Global Warming The debbil made me do it

Modern discourse is based upon the feminization of American society. We
don't argue the logic of global warming, we decide based upon how the
subject makes us feel. So we drive to the mall in our Expeditions to
protest Big Oil and the lack of wind turbines. Oh, wind turbines -- they
will interfere with our view when we go sailing. The turbines might kill
birds, and that makes us feel sad. Nuclear power is out because we don't
understand it and that little symbol makes us feel scared. No matter that
Ontario Hydro should really be called Ontario Nuclear, and the French -- the
French! -- derive the bulk of their electricty from nuclear power.

Hard, cold reason has all but disappeared as a controlling factor in
American life. As I see it, there is no practical replacement for oil.
Even if we stop burning it, we will still need it (or its cousin, natural
gas) for plastics, pharmaceuticals and everything else the petrochemical
industry provides us. We won't be able to stop burning oil for at least 3
or 4 decades.

To me, the global warming argument is entirely immaterial. We need to
reduce our carbon emissions not because we are making the earth warmer
(which we're not) but as a matter of national security. We must develop our
own oil as quickly and as thoroughly as possible, and at the same time
develop a replacement for burning oil for personal transportation. We must
reduce the insane outflow of our national wealth to the same people who have
sworn to kill us.

And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or "build
more wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do that
(unfortunately) have a negligible impact on our energy production needs.
No matter how much everyone wishes for it, we're not going to escape our
need for big-box power plants that run on fossil or nuclear fuels -- at
least not unless we're willing to largely dismantle modern society.

"LWG" wrote:

making the earth warmer (which we're not)

sigh

Sorry, I can't let that bald assertion pass.

Why do you believe that? Just because you want to, or do you have empirical
reasons?

but as a matter of national security. We must develop our own oil as
quickly and as thoroughly as possible, and at the same time develop a
replacement for burning oil for personal transportation. We must reduce the
insane outflow of our national wealth to the same people who have sworn to
kill us.

Absolutely. Our national security and economy will both continue to degrade
until we do something real about this.

On Mar 15, 3:55 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"LWG" wrote:
making the earth warmer (which we're not)

sigh

Sorry, I can't let that bald assertion pass.

Why do you believe that? Just because you want to, or do you have empirical
reasons?

but as a matter of national security. We must develop our own oil as
quickly and as thoroughly as possible, and at the same time develop a
replacement for burning oil for personal transportation. We must reduce the
insane outflow of our national wealth to the same people who have sworn to
kill us.

Absolutely. Our national security and economy will both continue to degrade
until we do something real about this.

Among the readily available answers is coal liquefaction for required
IC applications, nuclear power for the electric grid, and greater
efficiencies encouraged by market forces.

There are enough coal and oil shale reserves in the US alone to
provide internal demand needs for 150-500 years (depending on whose
data you apply and the expected consumption rate).

This coupled with Natural Gas reserves provides ample energy though
the next century, with existing technology and counting known
reserves.


Dan Mc

"Dan" wrote:

There are enough coal and oil shale reserves in the US alone to
provide internal demand needs for 150-500 years

But they have serious environmental downsides, both in extraction and burning.

Solar energy may be harvested in several ways
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower . Wind power harvest is
experiencing rapid growth in the U. S., showing potential to be a serious
contributor to the national grid, increasinig ten-fold in ten years:

=================
In recent years, the United States has added more wind energy to its grid than
any other country; U.S. wind power capacity grew by 45% to 16.8 gigawatts in
2007.[34] Texas has become the largest wind energy producing state, surpassing
California. In 2007, the state expects to add 2 gigawatts to its existing
capacity of approximately 4.5 gigawatts. Iowa and Minnesota are expected to
each produce 1 gigawatt by late-2007.[35] Wind power generation in the U.S.
was up 31.8% in February, 2007 from February, 2006.[36] The average output of
one megawatt of wind power is equivalent to the average electricity
consumption of about 250 American households. According to the American Wind
Energy Association, wind will generate enough electricity in 2008 to power
just over 1% (4.5 million households) of total electricity in U.S., up from
less than 0.1% in 1999. U.S. Department of Energy studies have concluded wind
harvested in just three of the fifty U.S. states could provide enough
electricity to power the entire nation, and that offshore wind farms could do
the same job.[37]

-Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

=================

These technologies need not be expected to replace fossil fuel power suddenly.
They can make incremental contributions, being integrated into the power
infrastructure as they come on line. That is happening now.

