Comments trock has made

ferry

If you don't have a bridge, can't you use a ferry to bring people and cars from one Island to another?   just retire one of those older boats you see on History channels Alaskian King crab fishing thing, put a motor vehical ramp on it and it'll be lest than the 280 million for a bridge.

McCain tonight will be giving a speech in which I predict he will come our for drilling in ANWR because Palin told him it is a good thing and the people of Alaska want it.On VP acceptance speech hits on energy issues posted 1 year, 2 months ago 41 Responses

ANWR and offshore drilling bans

The ban on drilling in ANWR in Alaska and off shore makes no sense and will hurt Democrats in this election and every election after this unless democrats lift the ban.

Those who think that offshore drilling can be used as a bargaining chip for concessions in other areas are wrong.     Offshore and ANWR drilling has no value because Republican want Democrats to be against offshore and ANWR drilling.   So they will bargain so that Democrats keep the offshore oil drilling ban and keep bashing them over the head with it.

It doesn't matter that the rate of oil from these places will be to slow to have a price effect.  Most people won't follow along with the logic.   Most people will say lets at least have whatever oil we can from there.    Some Republicans have said on TV interviews that if we keep the ban in place it will be 6 and 7 dollar gasoline and if we lift the ban we can get it down to 2 dollars.   No matter how ridiculous that is, that's what the majority of people will remember.

You can't come to people with what they think is a very stupid idea, this ban on offshore and ANWR drilling and then convince them with your very smart ideas.   Most people think the ban is stupid.

I agree this ban is stupid.   It was always stupid.  It doesn't actually get you anything.   The only way that a ban on offshore and ANWR drilling could last indefinitely is if worldwide oil usage would drop so much that the world would never need the oil.   And that's the only thing that we can work for.

I'm for all the energy avoidance, energy efficiency and energy renewables (nondepleatables and nonexhaustables) that we can implement,  but in a political world we have to be smarter than we are stupid.  

The only thing to do is lift the ANWR and offshore oil drilling bans.On McCain's veep pick talks energy, ANWR, and the improbability of being tapped for VP posted 1 year, 3 months ago 7 Responses

Hydrogen and fuel cells, bad efficiency

Here's a report done by a European Ulf Bossel, which pretty well explains why Hydrogen as a fuel isn't a good idea.

Does a Hydrogen Economy make sense?

http://www.efcf.com/reports/E21.pdf

Look at the graphic which explains it all.

The word about Hydrogen takes along time to get out.  Or is it that the system of vetting ideas is not very good?   Or do people just not look at things skeptically enough?On Fleet of hydrogen concept vehicles crosses U.S. as part of Hydrogen Road Tour posted 1 year, 3 months ago 28 Responses

Just ask him

Has anybody asked him to turn water into wine?   This energy thing might be easier to solve than you think.   Then right away ask to turn some of the CO2 to H20.    You gotta at least ask.On Drilling for Jesus posted 1 year, 3 months ago 5 Responses

it's happened before

It's not unlike the gold strikes and gold mining many years ago.  Most of the prospectors didn't make much money, the real money was made on supplying the tools and supplies to the prospectors.    Same thing now, those selling what agriculture needs are really making out.

I own farmland and we're really sticking in to the farmers in land rent.  It feels strange for myself to be very much against biofuels from food, but at the same time I am benefiting from it.
On With food riots raging, let's open the books on the finances of Big Ag posted 1 year, 7 months ago 21 Responses

I think it's going to be

some rule saying that all global warming reduction attempts can't affect any natural gas, oil, coal, oil shale or tar sands industries. On Analysis: Bush announcement attempt to subvert action posted 1 year, 7 months ago 2 Responses

If I want to start a group?

Are there any colors left?  Is it only one color for political groups like the greens and 2 colors for sports teams.  I quess for countries its 3 colors like red, white and blue for the USA and those Europe country flags.

It's better than those single symbol groups like the swatika.  On Adam Werbach follows up 'Death of Environmentalism' with 'Birth of Blue' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 46 Responses

inspiring speaker.

I felt inspired today.   I saw Richard Dawkins speak in person today.  That was fun.

I felt inspired, not that that always works out for me, it could all be crap.  But I felt inspired, that you can't take away.On Does refuting deniers only strengthen and empower them? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 13 Responses

a correction of previous post.

a Mistake on previous post.

Moon goes around earth somewhat like speed of sun.  I wrote that moon was slower.  I got the moon month thing mixed up with how it moved accross sky.On Does refuting deniers only strengthen and empower them? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 13 Responses

Greater fools

The nomination of George Bush as the worst president ever is being pushed up to be presented to him before he leaves office.

The economy was based on the Greater Fool theory that it was ok to buy the house as long as there was a Greater Fool who would come by after you to pay even more for the house.   We just based our economy on Greater Fools because its so much easier selling houses to ourselves rather than selling to the rest of the world.

My neighbor and I both make a million dollars a year.   I clean his house for 500 dollars an hour and he cleans my house for 500 dollars an hour and with 2000 hours a year of doing this, we both make a million dollars a year.   If 2 people do this it is farce, if a million people do it it's a bubble.  

Just like if someone eats themselves to 400 pounds, I can't tell you on which day their bad health is going to catch up with them but I know that it will, I can't tell you in which quarter the housing bubble was going to catch up with us.  Or the budget deficits was going to catch up with us.   Or the trade deficits was going to catch up with us.   Or the peak oil problem was going to catch up with us.   Or the social security problem was going to catch up to us.   Or the global warming problem was going to catch up with us.

