|
Boy G
Expert
Date registered: Feb 2007
Location: Bushveld, South Africa
Vehicle(s): Diesel G's: 617A and 602
Posts: 1683
| Re: G's and the environment...
4x4abc - 5/19/2007 12:46 AM
People come home from church. Amen was their last word and " Thou shalt .." is merely a recommendation.
People stopped listening to carpenters a long long time ago. I wonder if this isn't the reason this thread has gone 4 pages? |
|
| |
|
Jonathan Joseph
Expert
Date registered: Oct 2006
Location: Charleston, South Carolina
Vehicle(s): 2004 G55
Posts: 1538
| RE: G's and the environment...
Harald,
I give up. What's a Hamburger Zimmermann?
Jonathan |
|
| |
|
jcaine
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: G's and the environment...
JamesG - 5/19/2007 3:15 PM
I didn't have time until tonight to do any fact checking...
just google IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change... an international consortium of 2000 of the worlds most renowned scientists who just issued the most comprehensive report ever on climate change... not refuted by a single reputable scientist... no left or right wing agenda... just scientific fact with tons of back up data...
or "government report on climate change" and you can read till the cows come home... draw your own conclusions.
jcaine,
I read the Govt report before it was released, FYI. The number of scientists you espouse is impressive and I am sure they are all quite competent, but the research is open ended, it does not stop when these guys go home. There is a trend but no conclusion. It is easy to google just about anything, so believe what you want. I noticed by the way the number of scientists you mentioned doubled to 2000. Also the IPCC is one reason the US did not sign the KYOTO agreement.
:err:
Scientific research is always on-going but this report did state a whole lot of definite finds... many of them very sobering... this is an internationally recognized and respected body of the worlds best scientists... no one credible has refuted their findings...
As for Google, I offered that because you get ALL of the articles, pro and con... some is rhetoric, some credible... just have to look at the sources
As for my quoting the number of scientists, I needed to go back and re-check some facts as I said... I remembered it was at least 1000 and that's what I said... when I checked again, I saw that it was 2000...
Finally the fact that our government did not sign the KYOTO agreement was an international embarrasment... we were the ONLY member of the united nations not to do so... as you say it's almost always about the money and our current administration has made that point grossly clear... I'm not going to start on politics but the the plain fact is that this administration has taken the EPA and it's regulations back to pre-Nixon standards, allowing oil co's and big industry to pollute more than they've been allowed to for at least 25 years... yet these same companies are making record profits... +/- $1billion profit per week for the 3 biggest oil co's while they spew pollution and we pay nearly $4/gallon for gas... nice. I could go on about this but won't.
Again, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion... I choose documented, credible fact and my own common sense in forming my opinions and subsequent actions regarding this subject... only time will actually tell what happens... meantime I continue to do whatever I can. |
|
| |
|
DUTCH
Administrator Doppelgänger
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: US, GA, Atlanta
Vehicle(s): 2015 Audi Q7 3.0 TDI,2018 Sprinter
Posts: 9965
| Getting Off Topic Again
We are getting way away from the thread and forum topic of "G's".
If you wish to get into politics and Kyoto and governmental panels and whatever other non-G or MB related topics, take it to the Off Topic Forum. Thanks. |
|
| |
|
bbrah
Regular
Date registered: Jun 2006
Location: Austin, Texas
Vehicle(s): 460.233 (1980 280GE LWB)
Posts: 68
| Wind Energy
I worked for a wind energy development company for three years, and the birds and noise are the biggest tangible complaints that detractors can come up with against turbines. It is true that wind turbines kill birds, but far fewer than you would imagine. More often than not, critics use avian mortality out of context to block the construction of something they find aesthetically unappealing (recall Walter Cronkite at Martha’s Vineyard).
The DoE and AWEA.org both cite studies that say between 10,000 and 40,000 birds are killed each year by wind turbines in the U.S. (there are about 15,000 turbines). That is less than 3 birds per year per turbine. Compare this to the annual 150 Million birds killed by power lines, the 60 Million killed by cars and trucks, the 100 million killed by buildings, the 50 million killed by communications towers, and the more than 1 Billion (yes BILLION) birds killed annually by domestic and feral housecats, and you can see that the few birds killed by turbines is almost not an issue at all.
Wind power currently provides less than half of one percent of U.S. total electricity production. If you assume that our total electricity consumption rate remains the same and that the generating capacity of individual wind turbines also remains the same, but we get half of our electricity from wind turbines, the total number of birds killed would be less than 50 Million per year.
In actuality, individual turbine output roughly doubles with each successive generation of technology (like Moore's Law). While there is a theoretical limit to the output of an individual turbine, it is not far-fetched to envision turbines that produce 5-6 MW of power each (roughly 4 times the current average output of each turbine).
