Hybrid Parking?! F- THAT.

[stampsx2]

What a bunch of whiners. I park my truck at the end of the lot so I don't get any scratches on it and walk the few steps. Who cares if they have hybrid parking. I wouldn't care if the had parking for people wearing red shirts at the front of the lot. What, is it too cold for everybody? Is it the unnecessary exercise everybody is worried about?

This is Canada suck it up and be grateful for what you have. It's almost the new year, I can't believe this is the best thing we can come up with for a new thread. Who started this dumb thread?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

What a bunch of whiners. I park my truck at the end of the lot so I don't get any scratches on it and walk the few steps. Who cares if they have hybrid parking. I wouldn't care if the had parking for people wearing red shirts at the front of the lot. What, is it too cold for everybody? Is it the unnecessary exercise everybody is worried about?

This is Canada suck it up and be grateful for what you have. It's almost the new year, I can't believe this is the best thing we can come up with for a new thread. Who started this dumb thread?

I use the same policy as you. I typically park at the back of the lot where there are fewer cars to cram me. I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it, but I still like to b!tch about ###### bags with unnecessary privileges......

[JustAnotherGuy]

When I go to the mall or whatever I park my car in a spot that is convenient for me to park in. I do not park in handicapped or other designated spots. I just park my car and walk into the place. Are some of you so lazy and irritatable that you have to have the best parking spot of them all? Walk a little further and get over it.

If it is such a huge problem to walk that far say yes when the checkout person asks you if you want a hand out with your groceries.

[SebC]

If there aren't enough hybrids to fill these spaces, then making them hybrid-only is waste. And isn't the point of hybrids to reduce waste?

[Acey]

The point of it is to encourage people to buy hybrids so you can park closer to the door. But since it can't be enforced and people figured that out right away and parked their trucks there, it's pointless.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Acey

The point of it is to encourage people to buy hybrids so you can park closer to the door. But since it can't be enforced and people figured that out right away and parked their trucks there, it's pointless.

I agree. Unless they do it like Mass., where they tow and fine, it's pointless. Most places are going by the honour system, and we know how much of that there is in the general populace.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I agree. Unless they do it like Mass., where they tow and fine, it's pointless. Most places are going by the honour system, and we know how much of that there is in the general populace.

Go ahead and tow and fine . I'm sure the signs would disappear faster than they could put them back up. If its not evident this is a gimmick by big box companies to appear environmentally conscious. Despite the fact they manufacture 95% of their products in the third world I don't know what is.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by zamler

BS. All vehicles are tested using the same conditions. The best hybrids run very very clean, far and above the average car.

More BS. The materials used in the batteries are the SAME materials used in other cars as well, including chrome trim, the frame etc. For example, the amount of nickel in a Prius NiMH battery pack is about the same as what an average SUV contains in the frame and base structure. A large SUV with a lot of trim etc. will contain significantly more nickel.

It's convenient that you focused your response on the Ni part of the NiMH battery, not the M which is an intermetallic compound being a mix of rare earth metals Lanthanium, Cerium, Neodymium and Praseodumium, among others.

The reason that a base Prius costs 11000$ more than a base Corolla with Automatic transmission is because the hybrid comes with two drive trains (which takes energy to mine, transport, smelt and manufacture) and is loaded with exotic materials that also take energy to mine, smelt and manufacture. The reality of our economic system is that the cost of stuff is pretty much proportional to the energy cost to produce that stuff.

If someone really cared about total GHG emissions, they would buy a Corolla and put the extra money into paying extra for wind-powered electricity or buying better windows or getting a better furnace or an on-demand hot water heater. That's what I did.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

If someone really cared about total GHG emissions, they would buy a Corolla and put the extra money into paying extra for wind-powered electricity or buying better windows or getting a better furnace or an on-demand hot water heater. That's what I did.

I didn't realize it was an either/or option. If I buy a Prius I am banned from using Bullfrog and getting an energy star approved furnace?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I didn't realize it was an either/or option. If I buy a Prius I am banned from using Bullfrog and getting an energy star approved furnace?

I think he means for people on a finite budget. They could make bigger environmental inroads by buying a cheap fuel efficient internal combustion engine and focus their efforts elsewhere.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I think he means for people on a finite budget. They could make bigger environmental inroads by buying a cheap fuel efficient internal combustion engine and focus their efforts elsewhere.

Okay. But that doesn't rule out the usefulness of hybrids for those that can afford them and already have energy efficient windows, etc..

I think you should compost. Some people live in apartments where compositing is not feasible. That doesn't rule out the usefulness of composters.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I didn't realize it was an either/or option. If I buy a Prius I am banned from using Bullfrog and getting an energy star approved furnace?

If it's about ghg efficiency, regardless of cost or lifestyle changes, what's best is to not buy a Prius, move somewhere where you don't have to heat your house, live without air conditioning and walk to your farm where you grow your own food and make your own tools and clothing. And get a vasectomy.