But they are going to catch up to us.On A few thoughts for environmentalists posted 1 year, 8 months ago 95 Responses

whats at the top of the list

Sunflower,
Although I am skeptical that you were actually there when they said that cars would never replace horses and that airplanes were just for barnstorming, not for transportation, I do want to believe you about solars potential.  

What besides people being wrong about things before and the total energy that the sun shining gives to the earth is it that gives you so much optimism about solar energy?   This is not meant to be a trick question.   I'm just wondering what would be the top 2 or 3 reasons after solars great potential?  Aren't costs the barrier?
On Projected CO2 emissions dwarf previous expectations posted 1 year, 8 months ago 15 Responses

carbon tax instead of property, sales taxes

I knew someone who lived 2 blocks from work and walked to work for 10 years.   Now that saved gas and on traffic jams.  

Which is why we need a carbon tax instead of sales taxes.   That way behavior such as that can be rewarded.

Of course it will make the oil and car industries mad, the entire value to your existence to them is for you to use up oil and cars.   But that is the way out of this mess.    

Also have a carbon tax and reduce the property tax so it will help a little so people can maybe afford to live closer to their work.

In the United States the sales tax takes up 3.2 percent of GNP and the property tax takes up 2.8 percent of GNP.   Let's reduce the sales tax to 2.2 percent of GNP and reduce the property tax to 1.8 percent of GNP and increase the carbon tax to 2.0 percent of GNP.   We're fools if we don't.
On California vehicles to get global warming stickers posted 1 year, 8 months ago 15 Responses

Civilisation has been here before

There was another time when people made economic arguments about something that many people thought was essential to get rid of and many people didn't think it should be gotten rid of.   Slavery.    Slavery was a staple of the southern economy and culture.   Slaves was the cheap labor that got agricultural products planted and harvested and other jobs done.  

The sentiment to use cheap carbon based energy is also strong.  The change to non-slavery non-cheap labor was made after 620 000 died in a war where the total population was 36 000 000.  Getting people to give up cheap carbon energy won't be easy either?

But if a non-polluted non-heated world is at stake, how much are people willing to give up and what are they willing to do to make other people give it up. On Three related stories about coal power posted 1 year, 8 months ago 16 Responses

it's simple and hard.

Before we kill the plasma TV's, it might be better to have people sit at home watching the TV's than driving around trying to find something else to do.    I knew someone who didn't have a lot of money so he decided not to have cable, but he spent much more than cable to try to entertain him self in other ways.   (Eating at restaurants, going to movie theatres, bars, etc.)    Might the same thing happen without the plasma TV picture, just let the couch potatoes be couch potatoes, they could do worse.

The real answer to the problem?    Reduce sales, property and income taxes and put on a fossil fuel carbon tax of equal size.    That would get carbon energy usage down from both sides, the supply and demand.   It's that simple and that hard.

People will reduce the demand for carbon electricity when the costs go up and the economy will still be at the place it is if we are paying less in sales, property and income taxes.  If the costs go up for carbon electricity, the supply of non-carbon electricity will go up.

A carbon tax for an exchange in other taxes is the mechanism to solve the problems.   That's what we should work for.
On Rising electricity demand is a choice, not an inevitability posted 1 year, 8 months ago 7 Responses

it's not laws, it's the right laws.

It's not the making of biofuels that we need.   We just got to pass a law saying if you fly somewhere, you can't go back for a year.    That'll reduce all that fuel use.On President hails cellulosic ethanol as a panacea posted 1 year, 8 months ago 13 Responses

it shouldn't freeze

I have read that a freezer or refrigerator in a place where it can freeze.   I apparently they aren't built for that kind of temperatures; on the outside.   I don't know if that was all of them, just the old ones or what.  I just remember reading you can't put the old freezer in the garage in the colder climates.

Kindof shoots that kitchen triangle thing to.

My state has an average year round temperature of 44 degrees F (minnesota)   I've wondered it it made sense to vent to the outside and enclose the working part of the fridge to that.   maybe not enough to make a difference or we'd hear about it.On How to green your fridge posted 1 year, 9 months ago 5 Responses

The tragedy

After December 7, 1941 when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the entrance of the United States into World War II was doable.   Before December 7th, 1941, it was not doable politically.   Franklin Roosevelt had to assure the American people he was not going to bring us into the war or he wouldn't have gotten elected.   After Dec.  7th, he could make all the war whoop speeches he needed to.     Same thing with 9/11/2001, before that date it would have been more difficult for any president to invade Afghanistan, and even harder to convince people to invade Iraq.

The problem we have is that all the global warming tragedies are going to happen in the future when we want people to act now.   There will be no date that people can point to and say, see that's what we have to avoid.    Having the hurricane hit New Orleans did make people feel vulnerable and changed peoples ideas a little on a lot of subjects, but also on being vulnerable to weather and climate.   Britain and Germany are leaders in the world on global warming, partly because their population is strong in science, but also they understand being vulnerable to something horible like World War II.   They understand how tragedy can affect them.  In the United States, many are filled with triumphalism, nothing can affect us, we're the big, bad strong guys if we just don't listen to the liberals.

