The dog did it!

[ocnblu]

Did you guys see that article about a study that revealed that DOGS and their associated needs (for example, growing food for them, etc.) cause more pollution than the world's automobiles?

I love dogs, they are the most loyal, loving pet a man can have, but this study just highlights how ridiculous the car haters have gotten, and how hypocritical the "climate change OMG" movement really is.

woof!

Edited December 24, 2009 by ocnblu

[Croc]

Cars are relatively clean; the biggest polluters are idling ships and freight trucks at the ports. Airplanes are pretty bad too.

[Camino LS6]

Nice dose of perspective there. Mr. Blu.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Actually, as anyone who is an architect can tell you, 85% of greenhouse gases come from BUILDINGS.

Yet, for some reason, we target individual consumers... Hmm, it's almost as if it's a means to CONTROL..

Oh wait, you guys know all about my being a conflict theorist and my ideas on how the green movement is a tool for regulation instead of the 'happy, sweet, environmental savior' that they want you to think it is, right?

Good.

[PONTIAC06]

Power generation in the US is a HUGE polluter as well, and if the plants are small enough they don't even have to meet federal regulations. If every tree hugger really wanted to save the world they could just stop using anything electric...see how they like that

[balthazar]

Would like to learn more on exactly how buildings emit 'greenhouse gases'. Is this only taking in the intial product/material production, or does it also include existing buildings & their HVA/C system output ?

-- -- -- -- --

I like animals fine, have lived w/ a number, but I think in general the practice gets abused to a degree. I see MANY owners who keep dogs out in the yard 24/7 - that's not a 'companion', that's captivity. There's no point to it. Our cat was put down in '07 after 16 years, and I have no desire to replace him with any sort of indoor pet, likely ever. I do not care to be beholden to an animal at this point in my life. But the number of animals out there is staggering, yes.

[Drew Dowdell]

Did you guys see that article about a study that revealed that DOGS and their associated needs (for example, growing food for them, etc.) cause more pollution than the world's automobiles?

I love dogs, they are the most loyal, loving pet a man can have, but this study just highlights how ridiculous the car haters have gotten, and how hypocritical the "climate change OMG" movement really is.

woof!

While reducing carbon in cars is desirable, the real crux for me is getting us off of foreign fuels. I don't care how my car is powered as long as it's clean, relatively inexpensive, the money doesn't go to some middle east country that would like to kill us, and the performance is within expectations. We can do all of that using biofuels.

[pow]

The crap most pet owners feed their dogs and cats comes from animal scraps, which would otherwise be thrown away. A medium sized dog doesn't eat 360 pounds of filet mignon a year; it eats maybe 360 pounds of "animal byproduct" instead.

I worked at a place near an animal rendering plant... and let me tell you it absolutely STINKS. They take in animal carcasses from nearby slaughterhouses, dead pets/zoo animals/roadkill, and supermarket food waste, which they mince and boil in a vat at 280F. The fat is siphoned off (beef tallow, lard, glycerin, stearic acid, etc), while the protein is dehydrated into meat and bone meal. Yummo.

As a result I'd argue that Fido and Rover's dinners hardly make a dent on overall GHG emissions, because what they eat would otherwise be wasted.

[pow]

Would like to learn more on exactly how buildings emit 'greenhouse gases'. Is this only taking in the intial product/material production, or does it also include existing buildings & their HVA/C system output ?

Energy usage... the GHGs are traced back to the power plant.

[Croc]

Actually, as anyone who is an architect can tell you, 85% of greenhouse gases come from BUILDINGS.

Yet, for some reason, we target individual consumers... Hmm, it's almost as if it's a means to CONTROL..

Oh wait, you guys know all about my being a conflict theorist and my ideas on how the green movement is a tool for regulation instead of the 'happy, sweet, environmental savior' that they want you to think it is, right?

Good.

That's what LEED building certification is for. Green building is finally starting to spread to the rest of the country, though California was in on it back in the 1960s with Richard Neutra's Hall of Records building in the downtown Civic Center.

http://www.aiacc.org/site/docs/neutra.pdf

[SAmadei]

As a result I'd argue that Fido and Rover's dinners hardly make a dent on overall GHG emissions, because what they eat would otherwise be wasted.

