Space junk and global warming?

OK, well good for you for injecting some information into this debate. I will attempt to refute. I posted this elsewhere. I will look for it.

I'm not saying that CNW is biased, but I think they made mistakes with their analysis. Seems kinda fishy that they first assumed that the lifetime of a Hummer is 379,000 miles while a Prius is only 109,000. Well, OK, you say they corrected that, so let me look a little deeper ....

 

You've got a lot of nerve calling my science education weak. At least I'm supplying links and proofs for my claims. Where are yours?

Here's one on cell phones and radio waves, from the National Cancer Institute:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/cellphones

And another from the EM Radiaton Research Trust:

http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/15reasons.asp

I can get you even more, if you need 'em.

As for what science and engineering providing solar powered fuel cells, what you mean is, "they're working on solar powered fuel cells." Hopefully, they won't introduce them before they're fully tested and analyized for potential repercussions that they just didn't think would happen.
Bullet trains may be a good solution, or they may spawn problems of their own. The jury is still out.

However, I agree with you that materialism and corporate greed is at the root of most of the misdirection. Don't forget that whoever makes those bullet trains is a large corporations, too. Never trust a source with a "horse in the race" or a profit to be made by the outcome.

 

Trigcove, you raise some interesting ideas, even if I'm not sure I buy into all of your claims. For instance, polio is only making a "comeback" because people have lost their fear of it and aren't vaccinating as diligently as they once did. That's no fault of the science involved. And when I said "eradicate", I didn't necessarily mean the diseases themselves disappeared ... I just meant that the incidence of the diseases went to practically zero.

However, I do agree with you that science can be a double-edged sword. For instance, it would seem that all our fantastic medical advances and food production are just helping to hasten the day when the earth bursts at the seams from too many people. This is why population control is so desperately needed. But again, this is less a matter of science than it is of the nations of the world having the political will to institute control programs.

It's funny that the solutions to many of these problems are so self-evident to minds that look at them in a fresh way. I'm referring to my fifth-graders, who see them as pretty much black and white. Even second graders have insights that would astonish many politicians, I think. It's a joy to teach science to kids, because they soak up the information like sponges, and because they don't get things all wrapped up in politics.

It's very true, as you say, that science is mostly a trial-and-error process. But rather than seeing that as a drawback, I see it as a positive. It means that the scientific process is self-correcting. Instead of pointing to the thalidomide incident as a failure of science, I look at it and say ... look at how this terrible tragedy was corrected. New things were learned, and corrections were made. Can you say that about other human endeavors? Well, some you can and some you can't.

And besides, what's the alternative? As I mentioned earlier, if you expect science or any other human activity to be perfect every time, you will terribly disappointed. Mistakes will be made. Things will go wrong. Causes and effects will be misunderstood. But the way science works, hopefully the mistakes will be corrected. In contrast, in so many other areas of human activity, it appears that the same mistakes are repeated over and over.

 

It's not so much that they corrected it as they clarified their reasons for doing it. You can read up on their website, where they respond to the various complaints and detractors.

 

CNWMR does not release its methodology because it is a for-profit business. So, you say they are not funded by the automotive industry, but it seems they get their money from them in other ways.

Ah, they changed the estimated lifetime to Prius to 121,000 miles. That still seems way too low.

Still looking ...

 

I contend that in some cases they are making things worse. MRSA is the one that specifically comes to mind. It has grown resistant solely through the over use of common antibiotics.

Thank you for seeing my point, even if you don't necessarily agree with it. People seem to have become so polarized that they are unable to even look at the potential for error in their beliefs. It is refreshing to find someone who will at least consider all sides of an issue.

You are right, of course. Population control needs to be promoted. Unfortunately it seems to be religious beliefs, more than politics or science, that is getting in the way.

Teach them science, but please also teach them to remain objective and to look for the flaws.

