emissions question

[Scott1620]

Originally Posted by karlosdajackal

Bikes are not green, sure the mpg is better than your average gas guzzler car, but the crap that comes out the pipe has higher levels of the bad stuff in it. So less comes out but what comes out is worse.

So if you thing about how much C02 is allowed to come out of a new car today, and how much was allowed 10 years ago..... off the top of my head I think its roughly double.

Co2 output is proportional to fuel burned, catalytic converters just reduce the toxicity of emissions from an ICE.

Originally Posted by karlosdajackal

Anyway, whats environmental is all relevant, volcano's produce more CO2 than all the factories and cars in the world combined.

True but its all about reducing the human impact on our environment where possible. Oil isn't going to last forever (And its dirty to drill, transport, and refine), so we might as well innovate while we can... Im not trying to start an argument just stating some facts, and my opinion on the subject.

Originally Posted by ScraitT

I only say that because Turkey point isn't very far away. Nuclear power

Yea theres a nuke plant close to me too, I get 38% from nuke power...

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by karlosdajackal

EV's are not green. Even if the powerplant stuff was all sorted all the mining, production and shipping just to make the batteries puts then in the worse than you think bucket. Its been proven that the batteries alone for a prius have huge enviromental impact from the mine to the showroom floor.

This is an false internet meme that's been in circulation for a while, created by one article that was written for political attack purposes and subsequently debunked many years ago.

In fact, the NiMH battery pack in the Prius is equal to about a couple dozen laptop batteries, and since laptop batteries outsell the Prius thousands to one the relative environmental impact is trivial in comparison. Not only that, but modern nickel refineries are extremely efficient compared to the 100+ year old facility (long since abandoned) that was cited in the original Prius-bashing article.

The fact is that the more fuel you burn to move a butt a mile, the more carbon goes into the atmosphere in any form for that butt, and it's that carbon that keeps coming up as the culprit in study after study (thousands and thousands so far) of what our climate is doing and why. A dirty-burning 1970's motorcycle that gets 50 mpg is doing to put half as much carbon into the air as a super-clean-burning modern car that gets 25 mpg. The amount of carbon in a gallon of gasoline doesn't change regardless of what engine or vehicle its burned in.

[Samer]

Okay, first, I noticed that the quote about electric cars from coal has an extra 0.9 in there. Also, seems a bit pessimistic to me. The fact that all the numbers are 0.9 and they threw in an extra 0.9 for good measure is suspicious.

Also, the modern gasoline car efficiency of 30% is a stretch. I'd like to see the numbers.

Also, it is unfair to include the transmission of the electricity for the electric car and not include the transmission of oil for the gasoline car.

In addition, it was mentioned that roughly 50% of our energy comes from coal. For people who get their electricity from Nuclear power, 20% in the US and growing, then they can drive their electric car all they want with zero carbon emissions.

Finally, as I mentioned before, utility companies are preparing for carbon capture and storage. If and when there is a cap-and-trade law on carbon emissions, then this will defeat the entire discussion about electric cars vs. gasoline cars.

[2WheelGuy]

Originally Posted by joyinc

Hi all
I'm riding my bike in this local vegan event, and some people are opposing the idea because it's not "environmental" to ride a motorcycle...

See how many of the "environmental" vegans are bringing children to the event. Having a child increases your carbon foot print by about 9,941 metric tons for each child.

Comparing carbon footprints:
Their one wonderful child = Riding your nasty 250 Ninja one million miles a year for 65 years!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/bl...ge-birth-rates
http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by Samer

Okay, first, I noticed that the quote about electric cars from coal has an extra 0.9 in there. Also, seems a bit pessimistic to me. The fact that all the numbers are 0.9 and they threw in an extra 0.9 for good measure is suspicious.

Also, the modern gasoline car efficiency of 30% is a stretch. I'd like to see the numbers.

Also, it is unfair to include the transmission of the electricity for the electric car and not include the transmission of oil for the gasoline car.