So the total number of installed turbines producing electricity would be less than 5 Million and result in fewer than 15 Million bird deaths each year. This fatality rate, while unfortunate would offset much of the environmental damage caused by other generation methods (pollution, habitat destruction, fish spawning, etc.).
As far as noise is concerned, a 1.2 MW wind turbine is about 300 feet tall. Standing directly under it the sound is less than 60 dB. At 1000 feet away the sound is less than 40 dB. For comparison, a normal conversation is about 60 dB and a refrigerator is about 45 dB.
The company I worked for developed most of its projects in West Texas, and we had tons of photos of mule deer browsing or sleeping underneath turbines.
|
|
| |
|
bbrah
Regular
Date registered: Jun 2006
Location: Austin, Texas
Vehicle(s): 460.233 (1980 280GE LWB)
Posts: 68
| Re: G's and the environment...
Assuming that we have a market system, whenever the market demands something, the suppliers will have to supply it. The reason why oil companies are still able to sell petroleum to us is that we buy it. The reason why we buy it is because it is cheaper than -insert your favorite alternative fuel-. Once the price of a gallon of gasoline exceeds the cost of its equivalent replacement (ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, electricity, etc.), then the market will embrace that technology and suppliers will shift production to meet that demand.
We’re already seeing this with wind energy. Although it costs slightly more to produce a MW of electricity with the wind than it does with coal or natural gas, the rising price of fossil fuels is causing some buyers to contract to buy wind energy at a fixed price in anticipation that wind energy will soon be cheaper. The cost of wind generated energy is determined by the cost of the initial investment (the actual turbines and infrastructure), and is fixed over the life of the plant. The cost of coal or natural gas generated electricity is determined by the cost of the fuel itself. Once the price of the fossil fuels reaches the tipping point, wind energy will replace them.
By artificially lowering or raising the price of a commodity (by offering tax credits to producers or taxing consumers), the government can help or hinder this process. Tax credits can encourage new development and additional taxes can discourage consumption.
In the case of wind energy, the “green energy” credit system was designed to lower the cost of production by allowing wind farm owners to sell their tax credits. In practice it lowered the cost of wind energy, but a side effect was that it encouraged operators of dirty coal plants to continue to operate their plants with impunity because they bought carbon-displacement credits from operators of wind farms. They passed this additional cost on to consumers, and the world continued to be a sooty place.
If left to our own devices we will continue plodding along until it is too late. Right now pollution only affects a small percentage of people in a direct measurable way, and the price of gasoline in real terms is not really that expensive.
The best solution is to pollution is to mandate much stricter air quality standards for all new power plants, and phase those same standards in for older plants over the next decade. Eventually they will be forced to close or upgrade. Either way, the cost of coal generated electricity will be more than wind generated and we will end up with cleaner air.
Of course since it will increase the cost of energy overall, It will be difficult to find support for this program amongst our cowardly elected officials particularly in even-numbered years.
|
|
| |
|
4x4abc
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: La Paz, Baja California, Mexico
Vehicle(s): 02 G500
| RE: Wind Energy
Dutch,
yes, this thread is a bit (much) off topic. However, I see it like a conversation among enthusisasts (like a physical conversation at one of the few chances we had to bring G-folks together) that has gone from wheels to engines, to grand children to Mercedes in house politics to fuel to grand children (again) to the environment.
Since this is a pretty civil forum, I would just let it flow. I seems to create some understanding, bonding, actually "listening" to others and respect - plus I have been learning things I would not haven chosen to learn. Now I am happy I learned them. |
|
| |
|
JamesG
Regular
Date registered: May 2006
Location: Conifer, Colorado
Vehicle(s): 2011 G550, 2000 L.C.,1997 L.C.1987 FJ60
Posts: 98
| RE: G's and the environment...
jcaine,
When you say embarassment speak for yourself, the decision was right on, opinions to be sure. As for the facts, they are loosely interpeted. There are "facts" both endorsing and disputing global warming, you chose the ones endorsing it, living in LA it would be hard to convince me otherwise
As for profits, It's business 101, great for the stockholders, go buy some. If you are unhappy with the way supply & demand work, write your congressman.
As for the mean oil companies polluting more in the last 25 years, that is incorrect, they must be in compliance with applicable law, see legislation in the seventies. or they don't operate. google if you will.
you and alot of folks have convinced themselves that man is responsible for global warming, for me the jury is still out...too many variables to consider.
|
|
| |
|
jcaine
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: Wind Energy
Thanks Harald... I agree.
Anyway, to bring it slightly back on topic... A G in theory because of it's weight class could classify as a "truck" and therefore be considered for the tax incentives offered to U.S. trucks and large SUV's... I believe Range Rover does... a G would/should under this premise classify for the diesel exemption in Cali, Vermont, etc... A G 320 CDI would make a ton of sense to me and I would assume demand would be there... I would certainly buy one.