Additionally, they can be used to power desalination plants and even plants to
manufacture fuel directly from CO2 or hydrogen from water, thus removing their
chief drawbacks as power grid suppliers, their variable output.

http://www.technologyreview.com/read...&id=1 8582&a=

http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/arti..._hydrogen.html

Alternative energy technologies are still being sorted out, but expensive oil
is giving them momentum that wasn't there ten years ago. This stuff will
work if we commit to it.

We don't have to keep taking all the **** we have over oil, throwing our
economy down a rathole in the process. All it takes is some leadership and
guts to stop it.

On Mar 15, 8:37 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:
There are enough coal and oil shale reserves in the US alone to
provide internal demand needs for 150-500 years

But they have serious environmental downsides, both in extraction and burning.

Solar energy may be harvested in several wayshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower. Wind power harvest is
experiencing rapid growth in the U. S., showing potential to be a serious
contributor to the national grid, increasinig ten-fold in ten years:

=================
In recent years, the United States has added more wind energy to its grid than
any other country; U.S. wind power capacity grew by 45% to 16.8 gigawatts in
2007.[34] Texas has become the largest wind energy producing state, surpassing
California. In 2007, the state expects to add 2 gigawatts to its existing
capacity of approximately 4.5 gigawatts. Iowa and Minnesota are expected to
each produce 1 gigawatt by late-2007.[35] Wind power generation in the U.S.
was up 31.8% in February, 2007 from February, 2006.[36] The average output of
one megawatt of wind power is equivalent to the average electricity
consumption of about 250 American households. According to the American Wind
Energy Association, wind will generate enough electricity in 2008 to power
just over 1% (4.5 million households) of total electricity in U.S., up from
less than 0.1% in 1999. U.S. Department of Energy studies have concluded wind
harvested in just three of the fifty U.S. states could provide enough
electricity to power the entire nation, and that offshore wind farms could do
the same job.[37]

-Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

=================

These technologies need not be expected to replace fossil fuel power suddenly.
They can make incremental contributions, being integrated into the power
infrastructure as they come on line. That is happening now.

Additionally, they can be used to power desalination plants and even plants to
manufacture fuel directly from CO2 or hydrogen from water, thus removing their
chief drawbacks as power grid suppliers, their variable output.

http://www.technologyreview.com/read...ecialsections&...

http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/arti..._hydrogen.html

Alternative energy technologies are still being sorted out, but expensive oil
is giving them momentum that wasn't there ten years ago. This stuff will
work if we commit to it.

We don't have to keep taking all the **** we have over oil, throwing our
economy down a rathole in the process. All it takes is some leadership and
guts to stop it.

I think the market is the best incentive ever devised.

As the price per barrel increases, the incentive to replace increases
proportionally.

Government mandates only stifle and stagnate this process.

Thus we achieve two ends with the only downside felt by the Saudis,
Hugo Chavez, and a few other nasties.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Dan Mc

On 2008-03-16, Dan wrote:
I think the market is the best incentive ever devised.

This is a basic theorem of economics. It's been proven that no regulatory
regime can ever be as good at producing optimal results as the free market.
Governments can, at best, only approach the efficiency of the market. I know
one guy who's an anarchist because of this result.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)

"Jay Maynard" wrote in message
...
On 2008-03-16, Dan wrote:
I think the market is the best incentive ever devised.

This is a basic theorem of economics. It's been proven that no regulatory
regime can ever be as good at producing optimal results as the free
market.
Governments can, at best, only approach the efficiency of the market. I
know
one guy who's an anarchist because of this result.

What's more, the market is infinitely more adaptive when conditions change -
bureaucracies are like the Titanic heading for an iceberg.

Dan Luke opined

"Dan" wrote:

There are enough coal and oil shale reserves in the US alone to
provide internal demand needs for 150-500 years

But they have serious environmental downsides, both in extraction and
burning.

Solar energy may be harvested in several ways
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower . Wind power harvest is
experiencing rapid growth in the U. S., showing potential to be a serious
contributor to the national grid, increasinig ten-fold in ten years:

=================
In recent years, the United States has added more wind energy to its grid
than any other country; U.S. wind power capacity grew by 45% to 16.8
gigawatts in
2007.[34] Texas has become the largest wind energy producing state,
surpassing California. In 2007, the state expects to add 2 gigawatts to its
existing capacity of approximately 4.5 gigawatts. Iowa and Minnesota are
expected to each produce 1 gigawatt by late-2007.[35] Wind power generation
in the U.S. was up 31.8% in February, 2007 from February, 2006.[36] The
average output of one megawatt of wind power is equivalent to the average
electricity consumption of about 250 American households. According to the
American Wind Energy Association, wind will generate enough electricity in
2008 to power just over 1% (4.5 million households) of total electricity in
U.S., up from less than 0.1% in 1999. U.S. Department of Energy studies have
concluded wind harvested in just three of the fifty U.S. states could
provide enough electricity to power the entire nation, and that offshore
wind farms could do the same job.[37]

-Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

Texas had a big problem a few weeks ago: the wind stoppped blowing. There was a
hell of a scramble to get the fossil fuel plants online.