I know I don't have to mention it to you, but changing the earth to a climate that is something much warmer than we have now is something that triumphalism attitudes won't fix.  Once we've screwed up the planets climate, the next generations have to live with it.   To bad the tragedies are to far in the future for people today to rally around.  
On Some numerical comparisons posted 1 year, 9 months ago 10 Responses

the mechanism

Gar,
I read your book.   Very good.

So where do we go from here?   What's the next step?

The mechanism to get all this done is to increase the cost of carbon either with a tax or cap and trade.   I think a carbon tax would work better than cap and trade, but a world wide cap and trade that includes most every major carbon dioxide release mechanism seems to be the way we are going.   Cap and trade is a system a lawyer would love and since most politicians are lawyers. . .   The problem is the corruption of the possibility and reality of billions of dollars and fraud and corruption in every government and business in the world in how they lobby for the money.   Many of the the world political systems are ill equipped to handle it.   The less corrupting method would be an agreed upon level of taxation that each country has on it's own internal carbon dioxide release for use by each countries own general tax fund.   Each country would be then able to reduce other taxes, whether they are property, sales, income or whatever the tax they decided to reduce was.

Each utility and other businesses now needs it on their financial accounting sheet as a cost for burning carbon and increasing global warming.   Or they can't act effectively to reduce their carbon burning.   They are obligated to their shareholders and stakeholders to bring low cost power and products to the market place and without the force of a carbon tax or mandatory cap and trade, they for the most part can't do it.

And the atmosphere waits.   As we do.
On A third of our military budget could cure our carbon addiction posted 1 year, 9 months ago 44 Responses

where does the compressed air come from?

Compressed air is just a carrier of energy, just like gasoline, electricity or hydrogen.   That carrier has to come from someplace, compressed air isn't in any quantity in nature last time I checked.  
The efficiency of compressed air is maybe 30 percent from it's input to output if I remember right.   That's better than car/vehicle engines which are somewhere around 30 to 15 percent generally.   Power from a battery and electricity can be 70 percent, which would be the way to go.On Engineer plans to sell compressed-air car in India within a year posted 1 year, 9 months ago 5 Responses

care about future generations?

Ah, no.  

From some of the book about what he wants to do after he gets out, all Bush wants to do is make speeches.   He is not going to sign anything that would hurt his standing to fossil fuel and related companies.   So no, he won't do anything for future generations, they never voted for him and he doesn't have to give speeches to them.
On A closer look at the SOTU's energy claims posted 1 year, 10 months ago 1 Response

may I'm to cynical

A point here is that it will free up alot of fossil fuel to be used in fighter aircraft and tanks.  They use up a lot of fuel.  It probably burned a lot of military people that they had to share that stuff with people to just drive around.  Now they have it to themselves.  They have to concern themselves with that sort of thing to survive.On Israel to build national electric car infrastructure posted 1 year, 10 months ago 14 Responses

good we got them, don't vote for them

I'm glad there is a green party and I'm glad that almost nobody votes for them.

It's good to see the positions and proposals to mull over and have interesting discussions.

But in winner take all elections with more than 2 parties, the parties that are closer to each other take votes from each other and they lose.  

And so it will always be.On What is the Green Party up to, exactly? posted 1 year, 10 months ago 23 Responses

use both

Does it have to be either or?  Can't a car be a hybrid-elec, but be a flex-fuel hybrid-elec.?  Or be a diesel hybrid-elec.?

Why the argument that parallel hybrids aren't worth it compared to cellulosic fuels?  Why not just make use cellulosic fuels in your hybrid-elec.?

You are arguing about a comparison that isn't a comparison.  They can both be added in one vehicle.
On Prius: Green or greenwash? posted 1 year, 10 months ago 36 Responses

saving the earth from overheating, priceless

Much of what we think is economics is just doing stuff.  

If we all just got into the habit of making sandwiches and putting a baked potato in the microwave, we could all save money, many people would be out of jobs and fortunes and we'd probably be healthier.   Some people think that if someone paid for it is has value and if there is no money transacted, it has no value.  

My kid hugged me the other day, no value.   I ate a triple burger, french fries and chocolate shake, for the fast food and medical communities; it has value because I paid for it.  

My vegetable garden out back, value only for the seeds I bought, vegetables bought at the supermarket, value for the vegetables and the thousand miles to get them here.  

I get killed in a car crash, value in the medical care, the insurance, hearse and funeral, being able to swerve out of the way in time, no value.   Okay, so maybe I can make more money if I swerved out of the way, but to me, that act of swerving out of the way, it's not about the economics, its about my life.  

It's all about what we measure.    

Putting in non-carbon sources of energy so that the next 50 generations can live in a better not over heated world, priceless.On With all the upbeat talk about an environmental labor boom, is rhetoric running away from reality? posted 1 year, 10 months ago 13 Responses

please try to understand global warming

Jabailo,

Maybe there is something about these global warming arguments that you are missing.

We are not now in the damaging global warming climate and weather periods.  That happens, by many scientists estimates, when we are at greater than 450 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere.  Read that again if you need to.

What is going to happen is if we don't change how we use and make energy, we will blow right past the 450 ppm CO2 numbers and go to 500, 600, 700 and 800 ppm CO2 in our atmosphere and the other greenhouse gases and then we will be in much warmer and catastrophic climate and weather patterns.

What we are in now is just a little warming and we are just getting a few of the indications and trends of what the future weather and climate will be in the future, not what the weather and climate will be.   It will be much, much warmer.