I don't expect perfection, I hope for caution. We improve our understanding with every mistake, but how many mistakes could have been avoided with a little more caution and investigation. Why is the world so anxious to speed up the progress train? It's sending us, hell bent for election, to the end of times. And, sometimes the best intentions are stoking the boilers.

 

I apologize. You are giving me some information that I need to check out. It seems you do have some science on your side, but I want to research a bit.

 

Yes, but again that's not a condemnation of the scientific process. Things will evolve, ideas will change, ethics will be reversed. And bugs will find ways to become resistant to antibiotics. That's just the way it works. So you go back into the lab and you find new antibiotics, or perhaps some new methodology all together ... something that doesn't work on the same principle as antibiotics.

Perhaps you're right. Nonetheless, it is the world's governments that are going to have to do something about it. I don't think even something like the Catholic Church, as powerful as it is, could reverse the population explosion.

Of course. Healthy skepticism is inherent in the scientific method. Not to deify scientists, but I don't think they forget that as much as the public does.

Oh, no doubt plenty of them. You're completely right ... there needs to be a healthy caution applied to anything. I just don't want to see the pendulum swing too far in the other direction.

 

From what I've read, they make their money by selling the reports and data that they collect. I don't know how they could make much from that alone, since they publish the report (or at least a portion of it) on the internet, free to all. Perhaps those who commission the reports pay big bucks for the info, then they allow it to be released to the public. However, the auto industry could not benefit in any way from a biased report, since all makes and styles of vehicles are included and most manufacturers have entries that look both favorable and not so favorable.

They don't release their methods, because their methods are propietary. They will, however, release the 5000 data points that are used to compile the information. This is similar to any business that will safeguard their techniques and processes, but will gladly provided a data sheet on their product, as well as quality control records and information.

The changing lifetime of a Prius is effected by it's estimated viable years. So far, most Prius drivers are reporting that they drive 8000-9000 miles per year. This is multiplied by the expected mechanical lifetime of the vehicle, resulting in an estimated Mileage Lifetime. The mechanical lifetime is estimated not on mileage, but on changing technology and physical age deterioration, as are all the vehicles tested. A hummer is expected to live a lot longer than a Prius, and therefore will be driven a lot more miles. As annual mileage reports increase, so will the mileage lifetime of a Prius.

 

Still researching ... but the biggest criticism of CNWMR I've found so far is the way they amortize or attribute the costs of R&D to the lifecycle of the vehicle. The Hummer uses old, paid-for, technology, while the Prius calculation uses high, recent, R&D costs spread over a relatively small number of vehicles.

If so, this calculation changes drastically if re-done now or in the near future.

Again, I apologize to you, Trigcove. I was hasty in dismissing your views and I might even end up changing my mind about a few things.

 

So, I've learned that there are contrary analyses by MIT and the Rocky Mountain Institute, both of which I regard very highly. So, I'm going to read them.

 

Yes, CNW did acknowledge from the start that they used these methods to make their calculations. They state that this is not unreasonable, because some makes and models of cars never get to the next generation of testing. It would be disingenuous for them to report based on a 20 year history, if the technology only lasted 4 years. You are right that the figures will change with every passing year. If all cars go to hybrid models, Prius may well be at the top of the list for the new technology, but right now, we're comparing what is at this moment. At the time that this point was raised, there were very few hybrid cars on the market. If you look at the record for the last report, there are many hybrid cars listed. However, Prius still ranks higher than a Hummer. It will undoubtedly get better, but I don't think it will ever become the eco-messiah that many otherwise concienscious green-thinkers hoped or thought it was.

Just a couple of points I would like to throw out:
1. Independent thinking is critical when evaluating the issues.
2. Eco-business is a very large entity, now, and a very profitable one. That makes it even more important to exercise independent though about what they're asking us to believe.
3. The truth probably lies somewhere other than with the one who shouts the loudest or the longest. (heh... and that makes *me* suspect. Go do your homework!)