I recently had a very in depth conversation with my local MB service manager about marketing CDI diesels to wealthier MB owners who may very well go for a CDI powered vehicle as oppsed to gas if they new how good they perform and how great the miliage is... I'm talking about owners who replace their cars every 1-3 years just because that's how they're programmed to do it... go down and see Frank at the dealership... pick a color and drive out... in this case Frank says "well mrs. Smith, you can get this 320 CDI instead of your gas E320... same car, color, options, etc. but this one get's 40MPG, performs as well or better, is more reliable in the long haul, and pollutes ___ % less"... Mrs. Smith says "oh I didn't know that... I can get better miliage, pollute less, and don't have to hassle or sacrifice anything?... I'm in." He agreed and informed me that MB plans 5 models for the 2009 model year equipped with the latest "blue tech" diesel engines which will comply with 50 state emissions... wouldn't it be great ad the G to that?
|
|
| |
|
GDog
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: G's and the environment...
I'm putting together an SVO 300CD, mainly because of the geek factor. That being said--
May 2, 2007 - Canada National Post
Excerpt:
With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.
www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388
Sunday, May 20, 2007 (today) - UK Telegragh
Excerpt:
The Stern report last week predicted dire economic and social effects of unchecked global warming. In what many will see as a highly controversial polemic, Christopher Monckton disputes the 'facts' of this impending apocalypse and accuses the UN and its scientists of distorting the truth
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
Saturday, May 19, 2007 - Timaru Herald, New Zealand
Excerpt:
Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.
www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html
April 22, 2007 - Orange County Register
Excerpt:
Perhaps, global warming proponents are aggressively pushing their agenda for fear the public will shrug off their claims as bogus, and politicians will be unable to justify a heavy hand. Quick, act now before the problem disappears entirely! Windows of opportunity don't stay open forever. Just 30 years ago the environmental-governmental conglomerate was convinced we were irreversibly on the road to the next Ice Age.
www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/columns/article_1665046.php
March 19, 2007 - The Independent Institute
Excerpt:
1. There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2.
www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1945
Television program aired in UK March 8, 2007
Film: "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Documentary Film ...
Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies ...
[Click for more information] Watch video - 74min - Rated 4.5 out of 5.0
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170
Website for film
www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/ |
|
| |
|
JamesG
Regular
Date registered: May 2006
Location: Conifer, Colorado
Vehicle(s): 2011 G550, 2000 L.C.,1997 L.C.1987 FJ60
Posts: 98
| RE: G's and the environment...
GDOG,
Interesting stuff, thanks for the info.
I am delighted I live in a country where I can choose to drive a G Wagen or Hybrid. What anyone else chooses to drive is none of my business. Whatever you drive, have fun with it, and wear your seatbelt  |
|
| |
|
G wizz
Elite Veteran
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: Uk
Vehicle(s): Dont own a G anymore, Too expensive!!!!
Posts: 686
| RE: G's and the environment...
jcaine - 5/18/2007 5:20 PM
why do people have to become sarcastic, nasty, and insulting when they read another's opinion that doesn't coincide with their own?... especially in this environment (that is to say on-line message boards, forums, blogs)... it's not productive in any way.
In one sense I feel very strongly in general about this subject and I'll keep talking about it whether it ruffles feathers or not... on the other hand this forum is very helpful and insightful, full of knowlegable G enthusiasts (and just a few haters) and for my part , I'm sorry if I was the catalyst to any unpleasantry in here.
you may have a conscience, but boy you are insecure, who's having a go at you, there just voicing there opnions like you, its not nasty, just healthy debate, any way 5 pages of long debate, I summed it up on the last thread, plant more trees and look at the earth over 50 millions years not 1000, lakes and seas give off a huge amount of various gases from roting vegitation etc, one lake in particular killed a whole village in Africa, twice, due to it releasing toxic gases. I had my 5.6 V8 G wagen exhaust emissions tested at the mot testing station recently, the pass was 300 some thing or other, it was 130, 170 below what the limit was, for a 20 year old motor I not feeling guilty at all, but then I only do 1000 miles a year.
 |
|
| |
|
Brent
Expert
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: SW Colorado USA
Vehicle(s): '13 Wolfsburg GTI
Posts: 1754
| RE: G's and the environment...
I might as well throw my tow cents into the ring as well.
Whether or not the global temp is rising in a trend that will actually ever make a difference in our lives is rather debatable. If in fact it is rising the best evidence of the cause lies with the suns temp increase lately. If you look at the sun temp data it correlates almost directly with fluctuations on earths surface temps. Wild concept I know, the sun heating the earth, but it sure looks more plausible than man causing the problem.