In addition, it was mentioned that roughly 50% of our energy comes from coal. For people who get their electricity from Nuclear power, 20% in the US and growing, then they can drive their electric car all they want with zero carbon emissions.

Finally, as I mentioned before, utility companies are preparing for carbon capture and storage. If and when there is a cap-and-trade law on carbon emissions, then this will defeat the entire discussion about electric cars vs. gasoline cars.

Mining for nuclear source materials is not a no-carbon process either.

Also, oil does factor in to the efficiency numbers of a gasolene engine. The whole thing does.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

This is an false internet meme that's been in circulation for a while, created by one article that was written for political attack purposes and subsequently debunked many years ago.

In fact, the NiMH battery pack in the Prius is equal to about a couple dozen laptop batteries, and since laptop batteries outsell the Prius thousands to one the relative environmental impact is trivial in comparison. Not only that, but modern nickel refineries are extremely efficient compared to the 100+ year old facility (long since abandoned) that was cited in the original Prius-bashing article.

The fact is that the more fuel you burn to move a butt a mile, the more carbon goes into the atmosphere in any form for that butt, and it's that carbon that keeps coming up as the culprit in study after study (thousands and thousands so far) of what our climate is doing and why. A dirty-burning 1970's motorcycle that gets 50 mpg is doing to put half as much carbon into the air as a super-clean-burning modern car that gets 25 mpg. The amount of carbon in a gallon of gasoline doesn't change regardless of what engine or vehicle its burned in.

The amount of carbon dioxide does. For example, more could be exhausted as carbon monoxide instead or exhausted unburned.

[Samer]

Originally Posted by CZroe

Mining for nuclear source materials is not a no-carbon process either.

Also, oil does factor in to the efficiency numbers of a gasolene engine. The whole thing does.

The nuclear material is negligible. You don't need that much nuclear material to produce a heck of a lot of energy. Hence, there are nuclear subs that can run for quite some time...

"Oil factoring in..." I have no clue what you mean. The efficiency of a gasoline engine only, just the engine is on the order of 25%. This doesn't take into account the amount of energy it takes to get to crude oil, transport the crude oil, refine the oil, then transport the gasoline to your local gas station.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by Samer

The nuclear material is negligible. You don't need that much nuclear material to produce a heck of a lot of energy. Hence, there are nuclear subs that can run for quite some time...

The mount of useful material is a negligible size but do you have any idea how much mining it takes to get enough to start a reactor? They had to build a city to do it in WWII.

Originally Posted by Samer

"Oil factoring in..." I have no clue what you mean. The efficiency of a gasoline engine only, just the engine is on the order of 25%. This doesn't take into account the amount of energy it takes to get to crude oil, transport the crude oil, refine the oil, then transport the gasoline to your local gas station.

I responded as if you were talking about energy transfer lost in the engine due to oil not being 100% efficient (0 friction).

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by CZroe

Mining for nuclear source materials is not a no-carbon process either.

We import over half our nuclear fuel from Russia, a country that really likes us and wants to keep us as a friend (NOT!), so not only does nuclear produce lots of high-level nuclear waste (that's a terrorist's wet dream) but we are still dependent on others for fuel. Plus, once you figure in all the actual costs, nuclear is absolutely by far the most expensive way to make electricity outside of paying hourly wages to people to pedal generators.

Seems to me that investing hundreds of billions into technology that doesn't do a single thing for energy independence AND is absolutely the least cost-effective way to make electricity is a really stupid idea.

But that's just me...

[joyinc]

Originally Posted by 2WheelGuy

See how many of the "environmental" vegans are bringing children to the event. Having a child increases your carbon foot print by about 9,941 metric tons for each child.

Comparing carbon footprints:
Their one wonderful child = Riding your nasty 250 Ninja one million miles a year for 65 years!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/bl...ge-birth-rates
http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

ooo! that'll come in handy i'm sure!

[izmail1215]

i dont eat meat only 3 times a year

[joyinc]

Originally Posted by izmail1215

i dont eat meat only 3 times a year

Why three times?
Posted via Mobile Device

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by joyinc

Why three times?
Posted via Mobile Device

Religious observances like fasting, Lent, and Tisha B'Av are my best guess.