The big problem with wind is that it is not constant, and unpredictably so. So
you must have conventional backup ready to go. So all you save is fuel costs at
a huge capital expense. A gigawatt of wind power will not replace a gigawatt of
coal, or nuclear power.

-ash
Cthulhu in 2008!
Vote the greater evil.

On 16 Mar 2008 20:47:43 -0500, "Ash Wyllie" wrote:

Dan Luke opined

"Dan" wrote:

There are enough coal and oil shale reserves in the US alone to
provide internal demand needs for 150-500 years

But they have serious environmental downsides, both in extraction and
burning.

Solar energy may be harvested in several ways
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower . Wind power harvest is
experiencing rapid growth in the U. S., showing potential to be a serious
contributor to the national grid, increasinig ten-fold in ten years:

=================
In recent years, the United States has added more wind energy to its grid
than any other country; U.S. wind power capacity grew by 45% to 16.8
gigawatts in
2007.[34] Texas has become the largest wind energy producing state,
surpassing California. In 2007, the state expects to add 2 gigawatts to its
existing capacity of approximately 4.5 gigawatts. Iowa and Minnesota are
expected to each produce 1 gigawatt by late-2007.[35] Wind power generation
in the U.S. was up 31.8% in February, 2007 from February, 2006.[36] The
average output of one megawatt of wind power is equivalent to the average
electricity consumption of about 250 American households. According to the
American Wind Energy Association, wind will generate enough electricity in
2008 to power just over 1% (4.5 million households) of total electricity in
U.S., up from less than 0.1% in 1999. U.S. Department of Energy studies have
concluded wind harvested in just three of the fifty U.S. states could
provide enough electricity to power the entire nation, and that offshore
wind farms could do the same job.[37]

-Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

Texas had a big problem a few weeks ago: the wind stoppped blowing. There was a
hell of a scramble to get the fossil fuel plants online.

The big problem with wind is that it is not constant, and unpredictably so. So

Like here in lower Michigan. We have almost the ideal average wind
speed, but unless close to one of the lake shores it's usually way too
fast or calm. However for the individual home owner there are
variations of the Savionus (sp?) S-rotor that work well out in the
open. Here we're surrounded by trees on three sides and putting a
generator high enough to clear the trees would be impractical from an
economic viability. Out on the farm mixed in with active and passive
solar they'd probably give us an independent level from the mains of
around 75% with enough excess to actually make money. Not much, but
at least come out on the positive side of the ledger.

I'd like to experiment with passive solar water heating, supplemented
with "on demand" hot water heaters for the kitchen and shower.. I
cold add a green house to the south side of the shop and probably heat
enough water the cut the heating bills for the house and shop in half.
With a large enough reserve we *might* be able to heat enough water to
supplement the gas fired forced air heat, but I'm afraid for
electricity we'd come out way on the short side. As I've mentioned
before, I was given a figure by a consultant of $50,000 to get about
that 75% and a payback of over 20 years.
Electric rates are currently around 10 cents per KWH and gas is
relatively inexpensive as well. Nor do we receive any subsidies
compared to California where rates are near 40 cents at peak demand,
they receive about a 50% subsidy and have far more sunlight which
also happens to be more direct.
you must have conventional backup ready to go. So all you save is fuel costs at
a huge capital expense. A gigawatt of wind power will not replace a gigawatt of
coal, or nuclear power.

-ash
Cthulhu in 2008!
Vote the greater evil.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Ash Wyllie" wrote:

Texas had a big problem a few weeks ago: the wind stoppped blowing. There
was a
hell of a scramble to get the fossil fuel plants online.

Oh, dear!


The big problem with wind is that it is not constant, and unpredictably so.
So
you must have conventional backup ready to go. So all you save is fuel costs
at
a huge capital expense. A gigawatt of wind power will not replace a gigawatt
of
coal, or nuclear power.

There are various ways to "flywheel" wind power.

Also, wind becomes more reliable when the generating field becomes large
enough to span several states. The wind's blowing somewhere in the Midwest.

Finally, no one is proposing that wind and solar can be the sole sources of
electricity with present technology. The goal for now should be increasing
their supplementary role in power generation, while developing uses for them
in the direct production of fuels.