Are you banned from that? I didn't realize it was an either/or option.

Of course my point was that given limited resources, it's better to chose one than the other; your dollar goes a lot farther in terms of reducing ghg emissions by fixing your house than in buying a heavy vehicle where the total life-cycle energy cost is buried in the manufacture of exotic materials and duplicate power systems. It might seem like you are saving ghg emissions but you definitely are not saving as much as it seems once you account for the manufacture of a vehicle that is very much more complicated than a Corolla. That energy cost is reflected in the up-front price when you purchase the vehicle and I contend that you can put that money to better use.

Given unlimited resources, you can shoot for the moon but people rarely think about the total energy balance in the so-called green choices they make.

For instance, consider how much energy is saved by putting a CF-lightbulb in a house in Calgary. Sure they are more efficient in terms of transforming electricity into light but an incandescent bulb's "waste energy" is in the form of heat. We heat our houses for 8 months of the year so that light bulb heat has to be made up with natural gas from the furnace. Is 4 months of savings worth the extra energy cost to manufacture then safely dispose of a bulb that contains mercury? The answer is yes, but only because they last an average of 8 times longer than a standard bulb, not so much because they use less of one form of energy, requiring the consumption of another form.

There are lots of ways to actually save energy - live close to where you work, ride your bike, fix your leaky house and old furnace, go on vacations close to home, buy local produce. If you want to reduce GHG emissions, lobby your government to subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants and upgrade the power grid so that there is enough capacity so cars can be electric or regenerating fuel-cell powered. There are tons of solutions but people would rather do something that seems to be "green" than make changes in their lives to actually reduce their energy consumption.

Buying a Prius is a way to look like you are doing something when you might not be doing much at all.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Okay. But that doesn't rule out the usefulness of hybrids for those that can afford them and already have energy efficient windows, etc..

I think you should compost. Some people live in apartments where compositing is not feasible. That doesn't rule out the usefulness of composters.

For the money you spend on a Hybrid, you could get a standard engine that would save X, AND THEN upgrade the insulation and windows in your home, add some solar panels, build a compost bin, change out all your lights, get a new furnace, new hot water tank, and probably upgrade all your faucets and shower heads too.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

For instance, consider how much energy is saved by putting a CF-lightbulb in a house in Calgary. Sure they are more efficient in terms of transforming electricity into light but an incandescent bulb's "waste energy" is in the form of heat. We heat our houses for 8 months of the year so that light bulb heat has to be made up with natural gas from the furnace. Is 4 months of savings worth the extra energy cost to manufacture then safely dispose of a bulb that contains mercury? The answer is yes, but only because they last an average of 8 times longer than a standard bulb, not so much because they use less of one form of energy, requiring the consumption of another form.

I honestly can't believe I still see this arguement popping up. Those incandescent bulbs do give off extra heat, yes, but the equivalent natural gas that would heat the house the same amount would likely cost a penny a month. Also, the four months that we aren't heating the house with natural gas, lots of places get air conditioned, and those incandescent bulbs only add to the air conditioning load. Electric heat is expensive, and if you do want to use electric heat, why not use an appliance that's even more efficient than a light bulb?

As for the mercury in CFLs, we all should be switching to LED light bulbs.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I honestly can't believe I still see this arguement popping up. Those incandescent bulbs do give off extra heat, yes, but the equivalent natural gas that would heat the house the same amount would likely cost a penny a month. Also, the four months that we aren't heating the house with natural gas, lots of places get air conditioned, and those incandescent bulbs only add to the air conditioning load. Electric heat is expensive, and if you do want to use electric heat, why not use an appliance that's even more efficient than a light bulb?

As for the mercury in CFLs, we all should be switching to LED light bulbs.

If you look at your gas or power bill, the large majority of it is the transmission fees and taxes, not the amount you actually use.

How much would the savings for CFL bulbs knock off your electricity bill? Pennies a month? Sure it's enough to pay for a 4 dollar bulb over 8 years of use but my point wasn't that they are useless, just that people don't consider the other side effects and (back to the original point of discussion) would be better served doing something that really reduced consumption (walking more and fixing the weather stripping on your doors and getting better windows etc.).

My point was that efficiency somewhere (in the amount of fuel you put in your hybrid or the amount of electricity you consume) can well be made up for in other places (exotic materials and deferred heating) and if you pay a lot for that privilege, you are wasting your money.

I have CFL bulbs in and outside of my house because I know that electricity=coal in Alberta but I also will continue to encourage people to take the 11 grand that they would be giving to Toyota for a largely symbolic increase in efficiency and put it towards fixing their houses where a real increase in efficiency can be had with that kind of dough.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

if you do want to use electric heat, why not use an appliance that's even more efficient than a light bulb?

Light bulbs are incredibly efficient heaters, up around 98% or so! Far more efficient, in fact, than the best gas furnaces, which come up on 90% or so I believe with the latest models.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Light bulbs are incredibly efficient heaters, up around 98% or so! Far more efficient, in fact, than the best gas furnaces, which come up on 90% or so I believe with the latest models.

