Just 90 companies are to blame for most climate change

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Plazma Inferno!, Aug 29, 2016.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,234
    I am in the city at the moment and I notice all the Moms drive 4wd and I cant recall seeing mud on one yet.
    I have a small car and it seems more roomy than my "family" 6 cyd car of 25 years ago and certainly much faster.
    It is great in the dirt because it has traction control so almost as good as 4wd.
    Alex
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,674
    Every single one of us "consumes like spoilt children" compared to someone in the Middle Ages. And we are ascetic saints compared to someone from the year 2100.
    Yes - and make sure there is room for all the pigs.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,234
    You are no doubt correct.
    I feel guilty if I use a whole candle even when its a full Moon.
    It is impossible forus to understand how tuff it would have been in those times.
    A pair of shoes would have been a massive investement.
    I have no shoes only a pair of scuffs. But that is because my legs are not very flash.
    Folk think itsfunny seeing me in scuffs and no socks on a winters day but shoes make my feet feel like they are on fire.
    But some people have many pairs of shoes and consider it normal to change them as fashion dictates.
    I do think folk could be less wasteful.

    Waste less means that you work less and enjoy more of your finite time.
    Alex
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,234
    There are so many things we could do to reduce electricity consumption and therefore reduce consumption of coal and oil and even yellow cake.
    We could make a list.
    We have covered toys and it is reasonable to work on the assumption toys will not be cut back.
    So my first idea is to remove most of the countless fridges in the many office blocks and work places.
    Often they only hold some milk and some food going off, and yet away they run burning coal when a little thought could see huge savings.
    Hot water is the first place to direct solar energy.
    Even if you can only half heat water this way that is a big saving.
    Where does so much of the energy go.. I have no figures but I am guessing hot water and refrigeration consume lots of energy so even a small improvement may translate into much less coal and oil being burnt.
    No toys need be put on hold.
    Alex
     
  8. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,986
    You need to learn about the concept of evidence. Your choice of cars has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality of what has happened in the aggregate. Contrary to your implied claim, average fuel economy has not dropped by half in that time it has risen by something on the order of 80%.
    You're missing the point. Yes, the government could do some simple things like ban or tax the crap out of oil, but not without substantial harm to the economy. Since oil companies don't make cars, reducing their output wouldn't magically make more efficient cars spring into being, it would be a secondary and delayed effect. Regulating fuel economy of cars/car companies (which is what is done) has the direct effect on oil consumption that is desired.
     
  9. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,986
    We'll see. If we are still just talking about energy, it is hard for me to imagine where the next big energy consuming technology is going to come from. The reality for the past several decades is that the energy footprint of the average westerner is decreasing, not increasing (as I know you are aware from our participation in the Peak Oil threads).
     
  10. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,883
    The link to this claim Russ. ( the energy foot print of the average westerner is decreasing ) .
     
  11. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,986
    There's a lot of data shown here, but it isn't all that easy to read and get the point:
    http://www.eia.gov/beta/internation...44-1-AFRC-QBTU.A&vo=0&v=H&start=1980&end=2014

    This graph for the United States shows the issue clearly:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The three main drivers of this are:
    1. HVAC energy efficiency. There are lots of specifics, but a big one is that with a stroke of a pen about 10 years ago, new household air conditioners got 23% more efficient (10->13 SEER).
    2. Car fuel economy has improved drastically as I said above.
    3. Lighting efficiency improved drastically with the elimination of most incandescents.

    I'm an HVAC engineer and one of my main specialties is energy conservation. Most of my clients are pharmaceuticals and most of them have absolute energy reduction goals that they are meeting.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2016
  12. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,883
    Hmm...17 yrs old . therefore irrelevant .

    In what form are they reducing energy consumption ? these pharma corps.
     
  13. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,986
    That graph ends in 2005 and we're in 2016. Want to math that again?

    [sigh] Your request seemed innocuous and straightforward and I'm more than happy to respond to such reasonable requests. Don't spoil the discussion by being unreasonable/argumentative. I was short on time and found a site that included the key point (it showed that the peak was 40 years ago). Given what you hopefully know about how the economy went over the past 10 years, I would certainly hope you could predict for yourself what it looke like more recently based on where it was then. But since I'm still being amenable (I request you slow your roll as well), here's one up through 2014, which looks exactly as one would expect:
    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.PCAP.KG.OE?locations=US
    Something on the order of 40-60% of a pharmaceutical's energy usage is for HVAC (low end for office, high end for labs and manufacturing) and HVAC provides the easiest savings, from three sources:

    1. Automation. Your HVAC at home is pretty dumb - it turns on when it needs to heat or cool and turns off when it doesn't. It'll do that several times an hour on a really hot or really cold day. But by modulating the heating or cooling provided, you can vastly improve efficiency. For example, a fan running full time at half speed uses 1/4(!) as much energy as a fan running full speed half the time.

    2. Labs and clean rooms have very high airflows in order to dilute chemicals and particles in the air. 20 years ago when energy was cheaper, people didn't pay attention to how much air they were using and overkill was common. With better testing and better design you can reduce airflows by as much as 50%.

    3. Decay. As systems age they get less efficient for a variety of reasons. Increased vigilance for maintenance and is often enough to make a significant improvement.

    Here's a specific corporate-level policy which was a 10% absolute energy use reduction by 2015 (which was met) and 25% by 2020, from a 2010 baseline:
    http://www.gsk.com/media/280803/climate-change-policy.pdf
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2016
  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,234
    I think it ends 2010 each division appears to represent 10 years.
    Alex
     
  15. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,986
    Hehe - you are correct!
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,674
    Electric vehicles and personal rotorcraft. Personal 3D printers for manufacturing everything from shoes to chairs. Active architecture. Climate change mitigation/adaptation.
    The amount of raw energy he consumes is decreasing; the amount of useful energy he is consuming is increasing. Classic examples include getting much larger cars that are more energy efficient, LED lighting and motor drives. Better motor drives translate into more efficient appliances.
     
  17. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,986
    You have a much more optomistic and further "out there" vision for the future than I do - my dad is still waiting for the flying car he was promised in the 1960s and I have my doubts that I'll ever see one in production.

    However, in a post-oil economy that is probably 50-100 years away, if we're being science fictiony, I suppose if we enter an era of 100% clean - and cheap - energy it could potentially unlock a new era of wastefulness. But if so, that will be a happy problem to have.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,674
    I don't think we will see a flying car either; there are too many compromises there.

    But I would be very surprised if we don't see a personal multirotor rotorcraft within 10 years. The technology exists now and hobbyists are building them:
    It won't be long before the biggest question is how to classify them for the FAA.

    Agreed there. Although I don't think we will ever enter a "post-oil economy" - the stuff is just too useful as a feedstock for everything from plastics to pharmaceuticals. Just getting to the point where we don't burn it as our primary motor fuel will be a big advance.
     
  19. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,986
    Fair enough and I agree, but in order to have a meaningful impact on our energy outlook there will need to be a million in the air at a time. That's why I connected them to flying cars.
    Agreed, and that is really what I was after: post oil as fuel.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,674
    I think that will happen sooner rather than later, but the vast majority will be unmanned - performing crop surveys, watching enemy movement, delivering packages. And they'll all be using energy. The FAA predicts 7 million by 2020 and I think that is a conservative estimate.
     

Share This Page