I'm not so sure of this... Without the dog food market, they would just dress up the scraps and sell them as stuff like Slim Jims... to a whole new third world market.

[A Horse With No Name]

Would like to learn more on exactly how buildings emit 'greenhouse gases'. Is this only taking in the intial product/material production, or does it also include existing buildings & their HVA/C system output ?

-- -- -- -- --

I like animals fine, have lived w/ a number, but I think in general the practice gets abused to a degree. I see MANY owners who keep dogs out in the yard 24/7 - that's not a 'companion', that's captivity. There's no point to it. Our cat was put down in '07 after 16 years, and I have no desire to replace him with any sort of indoor pet, likely ever. I do not care to be beholden to an animal at this point in my life. But the number of animals out there is staggering, yes.

Do a load calculation on a modern resteraunt, both for HVAC/Refrig as well as electrical. Amazing mount of energy useage...and I love to eat out.

While I am of a more liberal stripe, I think what will really change things is when the cost of energy goes up.

And yes, people who leave dogs out 24/7 in "captivity" should be shot.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

The crap most pet owners feed their dogs and cats comes from animal scraps, which would otherwise be thrown away. A medium sized dog doesn't eat 360 pounds of filet mignon a year; it eats maybe 360 pounds of "animal byproduct" instead.

I worked at a place near an animal rendering plant... and let me tell you it absolutely STINKS. They take in animal carcasses from nearby slaughterhouses, dead pets/zoo animals/roadkill, and supermarket food waste, which they mince and boil in a vat at 280F. The fat is siphoned off (beef tallow, lard, glycerin, stearic acid, etc), while the protein is dehydrated into meat and bone meal. Yummo.

As a result I'd argue that Fido and Rover's dinners hardly make a dent on overall GHG emissions, because what they eat would otherwise be wasted.

We have a rendering plant on the South side of Columbus that I drive past on the way home...that place STINKS!

Chris

[balthazar]

Something I've taken notice of recently while out driving in the middle of the night.

Some commercial/ retail businesses are completely lit up all night long: parking lots & signage, too. Complete waste of energy- these should be minimally lit & dimmed while at it. This cannot be prohibitively expensive to retro-fit for, and there's no reason to keep everything lit- the businesses that are darkened or very minimally lit are NOT going to be statistically any more prone to vandalism or break-ins.

Why this is not targeted urgently, I have no idea, but the practice is rampant.

[A Horse With No Name]

Something I've taken notice of recently while out driving in the middle of the night.

Some commercial/ retail businesses are completely lit up all night long: parking lots & signage, too. Complete waste of energy- these should be minimally lit & dimmed while at it. This cannot be prohibitively expensive to retro-fit for, and there's no reason to keep everything lit- the businesses that are darkened or very minimally lit are NOT going to be statistically any more prone to vandalism or break-ins.

Why this is not targeted urgently, I have no idea, but the practice is rampant.

Amazingly, this is a very cheap retro fit. A time clock and a set of electrical contactors can make things go dim for a few hundred dollards, installed.

We have customers that leave the lighting on all day and all night...which makes NO sense at all.

However, at $65 an hour for Bucket Truck service, plus the cost of lamps, ballasts etc...plus my markup...being stupid helps my bottom line.

This is where I part company with "conservatives" because I think simple, effective regulation of light pollution/energy wastage could save us a huge amount of energy.

Plus, lets be honest...I like looking at the stars at night.

Chris

[mustang84]

Would like to learn more on exactly how buildings emit 'greenhouse gases'. Is this only taking in the intial product/material production, or does it also include existing buildings & their HVA/C system output ?

-- -- -- -- --

I like animals fine, have lived w/ a number, but I think in general the practice gets abused to a degree. I see MANY owners who keep dogs out in the yard 24/7 - that's not a 'companion', that's captivity. There's no point to it. Our cat was put down in '07 after 16 years, and I have no desire to replace him with any sort of indoor pet, likely ever. I do not care to be beholden to an animal at this point in my life. But the number of animals out there is staggering, yes.

I haven't seen that 85% figure before, but I do know that 51% of US energy consumption is from heating, cooling, and powering buildings.

[balthazar]

>>"This is where I part company with "conservatives" because I think simple, effective regulation of light pollution/energy wastage could save us a huge amount of energy."<<

I have never heard a proclaimed conservative advocating blazing lights 24/7.

