that Snopes would consider false?
There's not a real significant difference in energy needs.
Says you, but it's clear from the research of both CBS News and the AP that the region Gore's house is located in has the highest per-household energy use of any area in the country - 50% higher than the national average.
So I'd say that's a pretty significant difference in energy needs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by truthlover, posted 05-08-2007 5:08 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by riVeRraT, posted 05-08-2007 9:23 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 46 by truthlover, posted 05-09-2007 7:44 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 42 of 77 (399912)
05-08-2007 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by riVeRraT
05-08-2007 8:37 PM


Re: A few facts, whether you like 'em or not
Your going to tell me that a one time drilling, from a vehicle that has emmision control on it already, is worse than the 30+ years of emmision cutting you will benefit from?
Compared to, say, buying clean power from the power company? Which has no initial outlay of emissions caused by your actions?
I would rather shoot for reducing my carbon footprint, anyday, and then offset the remainder.
I'd rather see industry do it, quite frankly. People not using CFL's isn't the cause of most greenhouse emissions. Gore's not going to save the planet by changes to his own house. It's nice that he's leading by example, but c'mon, it's not like he can stop breathing or something. Allowances should be made, and are by reasonable people not looking to shoot the messenger with these "gotchas", for the fact that some steps just aren't feasible.
Look, if you're so certain that it's so easy and feasible, why don't you call up Al Gore and try to sell him a geothermal heating system?
That would really make me look stupid, wouldn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by riVeRraT, posted 05-08-2007 8:37 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by riVeRraT, posted 05-08-2007 9:28 PM crashfrog has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 43 of 77 (399922)
05-08-2007 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
05-08-2007 8:57 PM


I'd love to quote extensively from the Snopes page, but they've disabled cutting and pasting (which is a little ridiculous.)
right click, and view source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2007 8:57 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 44 of 77 (399923)
05-08-2007 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by crashfrog
05-08-2007 9:02 PM


Re: A few facts, whether you like 'em or not
Allowances should be made, and are by reasonable people not looking to shoot the messenger with these "gotchas", for the fact that some steps just aren't feasible.
You, know, I did not learn about this in the media, as a matter of fact, when the movie came out, they asked Bush, will you be seeing the movie, his answer was "most likely not", and the way the media presented it, was like that Bush does not give a shit about the enviroment.
And that is the way he is always portrayed.
Gore is protrayed as the greenhouse hero, and I would say, this urban legend has been busted.
It is silly to argue specifics. There is enough information there to see what is going on.
Look, if you're so certain that it's so easy and feasible, why don't you call up Al Gore and try to sell him a geothermal heating system?
That would really make me look stupid, wouldn't it?
I don't work for liberals
just kidding, if he lived over here, I would.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2007 9:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 05-09-2007 1:00 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 77 (399937)
05-09-2007 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by riVeRraT
05-08-2007 9:28 PM


Re: A few facts, whether you like 'em or not
And that is the way he is always portrayed.
Because of his policies, RR. If you want to debate those, we can. Quite frankly Bush has been in the position to do much more for the environment as President of the United States than just live in a green house a few months out of the year.
Under his administration, they've gutted nearly every environmental regulatory framework - the laws that keep chemicals out of our groundwater, etc. He's turned things that used to be requirements for public safety into "guidelines" that companies can follow - if they want to.
I mean I don't even know where to start. Maybe his house in Texas, that he lives at for 2-3 months out of a year, is really carbon-friendly; but compared to the fact that he's decimated the federal research funding for alternative fuel sources? It doesn't count for shit.
Why is Bush portrayed as unfriendly to the environment? Because he is, whenever it's in a corporation's interest to be so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by riVeRraT, posted 05-08-2007 9:28 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by riVeRraT, posted 05-09-2007 9:23 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024