Pretty much all of the electrical energy becomes heat or light (both of which are useful except for a handful of weeks every year or outdoors, where CF bulbs should exclusively be used). There is very little emitted in the UV spectrum and next to no noise from an incandescent bulb.

I found a story on the cbc that supports my contention about lightbulbs.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/st...ght-bulbs.html

The article says that rather than saving 75% of the energy for CF bulbs, the actual energy savings in Winnipeg would be about 17%. It further says that in jurisdictions like BC, people end up with more GHG emissions because they burn more gas to replace the hydro-powered energy "wasted" by regular bulbs.

Anyway, part of my beef with CF bulbs is how badly they do at actually lighting rooms. Some of them (especially the ones meant for chandeliers and pot light sockets) are terrible. They take a long time to get to full lumination (maybe 90% brightness in a minute, 5 minutes for full brightness). I know this because I was a good little elf and replaced most of the lights in my house, hoping to save money in the long run - then my big engineer brain got to thinking about where that waste heat was going and got to wondering if adding a bunch of mercury-vapour lights was worth what turns out to be a pretty poor return on investment.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

I found a story on the cbc that supports my contention about lightbulbs.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/st...ght-bulbs.html

The article says that rather than saving 75% of the energy for CF bulbs, the actual energy savings in Winnipeg would be about 17%. It further says that in jurisdictions like BC, people end up with more GHG emissions because they burn more gas to replace the hydro-powered energy "wasted" by regular bulbs.

Those kind of articles are misleading though - to claim that a household creates more GHG because you heated with gas rather than leftover lightbulb heat presumes you have also factored in how much energy is needed to build, run and maintain the hydro plant and transmission lines, vs. extracting natural gas from the ground and shipping it to your door via pipe.

By your own supposition that the cost of goods directly relates to the energy costs associated with them (which I disagree with, but I'll roll with it for now), that hydro electricity took more energy to create than the gas, since it was more expensive in the first place, prompting people to switch to CF bulbs.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Those kind of articles are misleading though - to claim that a household creates more GHG because you heated with gas rather than leftover lightbulb heat presumes you have also factored in how much energy is needed to build, run and maintain the hydro plant and transmission lines, vs. extracting natural gas from the ground and shipping it to your door via pipe.

By your own supposition that the cost of goods directly relates to the energy costs associated with them (which I disagree with, but I'll roll with it for now), that hydro electricity took more energy to create than the gas, since it was more expensive in the first place, prompting people to switch to CF bulbs.

Of course the fallacy there is that the energy to build that infrastructure has already been spent. Even if that were not true, the energy balance calculation is pretty easy:

If you look at a new hydroelectric project, you should look at the lifecycle energy costs compared to the produced power. The energy it takes to produce that much concrete (75kg of CO2 equivalent/tonne of concrete), steel (1930kg CO2 equivalent/tonne) and to move that much earth needs to be considered.

The Three Gorges Dam took:
- 64.5 million tonnes of concrete (4.83 million tonnes worth of CO2)
- 463000 tonnes of steel (890000 tonnes of CO2)
- moved 102 million tonnes of earth (unknown energy cost)
- displaced 1.2 million people (at an unknown but staggering energy cost to build whole new cities)
- an unknown amount of energy to move all the raw materials there in the first place

Now it produces electricity equivalent of burning about 31 million tonnes of coal per year so it's pretty clear that even if the earth moving and people relocation costs are very high, it pays itself off in pretty short time.

There is something to this line of thinking though. If it weren't for the cheap energy of the past, we wouldn't have the roads, dams, irrigation, pipelines, refineries and whatnot that we have today. Looking ahead to when we don't have ridiculously inexpensive petroleum energy (less for a litre of gasoline than a litre of water in most retail cases), we are going to be in pretty dire straights. All of our wealth - the food we eat, the goods we consume, our transportation and infrastructure all rely on fossil fuels to an astonishing degree. We need to be building the energy generation system of the future now while we can afford it, from an energy balance point of view.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

How much would the savings for CFL bulbs knock off your electricity bill? Pennies a month?

Let's do a quick calculation. Let's figure that there's a light bulb that's on for an average of 8 hours a day, every day. That's 240 hours per month, assuming 30 days in a month on average.

An incandescent bulb uses 60 watts, the replacement CFL uses 13 watts. Therefore, a CFL bulb saves 47 watt/hours every hour.

47x 240 = 11,280 watt hours per month = 11.28 kWh per month.

Now lets assume an average power price of 10 cents per kWh, which means that for every incandescent bulb that you replace with a CFL, you save $1.28 PER MONTH. Obviously, not every bulb is on for 8 hours a day, but replacing every bulb in your house will significantly cut down your power bill.

That's more than a few pennies a month in savings.

Like I said though, everyone should go for LED bulbs, but hopefully they come down in price a lot in the next couple of years.