'Conservatively' speaking; regulation of commercial lighting should be of little to no issue. There already are a host of local ordinances to comply with. Having a shopping mall dim it's parking lot lights to -say- 35% at night and -say- completely off or cycle on/off from 2AM on... something on that order- is not unreasonable in anyone's book.

But you cannot legislate private property lighting nor should you try. Stick with conservation education there.

[A Horse With No Name]

Depends on how you define conservative...

To me, commonsense ordinances like this are the real meat and potatos of gov't....

Anyhooo...

At least we agree on this.

Chris

[daves87rs]

Whew!

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

That's what LEED building certification is for. Green building is finally starting to spread to the rest of the country, though California was in on it back in the 1960s with Richard Neutra's Hall of Records building in the downtown Civic Center.

http://www.aiacc.org/site/docs/neutra.pdf

LEED is getting better, but it's still a bit of a joke.

Case in point: The previous version awarded ONE point for renovating an entire building for a renewed purpose. Yet it awarded TWO points for putting a a bike rack out in front of a new (READ: likely unneeded) 'ground up' building.

[Z-06]

That's what LEED building certification is for. Green building is finally starting to spread to the rest of the country, though California was in on it back in the 1960s with Richard Neutra's Hall of Records building in the downtown Civic Center.

http://www.aiacc.org...docs/neutra.pdf

One step away from getting LEED AP.

LEED is getting better, but it's still a bit of a joke.

Case in point: The previous version awarded ONE point for renovating an entire building for a renewed purpose. Yet it awarded TWO points for putting a a bike rack out in front of a new (READ: likely unneeded) 'ground up' building.

It is still in infancy. Some drastic changes are needed to bring more control on it. Civil Engineers are just gathering the momentum.

[regfootball]

Actually, as anyone who is an architect can tell you, 85% of greenhouse gases come from BUILDINGS.

Yet, for some reason, we target individual consumers... Hmm, it's almost as if it's a means to CONTROL..

Oh wait, you guys know all about my being a conflict theorist and my ideas on how the green movement is a tool for regulation instead of the 'happy, sweet, environmental savior' that they want you to think it is, right?

Good.

they tell you its from buildings so they can fuel their own leftist agenda to remodel and make sustainable a bunch of decrepit old buildings....because they never figured out how to make any kind of living from designing new buildings to meet typical market demand. they can't make it doing what they should be doing so they are in essence creating a set of 'reasons' to expand their services beyond basic process because they aren't bright enough to figure out how to make a decent living doing just that.

volcanoes are climates worst enemy i thought.

[regfootball]

LEED is getting better, but it's still a bit of a joke.

Case in point: The previous version awarded ONE point for renovating an entire building for a renewed purpose. Yet it awarded TWO points for putting a a bike rack out in front of a new (READ: likely unneeded) 'ground up' building.

LEED in concept is admirable but the whole BS has been commericalized and turned into marketing rhetoric. And I can tell you, generally the purseholders will pursue only the 'cheap' LEED points.....which is fair. In my opinion, if you are a big green building banger, than YOU come up with the $$$$$$$ to pay for all the really expensive stuff.

In my opinion, the govt should be providing tax incentives to develop energy efficient tech for buildings so the companies can offer and amortize the costs on an attractive scale so it becomes commonplace through market forces. NOT legislation.

The huge windmill I am stuck looking at now everyday as i drive home, really makes me wish they would add more ordinances to keep them out of populated residential areas.

[regfootball]

Do a load calculation on a modern resteraunt, both for HVAC/Refrig as well as electrical. Amazing mount of energy useage...and I love to eat out.

While I am of a more liberal stripe, I think what will really change things is when the cost of energy goes up.

And yes, people who leave dogs out 24/7 in "captivity" should be shot.