Once we have put the CO2 in the atmosphere, we can't get it out easily.   The only real hope we have is to not put it in the atmosphere in the first place.

Here is a website that has listed the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm

1998 was the warmest year worldwide, much of that was because of some weather patterns from El Nino that lead to warmer weather.   But as we keep putting in more CO2 into the atmosphere and other greenhouse gases, as they accumulate, along with other forcings such as more water vapor because of the warmer atmosphere, the overall temperatures keep rising and even a world weather pattern that would normally bring cooler temperatures will be warmer than the warmest temperatures that we have now.  We will be in a different climate.

Even though 1998 has 17 ppm less than 2007, it is not enough CO2 to overcome a warm weather year, but when the CO2 is going to be 100, 200 and 300 ppm greater than now, the climate will be warmer with all the droughts and changes in the earth that that means.  then a cool weather year will still be much warmer than a warm weather year is now.

We are not working for the climate we have now to be cooler, we are working for the climate of the future to not be greater than 3.6 degrees F higher than today.

The weather from year to year varies in cloud cover and weather patterns, but we are continuing to add to the insulating and greenhouse gases that will allow our world temperature to keep increasing.On Scientists do not have a financial incentive to settle the climate debate posted 1 year, 10 months ago 30 Responses

What Demark and Germany think

I think we make to much of the energy storage thing.  Europe thinks so to.

Wind power is greater in the winter than summer.   Summer wind is 70 percent of winter.

Solar power is greater in the summer than in the winter.   Winter sunshine is about 70 percent of summer.

Hook the 2 together with those HVDC (high voltage direct current) power lines.

Any thing that has to be made up is done with fossil fuel power plants that are already here, but have not been decommissioned/torn down.

Maybe some of those plants don't run in the summer because they are close to the summer solar power plants.   Maybe some of those plants don't run in the winter because they are close to the wind power turbines.   But they could cover for the intermittency of solar and wind.

There are areas in Denmark and Germany who use more than 40 percent of their electricity from wind.   From what I have read, they are less concerned about the intermittency than we are in the United States even though we aren't at 1 pecent yet.   Why?   Because we are told by the fossil fuel guys, hey, can't use wind, can't use solar, what about the intermittency.   If wind gets up to 40 percent of the electricity we use and solar gets up to 40 of the electricity we use, the other percents of electricity we need can be made up from the fossil fuel plants that are still there.  If they are run less at full power, they can last a long time.  That can be your electricity `battery.'

I didn't on purpose mean to leave out nuclear, and the others, they are and can be important.On A roadmap to getting 70 percent of U.S. electricity from solar by 2050 posted 1 year, 10 months ago 42 Responses

true believers

Well, this does show that the trolls can never be wrong.  That's the world of the true believer who doesn't look at the evidence, but at their own inner feelings of what is true and if they feel it is true, the evidence doesn't matter.

Climatology is to new to know anything?   Isn't being a global warming denier also new?
On Today: Christopher Castro posted 1 year, 10 months ago 68 Responses

Sacrifice and lying

How we talk about things is important, even essential.  How do we talk about global warming and a change in how we get energy?  We Lie and neglect?

We can talk it about it this way.   Say there will be some sacrifice but there will mostly be opportunity.   And then talk about the opportunity for 5 minutes while you mentioned sacrifice once.

If you don't mention sacrifice, your opponent can ask why doesn't so and so talk about sacrifice, because so and so doesn't want to be honest with you.  If you bring it up you can put it in the reference that it deserves, not the reference your opponent wants it to be.
On Obama puts the 100 percent auction idea into the mainstream posted 1 year, 10 months ago 22 Responses

Why the drop?

A question I have about the Inhofe 400 is, why was there 19 000 claimed to have signed the Oregon Petition in 2001 and only 400 now?   That's a drop of 98 percent.   And with the exposing of some of the Inhofe 400 as not particularly research climate science orientated, Inhofe should have been able to get more than 400 to sign on.

Even a global warming denier can track the pattern in a drop of 98 percent in 6 years as significant.  What's going to happen in 6 more years, down to 12?    
On Today: Chris Allen posted 1 year, 11 months ago 19 Responses

watch out

he's going to say you are harrassing him.On Venture-capital star ain't no clean-tech expert posted 1 year, 11 months ago 54 Responses

oil shales and tar sands.

Andrew,
not meant as a criticism you didn't include the oil shales and tar sands which will give problems the like using all the coal.

Hansen once wrote, we can live with all the natural gas and oil burned, but we add in coal and the rest, we then have the bad C02 problems.On Today: Thomas Ring posted 1 year, 11 months ago 66 Responses

make a list

It might be helpful to put all `inhofe 400' on a spreadsheet or table with the methods of deniererisms that they decided to use.

Something like the list of the actual arguments taken from deniers like at this website.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I only wonder why there are only 400 names.   I would think with how far they were reaching for names with those clearly unqualified as you show, they could have had a pile of names into the thousands.  I suppose it was to associate with the movie of the `300' that saved civilization from the hoards.On Today: Thomas Ring posted 1 year, 11 months ago 66 Responses

hmm

I thought I read that the subtitle of solar power is the 'air conditioning energy source.'  A sunny day, lots of power and air conditioning needs.  A cloudy day, not so much power, not so much air conditioning needs.

