RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTubeJalopnik wrote Let's get this straight. Exercising like a meth-addicted Richard Simmons and then stuffing your face like Cookie Jarvis is none too good for the global atmosphere. "Eating less and driving to save energy would be better," environmentalist Chris Goodall told the Times. His reasoning -- sure to please couch potatoes everywhere -- is based on calculating the environmental cost of food versus oil production. Surprisingly, it's the food that pollutes more. According to Goodall, Author of "How to Live a Low Carbon Life" and a Green Party parliamentary candidate in England, driving a typical UK car for three miles adds around 0.9 kg of CO2 to the atmosphere, while walking the same distance uses about 180 calories, which you'd need 100 grams of beef to replace. And that would result in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving. Damn forensic mathematics and the insufferable law of unintended consequences.
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion
Is Driving Greener than Walking?
[11 posts] [8 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
ddavis
Westgate
Login to Send PM
Posted 4 years ago # -
Brewmaster
Portland, OR
Login to Send PM
That's funny. I'd like to see someone estimate how much energy we have stored in our bodies' fat deposits. We could probably power a small country for decades.
Posted 4 years ago # -
ddavis
Westgate
Login to Send PM
I thought it was interesting since I've been reading The Omnivore's Dilemma and it talks about corporate farms and our large corn crops and how virtually everything comes from corn in industrial agriculture. And the whole E85 thing and the fact that it takes about the same fossil fuels to produce the corn that we burn so there is no net benefit to it.
Posted 4 years ago # -
columbus native
Columbus the indie art capital of the world
Login to Send PM
Brewmaster wrote That's funny. I'd like to see someone estimate how much energy we have stored in our bodies' fat deposits. We could probably power a small country for decades.
each pound of fat is relative to 3,500 calories. so if you take a body mass index to justify your fat percentage. You can find this out fairly simple.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Daz
Tweeting about some totally unimportant event
Login to Send PM
Well, if 1 cal = 4.1868 J,
and 1 Kcal (our standard "Calorie") is 1000 of those.
Then, 1 kcal - 4186.8 Joules.
So 3500 of those (how many kcal are found in a lb of fat) = 14653800 Joules.
So if you're somebody (say, me) who weighs 160 and has about 10% body fat, then you have 16 lbs of fat.
Which means that I'm carrying 234460800 Joules worth of energy in fat on myself.
Now, 1 Joule/second is a watt, so I use 7 Watt lightbulbs (energy savers to replace 60) throughout my house. So, roughly, I can power one of those for ~387 days.
There are a lot of people, a LOT fatter than I am, around this country.
I'm pretty sure we could light up some entire cities.
Posted 4 years ago # -
lisathewaitress
SoHud
Login to Send PM
Daz - thanks for breaking it down. I was hoping someone would do it, so I wouldn't have to stretch my brain too hard before work.
Posted 4 years ago # -
wildgoose77
Not at all creative.
Login to Send PM
If only we could assemble these human bodies into an enormous, I dunno, matrix or something, where the energy could be harvested to power a global hegemony of robotic overlords, while human will is sedated by feeding an illusory virtual reality directly into the cerebral cortex. I think we might be on to something here.
Posted 4 years ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.