Chris

restaurant = power usage and heat generation. if there are two things we should use energy and fuel for, food and drink would seem to be high on the list.

most buildings are in cooling mode most of the time anyways. a lot of this is due to the fact that humans themselves create heat. the interior environment becomes harmful if proper heat, and humidity are not maintained. if you imagine the heat added by cooking food, that needs to be exhausted.

i don't think we have done near enough with solar and geothermal, although solar is simply not cost effective at this point and this is why the US needs to have tax incentives to fund our companies to become global leaders in this. Geothermal is efficient in that energy exhange through fluids is very efficient.

buildings also degrade if proper interior environment is not maintained. better to spend on that then replacing degraded facilities.

with all that stimulus money, instead of ppumping AIG, and instead of throwing a ton at a useless health care policy, some tax incetnives and research money to keep the leading edge in electric power generation, solar, alt fuels, and incentives for green building as opposed to a contrived rating system would make a lot more sense.

there is so much rhetoric about global warming from so many, it would be refreshing if these people lined up the plans and funding to make actual progress as opposed to trying to manipulate people's behavior.

[balthazar]

I would assume with little doubt that geothermal in urban areas is impractical due to the footprint required- it's a suburban/rural tech for the most part.

>>"they tell you its from buildings so they can fuel their own leftist agenda to remodel and make sustainable a bunch of decrepit old buildings....because they never figured out how to make any kind of living from designing new buildings to meet typical market demand. they can't make it doing what they should be doing..."<<

Market was hit very hard (even here in NJ), so I have little doubt many are looking to create 'new demand' however possible to keep businesses from closing/ radically downsizing. Again: the theory sounds reasonable given honest education & market-driven demand... but pushing to legislate based largely on falsified data & junk science....

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

they tell you its from buildings so they can fuel their own leftist agenda to remodel and make sustainable a bunch of decrepit old buildings....because they never figured out how to make any kind of living from designing new buildings to meet typical market demand. they can't make it doing what they should be doing so they are in essence creating a set of 'reasons' to expand their services beyond basic process because they aren't bright enough to figure out how to make a decent living doing just that.

Spoken like someone who has endured lots of architecture professor 'opinions'. LOL

I can definitely see that being the case.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

restaurant = power usage and heat generation. if there are two things we should use energy and fuel for, food and drink would seem to be high on the list.

most buildings are in cooling mode most of the time anyways. a lot of this is due to the fact that humans themselves create heat. the interior environment becomes harmful if proper heat, and humidity are not maintained. if you imagine the heat added by cooking food, that needs to be exhausted.

i don't think we have done near enough with solar and geothermal, although solar is simply not cost effective at this point and this is why the US needs to have tax incentives to fund our companies to become global leaders in this. Geothermal is efficient in that energy exhange through fluids is very efficient.

buildings also degrade if proper interior environment is not maintained. better to spend on that then replacing degraded facilities.

with all that stimulus money, instead of ppumping AIG, and instead of throwing a ton at a useless health care policy, some tax incetnives and research money to keep the leading edge in electric power generation, solar, alt fuels, and incentives for green building as opposed to a contrived rating system would make a lot more sense.

there is so much rhetoric about global warming from so many, it would be refreshing if these people lined up the plans and funding to make actual progress as opposed to trying to manipulate people's behavior.

+1

I agree 100%.

That is why I believe the 'green movement' is a giant scam and more a means of control than a solution. And it stinks of academia..

These people talk A LOT of $h!, but they never actually DO anything to solve the problem. Instead of taking direct action (the former "american way") and using our ingenuity to solve the problem, we judge each other, insult each other and hopelessly regulate and try to hold on to what little 'glory' we have left.

It's all one big joke.

Edited December 29, 2009 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[A Horse With No Name]

I would assume with little doubt that geothermal in urban areas is impractical due to the footprint required- it's a suburban/rural tech for the most part.

>>"they tell you its from buildings so they can fuel their own leftist agenda to remodel and make sustainable a bunch of decrepit old buildings....because they never figured out how to make any kind of living from designing new buildings to meet typical market demand. they can't make it doing what they should be doing..."<<

Market was hit very hard (even here in NJ), so I have little doubt many are looking to create 'new demand' however possible to keep businesses from closing/ radically downsizing. Again: the theory sounds reasonable given honest education & market-driven demand... but pushing to legislate based largely on falsified data & junk science....

Balthazar...check out Ball State university in my old home town of Muncie, Indiana. they have a state of the art Geothermal energy project that is large in scale and actually makes sense.

And Reg...not saying we shouldn't use energy for food and drink, just that we should use it more efficiently.

Chris

Edited December 29, 2009 by 66Stang

[Robert Hall]

Don't cattle create a lot of methane? Why aren't they fitted with catalytic converters of some sort?