But hey, if the utilities say they need storage, I couldn't disagree. On Storage helps the sun keep shining even on cloudy days posted 1 year, 11 months ago 16 Responses

it's a science consensus

Where science is being done and the results published in peer reveiwed journals there is a science consensus that global warming is increased by the release of greenhouse gases from man made machines.  There is a science consensus.  
we just don't have a political consensus.  That group of 400 from Sen. Inhofe wasn't a list from those that did science on global warming, but for one reason or another were skeptical or deniers of the science consensus that the senator wanted to promote.On NYT's Revkin gives Inhofe a pass posted 1 year, 11 months ago 66 Responses

people want the big red easy button

What people want is an easy button.  Some advertiser is using that to sell some product on TV all the time.  Just push the big red easy button and everything will work out to your benefit.
People sometimes go Doctor shopping, they want drugs so they'll go to as many doctors as it takes to get as many as they need.
In Politics we go shopping as well, but to the people who will tell us what we want to hear.   We want to be told that things are the way they are not because of real limits, but because of those bad people who keep lying to you.  We like to be told everything will be better if you just vote for me, I'll make fun of those mean people who keep telling you we have problems and I'll make them go away.
That's why we elect politicians, so they fix the problems and make them go away.  And Sen. Inhofe is doing his job by making global warming something that will just go away.

What I don't understand is the number of people who may think this is a problem, but aren't motivated to do something about it.  I've reduced my carbon footprint by quite a lot and I bring it up to my friends who are not in the least interested.

But what about the colleges and universities filled with entire rows of people who should be able to push this issue farther than it has been.  Or are we all just concerned with our own next dollar that we can't be bothered by future generations? On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

10 per cent more people

If we had 10 per cent more people, but if all those people did was build windmills, PHEV vehicles and were advocates of low carbon living and thru their activism convinced a large percentage of the population to live more resource conserving we might be better off.

It's not the more people, but it's the more people who live like we live now.
On Is it only OK to talk about limiting population after it's too late? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 117 Responses

It's easy

now if I could just get a million people to send me 1000 dollars each, I'd have a billion dollars.  As long as I am clear with my plan.On Efficiency without renewable energy is not sufficient posted 1 year, 11 months ago 11 Responses

water vapor

What I have read other places is that water vapor continually cycles in the atmosphere.  If all the water vapor were to leave the atmosphere instantly, it would take about 10 weeks to fill back up again with most of that occurring in the first 4 weeks.

Christopher,
It might be true that relative to the earth weather system, the burning of gasoline may be insignificant.  I don't know what the other author meant, but it's the accumulation of CO2 that changes climate and the weather, not the water vapor from fossil fuels.  On FutureGen "clean coal" demonstration plant slated for Illinois posted 1 year, 11 months ago 26 Responses

point of the article

Tasermons,
I think the point of the article was all the violations that his company had.  You don't appoint a repeat crimimal to head the bureau of prisons. On Nominee for federal fossil-energy secretary has strong ties to Big Coal posted 1 year, 11 months ago 3 Responses

correction

Truthfully the title was meant to be corporations or business.  Although 'Corpartions of business' would have been more interesting if I could have figured out what that is.On Sen. John Kerry defends Dem decision not to force a filibuster on the energy bill posted 1 year, 11 months ago 22 Responses

There's always something you can do

I'm optimistic.  I think the next best place to invest is in land that is 10 feet to 80 meters above ocean level.  That's going to be the new coast line.  Build the houses so they are able to move up the hill when needed as the coast moves.On High drama leads to compromise at climate conference posted 1 year, 11 months ago 18 Responses

all the worldwide fossil fuel companies

I imagine some of the reason we are slower to combat global warming is the number of oil, natural gas and coal companies and employees that the United States has.  I can't think of a single Australia worldwide oil company like the United Kingdom would have.  (BP)   Having the world headquarters of so many worldwide fossil fuel companies in our economy is a lot to overcome politically.  That can make for a lot of allies. On No country in the world is more like the U.S., so where's our national climate-change leader? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 4 Responses

why

Why do you hate America so much.

(meant as a political satire, don't take it personnally)On There is no comparison between Chinese and American GHG emissions posted 1 year, 11 months ago 41 Responses

If only all we did was sit there

Actually if all we wanted to do was sit there we would have the problem 1/3 rd solved.  It's that we don't want to just sit there, we want to move around build bigger and wider and taller and then go home to something far away from it.

If only what we did was just sit there this would be easier.On Scaling back our energy-hungry lifestyles means more of what matters, not less posted 1 year, 11 months ago 24 Responses

we need another election

Any bill that can be signed by this president is one that probably won't do any good anyway.  Lets try to do something, but maybe we shouldn't lock anything long term in like giveaway carbon credits in cap and trade.

Don't like cap and trade, I'll take carbon taxes and tax trade any time.On Landmark energy bill stalls in the Senate posted 1 year, 11 months ago 14 Responses

politically possible

There isn't a common sense reason to use Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
There isn't an economic reason to use CCS.
There isn't an engineering reason to use CCS.
There isn't an aesthetic reason to use CCS.
There isn't a financial reason to use CCS.
There isn't a good feeling for the future reason for CCS.

There is only an environmental reason to use CCS and
There is a political reason to use CCS.

There is a saying in the Army, there is your way of doing something, there is the right way to do something, but we are going to do it the Army way of doing it.

Well, we have to do it the politically possible way.

Not the way we would like to do it.
Not the best way to do it.

