[Vision2020] Human Powered Vs. Motorized Transport

Mon Aug 13 15:30:38 PDT 2007

All-

The first paper Dan offered focuses on bicycling increasing longevity, thus
increasing energy consumption for each person over their lifetime.

This argument could apply to anything that increases life span or
population, given that each person added or year lived longer consumes more
energy.  Indeed, the energy and global warming problem could be solved in
large measure by reducing the world's population to, for example,
 500,000,000, even if everyone lived at the energy consumption level of the
average US citizen, currently far above the energy consumption of any other
nation.

This argument could highlight the energy conservation benefits of a massive
disease outbreak or war that dramatically reduces population or life span.

There are similar arguments regarding the long term costs of tobacco related
diseases.  Tobacco smoking reduces overall medical and other costs, it does
not increase them, as some claim, because it shortens lifespan, reducing the
expensive long term care for the elderly.  Tobacco smoking thus helps solve
the Medicare/Medicaid funding problems, while also reducing the burden on
Social Security.

The second article Dan posted focused on beef as a food energy source, and
appeared oriented towards exposing how energy intensive beef, and other food
sources, are in our industrialized food system, even mentioning the green
house gases emitted by cows, which are significant.

>From the article Dan posted:

The ideal diet would consist of cereals and pulses. "This is a route which
virtually nobody, apart from a vegan, is going to follow," Mr Goodall said.
But there are other ways to reduce the carbon footprint. "Don't buy anything
from the supermarket," Mr Goodall said, "or anything that's travelled too
far."
-------------------------------------------------------
Unless I missed something, the energy equations in these articles are
inaccurate.  They do not take into account all significant variables and
outcomes impacting the energy consumption for car or light truck versus
human powered transportation.  The Wharton School paper on the comparisons
between human powered transportation and car or light truck use states
explicitly that the energy costs of manufacturing a car are not included.

If car or light truck use was reduced dramatically due to human powered
alternatives, even if everyone owned a car or truck (of course one goal of
human powered transportation is to decrease the number of people who own a
car or truck), they would last much longer, thus decreasing the rates of
manufacture and maintenance, reducing energy consumption.

Consider the amount of energy used to extract oil and raw (even recycled)
resources, manufacture the car and ship the oil to refineries, refine the
oil and ship the car and gas to dealers and stations, maintain the street
and transportation system (replacing overburdened bridges, like the one
that collapsed in Minnesota recently, that were not designed to handle
increased car and truck traffic), and of course add the energy powering uses
of cars and light trucks that would be avoided in the the human powered
alternative.  Now compare this with the total energy to extract the
resources for a bike or walking shoes, manufacture and ship, maintain, the
impacts of a bike or walking system (even sidewalks cost money), and
the energy to human power over the same miles that would be covered by
motorized means, and reevaluate, considering energy impacts relating to the
health improvement due to human powered transport, which might both reduce
energy use (fewer sickness/medical related energy costs, fewer sick days off
work increasing worker efficiency, perhaps) and increase energy use,
assuming a longer life span.  I did not mention the oil war costs, which
some would argue are relevant.

Finally, critically, one of the goals of promoting biking or walking as a
primary means of transportation must be added:  lifestyles would adjust to
less miles covered, an essential goal of energy reduction strategies.  The
long distances now covered by cars and trucks are simply not possible if
assuming walking or biking.  Long commutes to work and non-essential fossil
fueled transportation would be greatly reduced.  Cars and trucks easily and
casually facilitate consumers using large amounts of energy.  So assuming
widespread biking or walking would create a significant reduction in overall
miles covered per capita, this could reduce absolute energy consumption
significantly, in some scenarios even if there was more energy per mile used
for human powered transportation.

Ted Moffett

On 8/13/07, Dan Carscallen <areaman at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>  Another one of those environmental paradoxes, like the one Phil Cook
> posted a while back about bicycling:
> *
> http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~ulrich/documents/ulrich-cycling-enviro-jul06.pdf
> *<http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~ulrich/documents/ulrich-cycling-enviro-jul06.pdf>
>
> and like the one I heard on the Radio Men the other day (yes, C. Foster
> Kane's "Thee News" is *my* news source), which they probably gleaned from
> this article:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece
>
> you just can't win.
>
> DC
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> *From:* vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:
> vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark Solomon
> *Sent:* Monday, August 13, 2007 6:03 AM
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] ethanol and water
>
> Interesting numbers re how much water does it take to produce ethanol.
> Including water for irrigating the corn crop feed-stock: 1700 gallons of
> water for each gallon of ethanol produced.
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> How much water does it take to produce ethanol?
>
> By Nate Jenkins of the Associated Press
> August 13, 2007
>
> NORTH PLATTE, Neb. - The growing thirst for ethanol takes a lot of water
> to quench, but less than many people believe and not enough to cause serious
> problems, experts told farmers.
>
> Last year in Nebraska, the nation's third-leading ethanol producer, it
> took 2 billion gallons of water at 15 ethanol plants to churn out 676
> million gallons of the alternative fuel, Derrel Martin, an irrigation and
> water resources engineer said Thursday.
>
> But roughly 900 billion gallons of rain water falls annually in Lincoln
> County, Martin said, addressing the public perception that ethanol
> production takes an inordinate amount of water.
>
> "These plants are not consuming a huge amount of water," he said.
>
> Martin spoke during an agriculture conference in North Platte that focused
> on water. Nebraska is aggressively pushing development of ethanol plants and
> is poised to become the second-leading producer in the country later this
> year. At the same time, it is struggling to meet water demands of its
> farmers and those in neighboring states who rely on water that passes
> through Nebraska.
>
> A longtime analyst of ethanol production disagreed with Martin and
> questioned his figures, saying it takes an average of about 15 gallons of
> water to produce a gallon of ethanol - much higher than the roughly three
> gallons of water per gallon of ethanol Martin cited.
>
> Groundwater tables in some states, including Missouri, have been drawn
> down to dangerously low levels near some ethanol plants, said David
> Pimentel, an ecology and agriculture professor at Cornell University.
>
> The figures cited by both Martin and Pimentel include only a plant's
> production of ethanol, not the water it takes to grow corn. After adding
> that, about 1,700 gallons are needed to produce every gallon of ethanol,
> Pimentel said.
>
> The entire water-use picture, coupled with the fuel it takes to produce
> ethanol, makes long-term, mass production of ethanol unsustainable, Pimentel
> said.
>
> "I wish it were sustainable, I'm an agriculturalist," he said. "I wish
> this whole ethanol deal was a major benefit, but you've got to be a
> scientist first and an agriculturalist second."
>
> Martin said the question of whether increased corn production and the
> irrigation it requires will overburden the state's water supply is an
> important one that does not yet have a clear answer.
>
> Moratoriums on new groundwater wells are already in place in some regions,
> such as along the Platte River, and the Republican River basin has caps on
> groundwater use.
>
> The state faces a test over whether it will control water use in fragile
> areas or succumb to the financial allure of planting more irrigated corn to
> meet ethanol demands, Martin said.
>
> Corn prices have risen with ethanol production. There are 19 percent more
> acres of irrigated corn this year across the country, including about one
> million more irrigated acres in Nebraska, he said.
>
> Plans designed to curtail water use in some basins could become "toothless
> tigers" in the face of such market pressures, he said.
>
> On the Net:
> Nebraska Ethanol Board: http://www.ne-ethanol.org/
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070813/27592f36/attachment-0001.html 