[pow]

Don't cattle create a lot of methane? Why aren't they fitted with catalytic converters of some sort?

CH4 can be captured and burned for energy. Top Gear once did a poo powered car vs. a normal car drag race.

[regfootball]

I would assume with little doubt that geothermal in urban areas is impractical due to the footprint required- it's a suburban/rural tech for the most part.

>>"they tell you its from buildings so they can fuel their own leftist agenda to remodel and make sustainable a bunch of decrepit old buildings....because they never figured out how to make any kind of living from designing new buildings to meet typical market demand. they can't make it doing what they should be doing..."<<

Market was hit very hard (even here in NJ), so I have little doubt many are looking to create 'new demand' however possible to keep businesses from closing/ radically downsizing. Again: the theory sounds reasonable given honest education & market-driven demand... but pushing to legislate based largely on falsified data & junk science....

geothermal loops can go vertical (down) and they also often are buried beneath parking paving.

you don't need much latitude anymore to do geothermal.

[regfootball]

These people talk A LOT of $h!, but they never actually DO anything to solve the problem. Instead of taking direct action (the former "american way") and using our ingenuity to solve the problem, we judge each other, insult each other and hopelessly regulate and try to hold on to what little 'glory' we have left.

thank you for seeing the light in the distance so clearly

Edited December 30, 2009 by regfootball

[regfootball]

Balthazar...check out Ball State university in my old home town of Muncie, Indiana. they have a state of the art Geothermal energy project that is large in scale and actually makes sense.

And Reg...not saying we shouldn't use energy for food and drink, just that we should use it more efficiently.

Chris

that is a blanket statement just like saying cars should get much better mpg.

so it also falls under the 'if they had a magic solution for doing it they would already be doing it'

as i know you know regarding electrical mechanical etc. are designed for different 'load' criteria. analogous to crash test standards and such.

if the facility is designed for 'x' people, and is performing certain functions in a room 'x' large (occupant load can either be a function of square foot or actual users, doesn't matter, the restaurant owner will want to say how many customers he wants to accommodate to make his business plan work) then the mechanical load calcs are pretty much a direct mathematical computation of what ASHRAE and code dictate. There is a means by system design to reduce electrical load with better system design and more efficient units and such, but I sort of use the analogy of 6 speed trannies or CVT's. Yes, they work better, more mpg. But they require more precise and expensive manufacture and probably more maintenance and such. And their savings are incremental. We constantly read about the new trannies with 6 or 8 speeds or DSG yet they only achieve 6-8% mpg improvements.

Every little bit helps, but it just highlights that if there truly were a golden nugget to reduce energy usage in buildings it would be being used universally and we'd see major savings.

What actually is the bigger problem is something i studied a lot when i was like 8-9 years old. Passive siting techniques that maximize climate and sun etc are virtually ignored still in the design community....but that is because commercial real estate and clients and the public in general is very resistant culturally to what buildings with real climatic orientation would look and function like. You would end up building a whole bunch of unrentable office space etc. Not to mention the construction community only wants to build and warranty what is simple, typical, and easy.

I think electronic building controls have the greatest potential to save energy in buildings along with passive siting and climate techniques. Solar responsive or programmed window screening, lighting and hvac controlled more by building occupation and peak times etc.

And even then we're not gonna save 50%.

Buildings may use 85% of energy but what people fail to think about is they probably spend 85% of their grown lives INSIDE A FREAKING BUILDING. Buildings are shelter, a basic need right up there with food and sex. So DUH we're gonna use energy to fulfill a basic need. Also, think about what goes on in a building. We make food, we make all sorts of things we need to live.

So everyone needs to stop villifying buildings. We'd all be dead if it weren't for safe comfortable, functional buildings.

That said, maybe if they want to use less energy, lets build a lot less office buildings and more of us can work from home. IF half of us worked from home, then we wouldnt need half the offices and we would save half that energy. These are paradigms I prefer to think in. Solve the greater problems.

Or cars. We all drive all over the place to work. Well maybe if more of us lived closer to work. Not everyone can commute to a congested downtown. It would make a lot more sense if employment places were interdispersed to the population so more folks in the remote areas were closer to their jobs.

Edited December 30, 2009 by regfootball