[joyinc]

lol... arent fasting and lent giving up things?
Posted via Mobile Device

[Snake]

Originally Posted by joyinc

lol... arent fasting and lent giving up things?
Posted via Mobile Device

Yes that's why he gives up meat during those times.

[joyinc]

Oh lol... i thought he was saying he only ate it 3 times a year... my bad
Posted via Mobile Device

[minuslars]

New EPA regulations take effect this year for motorcycles. The *limits* are still several times higher than those for cars, but it's still not much (i.e. 3 ppm/mi for cars, 9 ppm/mi for motorcycles).

Comparison is tough because motorcycles are measured for hydrocarbon + NOx, unlike cars which have separate hydrocarbon and NOx measurements. It's entirely possible that motorcycles may emit well under the EPA limits, since some places (i.e. California, Europe) have even more stringent emissions limits.

Environmental vegans - judgemental and uninformed. What a surprise.

[karlosdajackal]

Originally Posted by minuslars

New EPA regulations take effect this year for motorcycles. The *limits* are still several times higher than those for cars, but it's still not much (i.e. 3 ppm/mi for cars, 9 ppm/mi for motorcycles).

Comparison is tough because motorcycles are measured for hydrocarbon + NOx, unlike cars which have separate hydrocarbon and NOx measurements. It's entirely possible that motorcycles may emit well under the EPA limits, since some places (i.e. California, Europe) have even more stringent emissions limits.

Environmental vegans - judgemental and uninformed. What a surprise.

The Euro model has fuel injection and a 3rd cat to beat the standards, even then most manufactures are involved in cycle beating, which is tuning the bike to run lean (and usually have a dip in the power band) at the point at which its known to be tested. That's why fuel injection is needed to kill the emissions at a particular part of the power band and go back to normal running outside the test cycle. I believe next year bikes on sale in Europe will have to publish there emissions figures for the first time ever.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by minuslars

New EPA regulations take effect this year for motorcycles. The *limits* are still several times higher than those for cars, but it's still not much (i.e. 3 ppm/mi for cars, 9 ppm/mi for motorcycles).

Comparison is tough because motorcycles are measured for hydrocarbon + NOx, unlike cars which have separate hydrocarbon and NOx measurements. It's entirely possible that motorcycles may emit well under the EPA limits, since some places (i.e. California, Europe) have even more stringent emissions limits.

I don't see this as a bad thing, other than it will run the prices up a bit just like it did in the 70's and 80's for cars when they were subjected to tougher emissions limits. But then again, from the late 80's through today emissions standards stayed pretty flat for cars and their prices continued to go up anyway, so maybe the correlation between price increases and tougher emissions standards isn't as strong as some would like to believe it is.

The major upside I see for increasing standards is better reliability. I remember cars from the 70's and back. They had points-style ignitions that required replacing parts such as points, plugs, wires, and coils routinely every 12k miles, carburetors that had to be overhauled every 20-30k miles or less and required frequent adjustment , mild steel exhaust systems that rotted off the car in less than 50k miles even in the south where it never snows and no salt is used on roads. As much as we like to harken back to that era of automotive technology as some sort of golden age, cars back then were true pieces of unreliable crap compared to modern cars. Back then, most car's drivetrains were considered worn out, as in uneconomical to continue maintenance, at a mere 100k miles.

I see the same happening for motorcycles, and I welcome it for the better quality products these changes will drive manufacturers to produce. I for one wish my '06 was fuel injected. If I could find the parts I'd convert it to injection like another member did last year, but my months of searching ebay and the web haven't paid off yet.

Originally Posted by minuslars

Environmental vegans - judgemental and uninformed. What a surprise.

As a person who cares about what I breath and eat, and what the environment that I and the people I care about live in, I have to wonder what the purpose of this remark was. Are you saying that everyone who cares about this world's ecosphere is judgemental and uninformed? That one cannot exist without the other?

Remember, when you use words to be offensive, you shouldn't be surprised when those around you are offended.