I find it a bit ignorant and arrogant to assume it is man causing these problems, if in fact there is really a "problem " at all. For gosh sakes guys, the world has detonated several nuclear bombs and we didn't appreciably damage the planet but somehow automobiles are going to cause us to burn up?
Kyoto is something that frosts me. it wasn't going to change anything in our enviroment but it was going to seriously strangle our economy. It was a left wing agenda to boost up the third world by strangling the US. Damn good thing it wasn't signed.
I think it is sometimes easy to fall prey to the enviromentalist wackos. They put out a feel good message, none of us wants to destroy the planet right? I certainly don't, I live here. The pittfall is that the groups spewing forth most of this alarmist drivel have another agenda. It is anti capitalist. That doesn't mean that to be capitalistic that you want to kill the planet. It is however what the left would like you to believe. That is how the brainwashing works guys. They play on your emotion and deluge you with bad information. Keep in mind that one volcanic eruption spews more pollution into the atmosphere in a matter of hours than every car on the planet ever has collectively. Eruptions have been common for millions of years and have yet to erase the planet. That is why I find it ignorant and arrogant to assume man is destroying the planet.
If you want to believe it is man causing global warming you can easily find the info to support your contention on the internet. I think it is equally as easy to refute the whole thing with other internet sources. All seem credible, but watch for agendas, and I think you could make the case for or against either side. I just personally find mother nature to be FAR more influential than man in this regard, and sun temps look to be the culprit, not carbon dioxide. If CO2 is the problem, all of the plants in the world must be destroyed as they produce infinately more of the stuff than man could ever hope to. |
|
| |
|
4x4abc
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: La Paz, Baja California, Mexico
Vehicle(s): 02 G500
| RE: G's and the environment...
I have learned more on these 5 pages about global warming than I have gatherd about it in many years. Mainly I was reminded to question information more than once - and every once in a while question my own point of view. Just crwal out of the box and ask "Why am I where I am?"
Still don't like the undertone in many posts. But after all, most are pretty emotional about it (why would that be so?) and with emotions its hard to control those undertones.
Thanks to all!
Edited by 4x4abc 5/22/2007 3:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
mortinson
Expert
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: Madrid, España
Vehicle(s): '98 G300TD LWB, BMW E46 330Ci
Posts: 1355
| RE: G's and the environment...
bbrah - 5/18/2007 9:03 AM
That's cool, we can discuss it over a Courvoisier and a Cohiba next time I'm at the Playboy mansion.
Peace out.
Are Cohibas not illegal in the US of A?  |
|
| |
|
4x4abc
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: La Paz, Baja California, Mexico
Vehicle(s): 02 G500
| RE: G's and the environment...
not when your name is Bush or Schwarzenegger |
|
| |
|
JamesG
Regular
Date registered: May 2006
Location: Conifer, Colorado
Vehicle(s): 2011 G550, 2000 L.C.,1997 L.C.1987 FJ60
Posts: 98
| RE: G's and the environment...
Brent,
I have posted on this thread more than any other; it struck a nerve; the anti SUV crowd scares the crap out of me and it's not just SUV's (remember the lodge in Vail that "ecoterrorists burned down?) but anything that represents capitalism, they are lost! You have mirrored what I have been saying in several replies. There are some in this country that have nothing but contempt for how we live. It is not perfect, but relative to other places on this planet, it is pretty good. I will never understand some that live here hate everything that we stand for.
Thanks to you and Dutch for letting this thread continue, it raises awarenes for the folks on the forum. |
|
| |
|
Jonathan Joseph
Expert
Date registered: Oct 2006
Location: Charleston, South Carolina
Vehicle(s): 2004 G55
Posts: 1538
| RE: G's and the environment...
You want to know what I consider wacko? Anyone who would accuse another of being anti-capitalistic because they care about the enviroment or the future of all humans on Earth. Last time I checked we all breathed air, and air knows no political boundaries.
Jonathan |
|
| |
|
GDog
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: G's and the environment...
Jonathan Joseph - 5/22/2007 4:34 PM
You want to know what I consider wacko? Anyone who would accuse another of being anti-capitalistic because they care about the enviroment or the future of all humans on Earth. Last time I checked we all breathed air, and air knows no political boundaries.
Jonathan
Boy, that came out of left field.
Eco-terrorists are wackos. If they care about the environment, why do they pollute it by burning things? |
|
| |
|
GDog
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: G's and the environment...
4x4abc - 5/22/2007 2:57 PM
not when your name is Bush or Schwarzenegger
What was Bill Clinton's brand of choice? Could we be any further off topic? 
Edited by GDog 5/22/2007 8:48 PM
|
|
| |
