The eternal eco-friendly solution for the CO2 without heat pump that works:
http://www.dlsc.ca/borehole.htm
We store solar thermal heat in the summer underground to recover it in winter!
Kumkat, new éconologue, I introduce myself ...
For the doggie ...
http://www.mediapart.fr/club/blog/homme ... i-le-mange
Quote:
We do not stop progress! Everything can become the object of study, with sometimes surprising conclusions. So this study published by the New Scientist.
"The carbon footprint of a domestic dog is twice that of a Land Cruiser that travels 10.000 kilometers a year. This is the conclusion of a study conducted by two University of Victoria professors, Brenda and Robert Vale, two architects specializing in sustainable development.
Their thesis, which they develop in a book entitled "It's time to eat the dog: the real guide for a responsible life" goes even further: it is better to have pets that can eat like hens or rabbits.
The pair of researchers studied the carbon footprint of the most widespread domestic animals, taking into account the ingredients of their diet and the space needed for their manufacture. "The annual impact of a German shepherd or dog of similar size is the same as driving a big car," explains Brenda Vale.
Their study, published in the New Scientist, thus found that 0,84 hectare was needed to produce the average annual food of a pet dog. A Toyota Land Cruiser that makes 10.000 km in a year uses 55,1 gigajoules (including construction and fuel). By estimating that one hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules per year, the carbon footprint of the vehicle can translate into 0,41 hectares, which is half that of a dog.
The New Scientist explains that the Vale is not alone in coming to this conclusion. The magazine asked a researcher at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York to redo the calculations with the same data. His results were almost identical to those of the Vale, and he remarked that "owning a dog is really a luxury, especially because of the carbon footprint of the meat."
According to researchers' calculations, the carbon footprint of a cat is significantly lower than that of a dog (0,15 hectare), but still represents the equivalent of that of a Golf. Hamsters are even greener with an average of 0,014 hectare (the equivalent of a plasma screen). But the most eco-responsible pet is undoubtedly the goldfish, with a footprint of 0.00034 hectares (two mobile phones). "
Well, dogs do not produce C02. And they fart and rot less than the cows that contribute 18% to greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, I have not read a study on the burps and farts of dogs ... Nor on the carbon footprint of the creation of the dog Giacometti (1 image, Click to enlarge the images).
On the other hand, it would be interesting to compare the number of children and adults bitten by dogs, to the number of injured by 4x4. Not even sure 4x4 win. Basically, a Land Cruiser does not help much. Even to show off, imagine that you go to the office on the back of a dog: it's still classier! No more vexations because of your big polluting and dangerous gear. Your dog is worse and you will be congratulated and admired.
But perhaps it would have been better not to ignore this study. Because now dog owners are going to be very, very badly seen. So, as long as we do, let's go to the worst: the must-have of the anti-social will be going to walk his two labradors in 4x4.
By cons you will be very well seen if you serve the dog in sauce instead of the Christmas turkey.
http://www.mediapart.fr/club/blog/homme ... i-le-mange
Quote:
We do not stop progress! Everything can become the object of study, with sometimes surprising conclusions. So this study published by the New Scientist.
"The carbon footprint of a domestic dog is twice that of a Land Cruiser that travels 10.000 kilometers a year. This is the conclusion of a study conducted by two University of Victoria professors, Brenda and Robert Vale, two architects specializing in sustainable development.
Their thesis, which they develop in a book entitled "It's time to eat the dog: the real guide for a responsible life" goes even further: it is better to have pets that can eat like hens or rabbits.
The pair of researchers studied the carbon footprint of the most widespread domestic animals, taking into account the ingredients of their diet and the space needed for their manufacture. "The annual impact of a German shepherd or dog of similar size is the same as driving a big car," explains Brenda Vale.
Their study, published in the New Scientist, thus found that 0,84 hectare was needed to produce the average annual food of a pet dog. A Toyota Land Cruiser that makes 10.000 km in a year uses 55,1 gigajoules (including construction and fuel). By estimating that one hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules per year, the carbon footprint of the vehicle can translate into 0,41 hectares, which is half that of a dog.