[Anteraan]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

The fact is that the more fuel you burn to move a butt a mile, the more carbon goes into the atmosphere in any form for that butt, and it's that carbon that keeps coming up as the culprit in study after study (thousands and thousands so far) of what our climate is doing and why.

Nothing personal, but this is complete and utter garbage. The "hockey stick" was disproven years and years ago.

"Current CO2 levels are around 380 parts per million (ppm); in the past, CO2 levels have exceeded 1,000 ppm [iv]. An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years [v]. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature. The president of the National Academy of Sciences also testified under oath before the Energy and Commerce Committee on this very issue. "

Additionally, the climatologists (who need to falsify their data, apparently) still have not come up with a computer model that passes a regressive analysis. Quite simply, the climate is way too complex and has too many variables for current science to accurately explain.

Looking historically, our climate has gone through far more severe fluctuations (according to ice cores) long before the industrial revolution. The carbon argument really doesn't seem to add up, when actual science comes into play. Besides, if carbon is soooo bad for the environment, riddle me this:

Link to original page on YouTube.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by Anteraan

...but this is complete and utter garbage.

Not much to say to that. Good luck in your endeavors...

[minuslars]

lol, yes i suppose that comment was out of line (and misunderstood). I directed it at those particular people who were going to poop a brick about someone riding a motorcycle to their kumbaya circle. I dislike certain types of hippies. Used to get flak for eating meat from health nuts who would drop acid every other day.

I'm all about cleaner emissions, and I favor tighter regulations for them. I am considering buying a 2010 ninja 250 (in red of course) because it would meet or exceed new EPA regulations and improve on the mileage I get right now with my SV650 - I just wish it were fuel injected!!!


Anteraan... what you've said consists of many half-baked thought processes I've seen regurgitated too many times, like most climate change denial arguments.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by minuslars

Anteraan... what you've said consists of many half-baked thought processes I've seen regurgitated too many times, like most climate change denial arguments.

No one seriously denies climate change. Mankind's role in it is what is disputed. The climate is always changing and always has.

[Samer]

Originally Posted by CZroe

No one seriously denies climate change. Mankind's role in it is what is disputed. The climate is always changing and always has.

Incorrect. Scientists accept Human influence on climate change as a fact. Ever notice the that all climate change deniers are of the same political party. Also, they have no credentials whatsoever in that field yet they are convinced they know the truth about it.

Nobody is an expert in everything. But to make silly arguments and go against all of the experts on a topic just to suit your preexisting political ideology is just sad.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by Samer

Incorrect. Scientists accept Human influence on climate change as a fact. Ever notice the that all climate change deniers are of the same political party. Also, they have no credentials whatsoever in that field yet they are convinced they know the truth about it.

Nobody is an expert in everything. But to make silly arguments and go against all of the experts on a topic just to suit your preexisting political ideology is just sad.

I said that mankind's role is what is disputed. I didn't say that it was disputed by scientists. I did not even hint at which direction I lean.
I said that the climate is always changing. I did not say that we aren't changing it. Obviously, AGW or no, we are. The Urban Heat Island Effect, which is often used to imply a non-AGW explanation for measured warming, is a climate change. Deforrestation is climate change. Creating a huge reservoir in an ancient lake bed by damming a creek is climate change. These are simply less "global" changes. The progression from the last ice age up until mankind started burning oil is inarguably climate change. These simply aren't what we call anthropogenic global warming AKA "man-made" climate change. It doesn't mean AGW doesn't exist, it doesn't mean it isn't real, and it doesn't confllict with anything you said.

Global-scale climate change can be natural too. A volcano blowing its top and lowering temperatures for a few years is climate change. The sun causing a rise in temperature due to higher sunspot activity is climate change. Does it mean that we aren't also causing a global climate change? No, it doesn't mean that at all, so I don't see how it's "incorrect" to point out that the climate is always changing and always has.

Yes, climate change, research, and science is HIGHLY politicized. The IPCC is a political organization. You are politicizing things right now.