I thank you for and accept the apology. Don't give it another thought.
I don't expect to change anyone's mind. Our core beliefs (those which we inherently choose to believe, based on our own personal experiences and understandings) are very powerful, so much so that we tend to automatically believe whatever supports them and dismiss that which doesn't as some kind of chicanery. We frequently do this simply because it "sounds right", rather than for any substantial reasons.
Just to have you honestly examine other possibilities is the most that I would hope for.

 

Yes, so I've heard - and another one by... ah, I forget the name, but equally well respected (edit: Argonne National Laboratory). The only problem is, I couldn't find those reports anywhere. All I could find were some evaluations on MPG for hybrid vehicles. (further edit: If these reports existed, it seems logical that someone would have posted a link to one of them, along with their criticism.)

It is acknowledged that hybrids get better MPG, but that is only a portion of the dust to dust cost of energy.

If you find the actual reports, post a link. I've been wanting to read them, myself.

 

Here's the link to the Rocky Mountain Institute analysis:

http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Transportation/T07-01_DustToDust.pdf

I think this is the MIT report, although it's 9 years old:

http://web.mit.edu/energylab/www/pubs/el00-003.pdf

 

Ah, thanks for that. Your info scouring skills are much better than mine.

First of all, the MIT report is, as you say, 9+ years old and seems to be an exercise in determining what the most efficient form of technology for the year 2020 might be. Throughout the report, they refer repeatedly to the number of assumptions that they made in order to extrapolate estimations. So we know that it's based on "best guess" theory, rather than quantifiable knowledge.

Their finding is that the hybrid battery/internal combustion engine technology will likely be the most efficient, but their assumption is that all of the infrastructure to make this happen will be in place by 2020. This is something we don't know. I would say that it really doesn't matter, since all improvements have cost. We know there will be cost involved with any technology changeover. However, I don't think any of this is relevant to the Prius/Hummer findings in CNW's report. They're dealing with the here and now.

The RMI report ends with the following statement:

"We recognize that the GREET model does not include the transportation of the materials used to make the car, which could be a significant contribution. RMI plans on continuing to develop our capacity for vehicle lifecycle analysis, including the greenhouse gas and energy ramifications of transporting materials, in the near future. However, since the components of the Prius, except for the NiMH battery and Hybrid drivetrain, are approximately the same as the Hummer, and since the Hummer contains many more pounds of metal than the Prius, we do not believe the difference between the vehicles’ materials transportation will be a more significant issue than that of fuel economy."

Self admittedly, they have an incomplete report. Their other data may be entirely accurate, but they have not looked at *all* the data. They merely say that they don't believe that it would make that much difference. I'm inclined to wonder how they make this judgement without knowing what that difference is. Still, they use that judgement to refute CNW's report. I don't think it would cost as much to ship a thousand pounds of steel from Pittsburg to Detroit as it would to ship 100 pounds of battery materials around the world, but that's just me and my opinion vs. them and theirs.

CNW has responded to critics who cite the RMI findings. You can find this on the CNW site:

http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/Response2 Slate March 2008.pdf

In their response, CNW indicates that the RMI study and all others, were incomplete. They offer the following:

"One very simple example: Prius tires last approximately one quarter of the miles of those on a Toyota Corolla. No Prius life-cycle study, aside from ours, calculates the energy and resources consumption necessary to make those additional three sets of tires."

He goes on to say that no one has asked for the CNW data collection points. So how do the others insure that they comparing apples to apples? You'd think it would be something they would want to know before they attempt to duplicate the study.

All up, I'd say there was clearly room to doubt whether or not hybrid technology is worth its salt. Still, it's a free-market economy and if people wish to own one, far be it from me to tell them no. However, if the goal is to drive a fuel efficient, low GHG emitting vehicle in the here and now, there are many, many choices that will achieve that goal much better than a Hybrid - including domestic products as well as Euro and Japanese makes.