[SustainableTompkins] I hate to drought on your hybrid parade but...

Tue Mar 11 04:47:51 PST 2008

Well please tell us how...  especially for this other 97 Subaru Legacy Wagon driver.

Andy Bailey Goodell <goodella at hartwick.edu> wrote:  Definitely, the best choice for a car is one that already exists, not
trading in a 2007 hybrid for a 2008 hybrid. And sometimes the thinking of
needing something different is just our wonderful American way of
consumption. I was tired of getting 23 MPG in my 97 Subaru Legacy Wagon, and
instead of going out and buying a new/different car, I took the time to
learn how to drive efficiently. We have all heard how to do it, but it just
takes the patience to actually do it. I can now get 40 miles per gallon in
the same car, without ANY modifications to the car, simply just changing
driving technique. I also drive the shortest distance route, even if it
means taking more time because it saves gas. My drive to see my family a few
times a year takes a few more hours, but uses 45% of the gas that it used
to. So if you want to drive a more efficient car, don't empty your pockets
just yet. Learn how to drive efficiently, find the shortest route, and then
when your car is really dead, it might be better to buy the new hybrid or
electric if you are still going to use a car.

Andy Goodell
1894 Charlotte Creek Road
Oneonta, NY 13820
(603) 831-0356
http://geekguyandy.com

-----Original Message-----
From: sustainabletompkins-bounces at lists.mutualaid.org
[mailto:sustainabletompkins-bounces at lists.mutualaid.org] On Behalf Of
Margaret McCasland
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 4:19 PM
To: Sustainable Tompkins County listserv
Subject: Re: [SustainableTompkins] I hate to drought on your hybrid parade
but...

>This list would be the place to seek opinions on the credibility of the 
>following http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080310094555.htm
>
>
>[this is indirectly from a press release of an upcoming issue of the 
>ACS journal "Environmental Science and Technology"...actual article 
>contents are sketchy translation of an abstract.]

Below is the actual content of the summary. To use the authors' own point
that "policy makers often neglect the impact that [FILL IN THE BLANK] could
have on [FILL IN THE BLANK], some balanced systems thinking is needed here.
Their analysis (at least in this summary) seems to be so narrow that I
wouldn't call it good "systems thinking." 

Hybrid cars--or any other "solution"--need to be placed in a complete and
balanced systemic context. Assuming that we will continue to produce
electricity in the current absurd ways (which ARE
water-hungry) is well, continuing to think absurdly. There's a lot we didn't
know and/or that the "deciders" decided to ignore when our current electric
power system was allowed to form. Saying hybrid cars aren't a good idea
because the ways we currently generate electricity are foolish (my term, my
bias) is being very selective about our options.

"Dissing" hybrids is a distraction from more serious dangers to our usable
water. Continued use of fossil fuels and industrial agriculture are probably
the two most serious drains on our water resources. Global climate
disruption has multiple ways of indirectly reducing the available usable
water, but on-going human activities also directly reduce it significantly.
Let me know if you need some examples.

"Down the road" we will be able to have clean, green, safe AND
water-efficient electricity to power plug-in electrics. And we'd better get
there sooner rather than later, which means getting there as directly as
possible, without a lot of detours through hydrogen fuel, E85 gasahol,
hybrid cars, etc. The link below shows how feasible it is to produce enough*
electricity with do-able technology. 
*Conservation and efficiency are, of course, an important part of thinking
systemically.

See the executive summary of a plan for a coal- AND nuclear-free future that
discusses water use (both those technologies--which boil water to create
steam to turn magnets that create electricity are major water hogs).
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/summary.pdf

A related slide show includes the following bullet points (paraphrased):
--re: today's current coal or nuke power plants: a 1,000 MW plant
operating at full capacity needs 20 million gallons/day for its cooling
tower.
--over 1,000,000,000,000 gallons per year (4.5 million
acre-feet) of fresh water is consumed by fossil fuel and nuclear plants

Good reasons to phase out coal and nuke-fired plants, but not good reasons
to keep driving gasoline-powered cars.

Because of the "embodied energy" it takes to produce them (including water),
people should only buy hybrids if they are buying a new car anyway (well, if
they're trading a Hummer for a hybrid, they should probably send the Hummer
to the scrap heap and buy the hybrid now, but in general, not putting
another NEW car on the road is a better choice than a hybrid). I'm hoping I
can keep my 95 Subaru going long enough to skip the hybrid phase and go
straight to all electric.

Of course the best choice is to minimize use of any care that uses
carbon-based fuels.

Trains for people, not for coal! (with more engines that are diesel-electric
hybrids in the near future, then clean, green electric trains wherever
possible).

Off to promote a carbon tax!

Margaret

PS: All this messy weather (oscillating just above and below 32 and full of
lake-effect moisture) was predicted by climatologists because the Great
Lakes (and Finger Lakes) are a bit warmer all year-round than they have been
historically. And I can't imagine that having a coal plant using lake water
for its cooling tower helps any. And then there are all those nuke plants
on Lake Ontario--the source of a lot of our winter "weather." Never heard
this aspect of "heat added locally to heat from global warming" discussed by
climatologists, so I don't know how big a factor it is.

FROM http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080310094555.htm
Eco-minded drivers in drought-prone states take note: A new study concludes
that producing electricity for hybrid and fully electric vehicles could
sharply increase water consumption in the United States.

In the study, Carey W. King and Michael E. Webber note that policy makers
often neglect the impact that fleets of hybrid and electric vehicles could
have on already-scarce water resources. They calculated water usage,
consumption, and withdrawal during petroleum refining and electricity
generation in the United States.
Each mile driven with electricity consumes about three times more water
(0.32 versus 0.07-0.14 gallons per mile) than with gasoline, the study
found.
"This is not to say that the negative impacts on water resources make such a
shift undesirable," King and Webber emphasized. "Rather this increase in
water usage presents a significant potential impact on regional water
resources and should be considered when planning for a plugged-in automotive
economy."
The article, "The Water Intensity of the Plugged-In Automotive Economy" is
scheduled for the June 1 issue of Environmental Science & Technology.
Adapted from materials provided by American Chemical Society, via
EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
_______________________________________________
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
SustainableTompkins at lists.mutualaid.org
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org

_______________________________________________
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
SustainableTompkins at lists.mutualaid.org
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org

---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.