Let me just say that money taints results whether it be from big corporations or from governments and charitable grants. If there is something to be gained by interpreting the data one way or the other, there can be influence. Some would say that studies supporting AGW aim to keep the concern/money flowing ("alarmists!"). Others would say that studies counter to AGW aim please corporate and political interest ("oil/coal cronies!").

Originally Posted by Samer

Also, they have no credentials whatsoever in that field yet they are convinced they know the truth about it.

Did you notice that I didn't take a side? I have neither put myself in the pro-AGW or AGW-denier camp. You, on the other hand, must have some of these elusive "credentials." May I see them? Yes, you were talking about so-called scientists but may I point out that the pot is calling the kettle black?

Please take my approach next time rather than having a knee-jerk political reaction.

[Samer]

Originally Posted by CZroe

Did you notice that I didn't take a side? I have neither put myself in the pro-AGW or AGW-denier camp. You, on the other hand, must have some of these elusive "credentials." May I see them? Yes, you were talking about so-called scientists but may I point out that the pot is calling the kettle black?

Please take my approach next time rather than having a knee-jerk political reaction.

I didn't say that I'm qualified to explain that climate change is influenced by humans or that I had a qualified opinion on it. However, I actually am a scientist. I have a Master's degree in Mechanical Engineering from Virginia Tech. I have a bunch of technical publications and one journal article. It doesn't qualify me to know anything about climate change. But rather than rely on political pundits, I've looked into it enough to know that the real experts don't dispute the strong human influence on climate change in the past decades.

Now in my post I referred to the climate change deniers as "THEY". So I'm not sure what you're riled up about. To me, your original post implied that there is a legitimate debate going on. You never explicitly said that, but then again I never accused you of anything. We obviously agree more than we disagree. Most people believe, correctly, that smoking causes cancer. You don't have to have credentials to believe the right thing, you just need to rely on the consensus of the experts. Like I said, nobody is an expert in everything. I never claimed to be an expert on climate change, but I'm familiar with the Scientific Method, and I'm reasonably good at knowing who is qualified to say something, and who doesn't know what they're talking about.

To put it another way: If someone wants to seriously test their differing opinion about climate change, they need to get a Bachelor of Science degree, then a Master's Degree, then work in their PhD., study climate change for years, then try getting their results published in their respective journal. That is, getting their work scrutinized by a group of their peers in the field. Once that is done, then they can report back here and share their findings. If one is not willing to make that commitment, then one should rely on the people who've already done this for the truth. That's my opinion.

[CZroe]

I figured that you were saying that I was incorrect, not "they," but I wouldn't say that I'm "riled up" in any way.

Actually, you are more qualified than the vast majority of the 2,500 of the "world's top scientists" listed on the 2007 IPCC report that is often cited to prove global consensus. As the FOI request shows, VERY FEW were actual climatologists. Many were politicians and social workers! Only 308 of them were scientists of any kind who actually reviewed the report. Many took issue with some or all of the report and their names were included anyway, including a high-profile case of one being unable to get his name removed from the list despite repeated requests (some of his research data was used to draw opposite conclusions in the report). All in all, only about 40 who signed were scientists who generally agreed with everything in the report. Notice: I didn't even specifiy that they were climatologists.

Seriously. If a hotel manager can sign the IPCC report and get listed as one of the 2,500 scientists, you're certainly qualified and entitled to your informed opinion too... just make sure that it's TRULY informed. Before siding with the consensus, make sure it truly is the consensus of experts and not just what some political organization said was a consensus of experts. That's why I'm having so much trouble.

[tapdiggy]

So Joyinc, I am guessing the parade has come and gone by now. How was it? Any good pics or stories?

[Anteraan]

Originally Posted by Samer

Incorrect. Scientists accept Human influence on climate change as a fact. Ever notice the that all climate change deniers are of the same political party. Also, they have no credentials whatsoever in that field yet they are convinced they know the truth about it.

Nobody is an expert in everything. But to make silly arguments and go against all of the experts on a topic just to suit your preexisting political ideology is just sad.

How many absolutes can you put in one post, lol? To go against "all" the experts? "Climate change deniers...have no credentials whatsoever in that field..."