But the political way to do it.

If the coal industry cannot sell its coal it will not politically allow us to change over our economy to a non-carbon energy world.  We just don't have the political will for that. The coal industry is too big of an obstacle.  

Having to build CCS plants that use 25 to 40 percent more coal to power the CCS part of the plant can be a good things because it means we have to built fewer of these plants for the political cover.On Why clean coal is so darn appealing posted 1 year, 11 months ago 37 Responses

It would work, just change methods

Using horses for farming is actually cheaper per acre to work up land than with modern mechanical equipment, its productivity is lower which is why farmers don't use horses.  It takes about one horse per 20 acres of land.   With mechanical equipment one farmer can do many times that.

Farming itself takes about 4 percent of the United States fossil fuel use.  I'm less sure of the entire food system, but I think it is about 20 percent.   I think farming could with some effort use 50 percent less fossil fuel with nearly the same production, some made up with efficiency and the rest to renewable fuel substitution.  

Then 90 percent of grain is used to feed animals, which we eat.  Eat more vegetables and grains, less meat and that would have a big affect on the total amount of grains that we need.  Use more pasture fed animals; cattle, sheep, goats and use less grain fed animals, chickens and swine.  

Agriculture would change, but we can become just as overweight as we are now.
On What a fossil-fuel free agriculture might look like posted 1 year, 11 months ago 68 Responses

what is the best choice?

We can complain about this new bill, but does this bill really matter that much.   I wonder how many percent of global warming this thing would be, 0.001 percent maybe?

Much of what needs to be done is to convince more people to drive the more fuel efficient vehicles.  

The next levels of transportation efficiency needs to be pursued, plug-ins with electricity from non-carbon sources.

Is there a trade off in what type of vehicle car companies should be trying to make?  Should car companies entire research and development money go to making new gasoline standards or for more research into plug-ins?

It might make more sense go directly to plug-ins than working on some intermediate fuel milages.
On Greens need to learn how to celebrate their friends and their movement posted 1 year, 12 months ago 31 Responses

what gets missed

Well, yah, certainly, I wasn't giving an honest opinion about biofuels being good just because it benefits me or other land owners.  And as you say there are consequences all the way down.

What I would like to see in rural America is a grove of trees of about 500 acres next to each town.  Put in 10 miles of trails for walking, hiking and Bicycling, some cabins maybe for vacationers, park areas.  That would give people some room to exercise and maybe reduce some health bills.  The grove can be harvested sustainably for firewood and eventually lumber.  But with expensive land, it could never be done.

Fence row to fence row crops strips towns of recreation and interesting things in a community.  We are after the money grab, but we forget some about the people.  Personally, I've never been impressed with expensive cars, personal property, give me recreation and something fun to do anyday.On The global nature of global warming posted 1 year, 12 months ago 70 Responses

nature already does that

Not to be disagreeable with you, I think nature has done carbon capture and has cracked cellulose, just not in the huge amounts and speeds that we need.  

Carbon capture in wood and all that biomass.  Nature just can't keep up.  Also with all the other carbon sinks like oceans.

Cellulose is cracked with fire.  Just burn it, it will release it energy.

One of the reasons I don't think that cellulose digestion is going to be all that wonderful if we ever get it is that we can now burn cellulose from crops now in furnaces.  Part of the processing of cellulose to biofuels is to burn part the cellulose for the process.

Then let's do something else.   Burn cellulose in furnaces instead of natural gas and certainly fuel oil and then the natural gas and fuel oil can be used for transportation.

My philosophical thinking is that stationary heating units should be using no carbon fuel like passive solar or solids, like wood, other biomass for heating.  Then the liquids and gases can be used for transportation.

The same with electrical power plants, stationary units should use either no carbon fuel, such as nuclear, wind or solar or use solid fuels like coal.  I think natural gas is to valuable to be used as electricity and for a time in the 1970's they prohibited new natural gas power plants to be built.

I know people who use corn burners to heat their home.  Is that better than using fuel oil?  Fuel oil can be used as diesel fuel except for different additives.   Drive with ethanol from corn and heat with what could be diesel fuel?    But then natural gas is used in a lot of corn ethanol processing.  Does that make sense?

I think we get into a processing trap where we want to use some fuel to make up for shortages in other energy needs when it would be better to just use the source primarily and not secondarily or after it's processed.  

We don't use biomass to heat homes and buildings because it costs to much, but then some think that using biomass and converting it into biofuels for transportation will make money.  But we already have fuels that can be used for transportation, but we use it for heating. On Heartland Presidential Forum will allow grassroots activists to ask Dem candidates questions posted 1 year, 12 months ago 2 Responses

the heaven and hell of it

One of the hard and essential things for an advocacy movement to do well, is to get the right balance between the vision of what needs to be done to solve the problem and that which will happen if the problem is not solved.

Christianity has its heaven and hell.  It's like the mafia; you get an offer you can't refuse, the bribery of heaven and the blackmail of hell.  That is one reason Christianity is so successful.

Some have argued like the authors of `Breakthrough' that you only need to articulate the good vision of what needs to have happen, like Martin Luther King jr speech in 1963, `I have a dream.'  People will then see a vision of a better future and work towards that. Some will claim that that is the reason for race improvements in America.  What they forget are a few other things that happened at that time.

The race riots of 1964 in Harlem and 1965 in Watts.  Nothing like a little rioting to get people to understand that you are angry as many blacks were at this time, much of it very justifiable.  