The New Scientist explains that the Vale is not alone in coming to this conclusion. The magazine asked a researcher at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York to redo the calculations with the same data. His results were almost identical to those of the Vale, and he remarked that "owning a dog is really a luxury, especially because of the carbon footprint of the meat."
According to researchers' calculations, the carbon footprint of a cat is significantly lower than that of a dog (0,15 hectare), but still represents the equivalent of that of a Golf. Hamsters are even greener with an average of 0,014 hectare (the equivalent of a plasma screen). But the most eco-responsible pet is undoubtedly the goldfish, with a footprint of 0.00034 hectares (two mobile phones). "
Well, dogs do not produce C02. And they fart and rot less than the cows that contribute 18% to greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, I have not read a study on the burps and farts of dogs ... Nor on the carbon footprint of the creation of the dog Giacometti (1 image, Click to enlarge the images).
On the other hand, it would be interesting to compare the number of children and adults bitten by dogs, to the number of injured by 4x4. Not even sure 4x4 win. Basically, a Land Cruiser does not help much. Even to show off, imagine that you go to the office on the back of a dog: it's still classier! No more vexations because of your big polluting and dangerous gear. Your dog is worse and you will be congratulated and admired.
But perhaps it would have been better not to ignore this study. Because now dog owners are going to be very, very badly seen. So, as long as we do, let's go to the worst: the must-have of the anti-social will be going to walk his two labradors in 4x4.
By cons you will be very well seen if you serve the dog in sauce instead of the Christmas turkey.
0 x
Thank you Macro I'm going to die less stupid tonight ...
yes I'm going to die because I informed my cat of my desire to stop his carbon emissions
and he pointed out to me that I would be more effective stopping mine ...
it is the end programmed! I would not see the end of the world in dec 2012, arggg, I die ... sniff ...
yes I'm going to die because I informed my cat of my desire to stop his carbon emissions
and he pointed out to me that I would be more effective stopping mine ...
it is the end programmed! I would not see the end of the world in dec 2012, arggg, I die ... sniff ...
0 x
Kumkat did not read and understand this Canadian project which is too original and works and which should please him:
There is no need for water, the earth of unchanged origin suffices, with holes in 144 to 30m for 59 pavilions !!
The earth has a significant thermal capacity and its thermal diffusivity is slow enough to spread its heat in general only on a diffusion length of 3m approximately in one year.
It's just like a well sized Canadian well where in addition we store solar heat in summer to find it in winter largely if the storage volume has dimensions well above 2x3 = 6m, fixed by the heat diffusion length in the earth between summer and winter (3m).
In addition we remove any heat pump and we use what is the cheapest, the earth under our feet, unchanged, not stirred, just a few holes to exchange heat.
It is absurd to waste the heat brought by the sun in summer when it is lacking in winter.
http://www.dlsc.ca/borehole.htm
diffusivity values:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperatur ... %A4higkeit
Once made, holes and pipes (25 on 100m2 to 13m depth), maintenance is zero, because that small circulators, simple summer sensors and heat exchangers or radiators at low temperature.
in other words, bury a large reserve of water underground, heat the summer and use the winter and play on the inertia of the body of water ...
taking my spoon right now I have a chance to get there before retirement :-)
the cost of such an installation and its maintenance are worth it?
There is no need for water, the earth of unchanged origin suffices, with holes in 144 to 30m for 59 pavilions !!
The earth has a significant thermal capacity and its thermal diffusivity is slow enough to spread its heat in general only on a diffusion length of 3m approximately in one year.
It's just like a well sized Canadian well where in addition we store solar heat in summer to find it in winter largely if the storage volume has dimensions well above 2x3 = 6m, fixed by the heat diffusion length in the earth between summer and winter (3m).
In addition we remove any heat pump and we use what is the cheapest, the earth under our feet, unchanged, not stirred, just a few holes to exchange heat.
It is absurd to waste the heat brought by the sun in summer when it is lacking in winter.
http://www.dlsc.ca/borehole.htm
diffusivity values:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperatur ... %A4higkeit
Once made, holes and pipes (25 on 100m2 to 13m depth), maintenance is zero, because that small circulators, simple summer sensors and heat exchangers or radiators at low temperature.
0 x
Go back to "The bistro: site life, leisure and relaxation, humor and conviviality and Classifieds"