Feel free to check out petitionproject.com for a long list of scientists (many of whom are climatologists) who disagree with the current explanation of climate change. My original comment was not a denial of climate change. I'd never deny the fact that the climate changes constantly. It is an amazingly dynamic system - so dynamic that it appears (from the eye of the M.S. - trained scientist) that we still cannot account for all the factors involved. My two best friends work for NOAA, and they agree with that assessment.

I only opposed the demonization of carbon in my post. And not only is there plentiful evidence that carbon is not as powerful as the IPCC claims, there is also evidence that the alleged effects of carbon build-up could actually be beneficial for the environment and mankind (more arable land worldwide, better plant growth, etc.). To be clear, I am not suggesting that in any way, shape, or form. It's just meant to foster discussion (perhaps in Off-Topic) and critical thought.

As CzRoe said, a great number of the people who worked on the IPCC report didn't have the correct qualifications either. So why is their word dogma? I also agree that humans do play a role in the climate. We (and what we do) are certainly variables. Deforestation, thermal heat islands, damming, and other factors all contribute to this amazingly dynamic system.

I think it's a damning arrogance of man to think that we have so fully solved a puzzle this complex. And to have narrowed all those variables down to where one, ONE is going to drive us to catastrophe, is pure hubris.

Remember: The Andean-Saharan Ice Age occurred when the carbon dioxide level was over ten times its current level.

You think there might be other factors involved now?

[joyinc]

Originally Posted by tapdiggy

So Joyinc, I am guessing the parade has come and gone by now. How was it? Any good pics or stories?

Not yet!

It's the 5th i'll definitely keep you updated!

i'd love to mount a camera on myself somehow to take a little video or something but i dont have any creative ideas... i've just got a tiny hand held camera...

one of the other riders wanted a video so i was going to have someone ride with a 2up in front of us all to film it, but that fell through!

I'm sure there will be pics though!

[tapdiggy]

Originally Posted by joyinc

Not yet!

It's the 5th i'll definitely keep you updated!

i'd love to mount a camera on myself somehow to take a little video or something but i dont have any creative ideas... i've just got a tiny hand held camera...

one of the other riders wanted a video so i was going to have someone ride with a 2up in front of us all to film it, but that fell through!

I'm sure there will be pics though!

Cool.

[patw]

Originally Posted by joyinc

Not yet!

It's the 5th i'll definitely keep you updated!

i'd love to mount a camera on myself somehow to take a little video or something but i dont have any creative ideas... i've just got a tiny hand held camera...

one of the other riders wanted a video so i was going to have someone ride with a 2up in front of us all to film it, but that fell through!

I'm sure there will be pics though!

If you haven't modified the windshield, you could try my camera setup:

http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=22638

Samples of the output are here: http://youtube.com/behohippy

[joyinc]

Originally Posted by patw

If you haven't modified the windshield, you could try my camera setup:

http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=22638

Samples of the output are here: http://youtube.com/behohippy

i have she's all black now... i was thinking about this thing, but it seems like a lot of money for something i'm not sure i'll use much... plus who knows how stable it'd be... but i could probably mount it anywhere?

[joyinc]

i almost want to rig up the camera to wear around my neck lol

[patw]

Originally Posted by joyinc

i almost want to rig up the camera to wear around my neck lol

That was one of my early setups, then trying to use velcro to strap to my chest, but the problem is the bouncing, or the viewing angle. Try to mount it on your mirror arms, or rear passenger peg. This bike is so damn angular that there's very few spots that work well for a mount. Also keep in mind, anywhere you mount it on the bike will vibrate a lot, which really causes quality issues with the video. I'm using the velcro as a mount and partially to help keep the video stable (despite that, you'll still see lots of shake in my videos).

[joyinc]

well the parade was fun... we were expecting rain though so most of them didnt show up! there were four bikes though and we spaced out enough to look bigger lol...

we got cut out of some of the parade videos, so I made my own lol

Link to original page on YouTube.

thanks everyone for all your help!