So that gave people a choice, the `I have a dream' speech of Martin Luther King jr where people can work together to solve problems or the rioting of Harlem and Watts.  The `I have a dream' seemed like heaven compared to the rioting.  That was some of the reason Congress was able to pass the civil rights acts as well as many others.  The heaven and the hell of a problem were considered.

Which is why we can't just proclaim a vision to a clean energy future, we have to describe the hell as well.  Maybe Hanson's analogy was a little to specific for people who were actually a part of those events, but the hell of runaway global warming has to be described if not with this analogy then other's.   The hell is as much or more of the story as the heaven.

It also gave me some hope that there is more than cold calculations on the scientists minds, that there is the reality of what it means to the animals and humans dying.
On A guest essay from climate scientist James Hansen posted 1 year, 12 months ago 16 Responses

That's a wrap

Sean,

Stuff like what you wrote is why I read here.  Spot on.
On U.S. emissions go down! posted 2 years ago 10 Responses

Sometimes you just got to be mean

Alright, now that the big bears are maybe done wrestling.

We had a governors race once in our state in which one of those running had such a wimpy campaign it was compared to running for student council.

How the hell do you think anybody can go up against industries that are hundreds of billions of dollars big.  This ain't about throwing spitballs.  If people don't get a visual about people dying, they may not ever get it.

What's so wrong about burning carbon for electricity, isn't `I call carbon dioxide life.'  Somebody paints a picture about wind turbines and solar cells and Coal will say `can't we all just get along.'   There is nothing driving reducing carbon dioxide except people, animals and the environment dying.
On Is the analogy between climate change and Hitler's atrocities appropriate? posted 2 years ago 49 Responses

what's possible

One point that hasn't been said, but we should remember is that the climate that Australia has now would have happened whether they signed on to Kyoto or not.  What is the only possibility of happening in the future is that we limit what would be even warmer and much hotter climates in decades to come.On Australian prime minister goes down to decisive defeat posted 2 years ago 14 Responses

need incandescents

Can't get rid of incandescent lights.  They work at cold temperatures without warm up.  It takes hours for a fluorescent light to warm up in a cold basement or building.  Really bad at 20 below zero.  (It could get that cold again someday) On Reflections on Grist's presidential forum on climate change posted 2 years ago 62 Responses

do it.

Hey no lie.

If the United States tells some country we are going to wind turbine you or solar collect you, they don't care.  

But we say, we're going to nuke you, they'll listen.On We have $100-a-barrel oil due to speculation and fear posted 2 years ago 54 Responses

correction

The last paragraph should have said 'Gingrich is all about another excuse for a tax cut and a denier'  should be 'and a delayer.'

What needs to be done sometime is push deniers to delayers and delayers to doers.  On NYT author discusses recent story on climate 'centrism' posted 2 years ago 17 Responses

gingrich says global warming is a problem

There are some things more important than just being able to criticize Gingrich for having a book that fails in it's prescription for dealing with global warming with bad technology and science; at least he came this far.  He may not have any good ideas on how to solve it, he may have had a history of doing everything against solutions, but if he agrees now that it is a problem, that's a start.  Maybe that is the only way to reach out to the conservative side.  Will something else work better?

There is a saying about not chasing the perfect instead of the good.  This might be about settling for the bad instead of the worse.  Try to get conservatives to at least read this book that global warming is true.   Then work on them for methods that will actually work.On Anti-environment, anti-technology Gingrich tries to rewrite history posted 2 years ago 9 Responses

da ja voo all over again

Somebody at OPEC remembers when oil was 34 dollars a barrel in 1980 and how it was 12 dollars a barrel in 1986.  The member nations of OPEC sure did go thru some rough economic times, relatively, for them.  They don't want to repeat that which is understandable. They probably have less to worry about this time, as the article said, there is less excess capacity. On OPEC nations demand that petroleum-consuming countries maintain current thirst for oil posted 2 years ago 13 Responses

Worldwide carbon tax effort.

So which one of these affects global warming the most, a country with a billion people, but emits a ton of carbon per person or a country with 100 million people, but emits 10 tons of carbon per person?  Wouldn't they be the same?

There needs to be another way to look at the problem.  I am a believer in carbon taxes that will be exchanged for other taxes.   Right now, in the United States, we tax at a 28 percent tax as a percent of Gross National Product.   Almost none of that is a carbon tax.  (Except for vehicle fuel tax, but that's a long discussion.)    Let's change that and make a deal with all nations that the first consumption tax the country makes is with a carbon tax and that should be 5 percent of GNP.   That would mean in our country of 13 trillion GNP a year and 4 trillion in national, state and local taxes, we would change 650 billion from sale, income, property and social security taxes into carbon taxes.

Have every country to agree on the effort of carbon dioxide release suppression as a percentage of carbon taxes to that countries GNP.

The worldwide Cap and Trade wants to do is just that.   But a cap and trade system would be filled with corruption.   It's the trade part that's the mistake.  Energy systems would be over promised and under promised; politicians will be corrupted with the extra money they can give out to constituents and how energy laws are written to get cap and trade money.  The criticism of money leaving our country to other countries would be eliminated with carbon tax effort agreements.  Any taxes would stay in that country, the carbon tax money collected in the United States would go solely to the United States governments and no others.    

