Global Warming The debbil made me do it

"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)

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:26:22 GMT, Jay Maynard
wrote:

On 2008-03-15, Roger wrote:
Most mid size cars could be quite capable of getting 30 plus with fuel
efficient engines. There is no need to remove the large trucks. We
are talking "fleet average," not the mileage of every truck.

There are a nontrivial number of trucks, and 4-6 MPG is the rule rather than
the exception. It takes a lot of econoboxes to counterbalance that.

The fleet haulers are not currently or planned on future inclusion
into the overall transportation fleet.

You use common sense. Those that can do so, could use the hybrids.
Those that really need the larger vans and SUVs could still use them
and the trucks could still remain. IOW we use what we need , not what
we think we'd like.

That's not the way the American system works. The only person entitled to

It sure is. People have to learn to make the proper decision.

make a decision as to what vehicle they need to purchase is the buyer. Not
you, not me, not the government, and certainly not some enviro-wacko who
knows nothing about the buyer's needs.

And I said no differently.

snip for brevity

Let me guess: you were wearing the seat belt, and the SUV driver wasn't?

Both were wearing seatbelts.

That's not an indictment of the SUV, but of the idiot who wasn't wearing his

Wasn't meant to be. It was to show the smaller car is not always the
looser.

seat belt. (I'm a former paramedic. There are a few things I get rabid
about, and seat belts top the list.)


A hybrid SUV might be more fuel efficient than its conventional counterpart.
Then again, it might not be. I looked at the hybrid version of my SUV when I
was first considering buying it, but ruled it out for one simple reason: 95%
of my driving is at highway speed, where a hybrid provides no benefit. The
extra purchase cost, plus the battery replacement at 100K miles (and yes, I
do keep vehicles past that point), far outweighed any possible fuel savings
given my driving needs.

As a personal opinion and a far amount of time reading specs I doubt
many if any of the hybrid SUVs really provide any economic, or CO2
advantage over their lifetimes.



If that's the case, why is government raising the alarm? See, for example,
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=7431198 .

That's not the government, two the government didn't raise an alarm
and three the woman who manages the EPA's Energy Star program says:
"She says that even though fluorescent bulbs contain mercury, using
them contributes less mercury to the environment than using regular
incandescent bulbs. That's because they use less electricity — and
coal-fired power plants are the biggest source of mercury emissions in
the air."


As for the electric car, let me once again use those two magic words:
"mission profile". I'll consider one when I can get one that will go 400
No one said use the electric car for long trips hauling heavy loads.

If that's the only car I have, I have no choice. I make those trips, so I
have to have a vehicle that will do the job.

Or are you suggesting that I be forced to buy two cars, one for the few
local trips I make and one for the missions the first won't handle?

I also allowed for that in the original note. "We drive what we need
to drive". IOW if you need an SUV you drive an SUV, if you need a
truck, you drive one, but those who don't absolutely need one should
take the responsibility and drive what they need, not what they would
like.

The average trip made by cars is short and typically round trip to
work, or in to see the kids play what ever sport. Car pooling could
take care of a lot this.

The average person's average trip, in a city, maybe. Ask someone living in a
small rural town what their average trip is.

Again you are ignoring what I said. People should take responsibility
and drive what they need. The electric car is nothing more than
another form of transportation and a short range one at that. Why
would I expect some one living in a rural town to drive one 30 to 40
miles to work. I used to drive 65 miles one way an for a guy who
hates to get up early that was torture. What did we do? We sold our
home in the country and moved about 60 miles closer to a rural
subdivision.

This kind of fallacious generalization is why government regulation of what
people buy is simply wrong.

I did not make that kind of generalization, you read it into what I
said.

However for those that need the extra room and load capacity they
could still have it. I reiterate, FLEET AVERAGE does not mean every
car and tuck has to get that mileage. It's expected that all of them
averaged together would get that. Big difference.

That does nothing for those of us who aren't average. Driving up the fleet

Those of us who aren't average ...aren't average. IOW as I said
before we drive what we need to drive (not what every one else does.
If you have 6 kids you don't try to haul them around in a Corvette.

average will require that the vehicles that will handle my mission be
unavailable, or else emasculated to the point they're unsafe.

Even the econoboxes are safer than the cars of old.


This is the typical "all or nothing" argument against better mileage
or conservation. When it comes to the cars on the road, most of us
don't need a big pickup truck, monster SUV or 5,000# luxury car.

I don't either. My small SUV does the job.

However, I REFUSE to try to tell someone else what they need or don't need.
I cannot make that judgment for them. They can only do that for themselves.
The alternative is central planning, comrade.

No one in this thread has either.

Of course the LEDs are far preferable over CFLs, but they are currently
very expensive. Give 'em a couple years and they just might be on par with
today's CFL, but far more efficient and almost indefinite life with very
little heat given off and no starter required.

And if they do that, I'll happily switch. (Assuming they don't flicker
annoyingly when fed 60 Hz AC.)

That's the real key to doing the environmentally correct thing: Make it
economically justifiable, too. I don't mean artificially raising the cost
through taxation or anything like that. (The same arguments that justify
doing that in other circumstances can be used to justify raising the cost of
fuel for your Debonair to $10 a gallon. How much does it burn an hour?) I
mean make it save real money.

The greatest impact on safety would be getting the public to quit
accepting a yearly highway death toll of between 40 and 50,000 as
acceptable.

No argument from me on this one.

Maybe the biggest at present would be to build a jamming device to prevent
cell phones being used while the car is in motion and education.

Got a 2-meter rig in your car, OM? I do, and have had ever since I owned a

2-meter and 440

car. (Well, sometimes it was just 440, but you get the idea.) Just because
some people can't talk and drive doesn't mean everyone can't.

Neglecting the ability to talk and walk, er... drive:-)) at the same
time there's a big difference between using a mike and holding a cell
phone up beside your face blocking the entire view from one side.


Today there seems to be an element in society that fights any change
to improve things.

When the suggested improvement is a drastic change in the way we live, and
where we live, and how we live, you bet your ass you're going to get
resistance, at least here in our free society. You see, the government isn't
supposed to treat us like the Chinese government treats its people, but
that's exactly what the enviro-wackos are calling for.

Nothing comes without some kind of cost including "business as usual"
which probably has the highest long term cost of any option.

That has yet to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a lot of Americans.

If you're so keen on saving the planet, why haven't you junked your Debonair
and bought something smaller?

I fly it far less and save energy in many other areas so in essence
I've cut my carbon foot print drastically. As I said before (in
another thread), if I get back to flying any where near what I used to
the Deb is going to get a different engine that uses far less fuel.
BUT even at its present 14 GPH, flying it to Denver uses less overall
energy than does driving my car (I'd not be driving the Prius that far
with the amount of stuff I haul with meg)
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"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.

On Mar 17, 7:37 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Ash Wyllie" wrote:


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.

And this thread ALMOST died....

Let it go, man...just let it go....


Dan Mc

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Mar 17, 7:37 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Ash Wyllie" wrote:


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.

And this thread ALMOST died....

Let it go, man...just let it go....



Heh.


"Just when I thought that I was out, they pull me back in."

-Michael Corleone