A simple world wide carbon tax system effort agreement would be better.   Less corruption.   Less mess.  On Plans for reducing emissions in China posted 2 years ago 7 Responses

some took it well

This blogger had a sense of humor and appreciated the Hoax.  It was an interesting read.  The comments at the end seem so very true.

http://www.peerreviewflorida.com/fl/2007/11/the-death-of- ...

But Rush's failure was misreading a memo from someone who screens his stuff and the screener did think it was a hoax.  Although it's funny to catch him on anything, he only misinterpreted a badly written note.  ( as reported)  funny, but not enough of an indictment, he's done much worse.

That meteorology claims to say 'it's all about the science,' then goes on and on about the politics.  What he disagrees with about the science he won't say, he's to busy writing about the politics.  On Climate change skeptics fall for hoax paper posted 2 years ago 10 Responses

bad governments

Well, that's how politics works, or doesn't work.

When the Republicans were in charge, there was the tax credits for wind and solar.  There wasn't a huge downside for Republican politicians.  When the Democrats are in charge, the Republicans have incentive to stop those tax credits so the Democratic base will be upset with their Democratic Politicians and give victories for the Republican base.

Democracies might be the worse form of government except for all the others, but how bad do all forms of government have to be to get there.
On Dem leadership considers axing renewable energy from the energy bill posted 2 years ago 12 Responses

2 different prices for carbon

What price carbon?  There should be 2 prices.  One price would be the consumption carbon price, the other the import/export business price.

The consumption carbon price would be fossil fuel energy use by individuals, like a sales tax is now, but only this would be a fossil fuel sales tax.  Then we can reduce other taxes, like property, sales and income taxes as more of this tax is collected.  This would also be a tax paid by restaurants, stores and other businesses that don't compete internationally.

The import/export business price would be that charged to companies that would have to compete in the world market place with their product.  This would include industries like steel making, manufacturing, etc.  

The reason for this is a large part of the complaint about carbon taxing is our competitors in world trade would have an advantage if we increased our the prices of our products because we taxed carbon.   If we taxed only the carbon that is used as consumption, it wouldn't affect our trade competition with other countries, like china which may not tax for carbon energy usage.  

I don't think this would be any more of a paperwork type of problem than all the other considerations that are in our tax code and other law.On How high a price on carbon is needed to make renewables competitive? posted 2 years ago 26 Responses

for carbon tax, tax trade.

Carbon tax vs. cap and trade.  One of the reasons that Cap and Trade has had the head start instead of a  Carbon tax is Cap and Trade is a program that a lawyer would love.  Most politicians are lawyers or have that thinking.  But to the engineer or businessperson, a Carbon tax would give me the goal that we have to meet and they'd work out the plan to get there.

The problem for businesses is that the price for carbon could vary, and possibly vary greatly.  They would have the risk of making bad decisions and then put their company out of business for a mistake in carbon abatement that they made.  That type of problem adds to inaction on what may be very good projects, but with no cover for financial loss or bankruptcy, only safe more short term projects will be preferred, not good long term projects with risk.

A carbon tax would give cover for the good projects, that the price of carbon can't go below a certain price or that some other company can't undercut their company's projects with money from the Trade part of the Cap and Trade.  The Cap and Trade is riskier to all energy investments.

What's not always being said about Carbon tax is that it can be a Tax Trade, that at the time that fossil fuel taxes are increased, property taxes can be decreased.  What about a trade of a Sales tax on general products to a sales tax on only fossil fuels.   Eliminate the sales tax on cars and other purchases.  Tell a conservative we will have a consumption tax instead of income taxes.  He should be for that.  Then say it's a fossil fuel carbon consumption tax very gently.  Is he for it then?

I wrote all that before I read Bloombergs speech and he said some of the same things.  Cap and Trade also carries the criticism that any money that americans bid for in the cap and trade could very well go to other countries.  Some americans are highly critical of that idea and would be less critical if the money stayed in the United States.On No carbon reduction program is a silver bullet posted 2 years ago 10 Responses

great web page

That is a great web page, just great.   It gives a look into how consistent people's thinking can be.  

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.  Just because you predicted catastrophe before and were wrong, doesn't mean you'll be wrong again doing the same thing.  Maybe it just means you can sell books with the same message to different problems.
On Do the experts know anything about oil prices? posted 2 years ago 12 Responses

relacing coal will cost somebody

Nucbuddy

I find nothing surprising nor alarming about what was in your post about the rising costs of the electrical system in Denmark.  It is expected.  The same thing would happen if they were using nuclear.

Let's say that in the United States we had decided to build 300 nuclear power plants to reduce how much carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere from coal power plants.  Those people who sell coal will be pointing out how all these coal plants are now sitting idle, that's a big economic drain, because they aren't bringing in money to pay off those coal plants.

If this country does want to seriously reduce how much carbon dioxide it releases into the atmosphere, there will be economic costs to somebody no matter what the method, whether it is wind, nuclear or whatever.  

One way of looking at it is like the military; not everybody in the military has shot at the enemy, even for their entire military careers.   But they were there in case they were needed.  That's how many coal plants will have to be looked at, they won't be producing at their economic maximum, but they will still be there if needed.  

Or another way of looking at it is, like a passively heated house.  Put in insulation, mass for heat storage, large windows to the south, but most houses can't be heated 100 percent of the time that way.   That doesn't mean it was a waste of money to put it in, heating with fossil fuel exclusively is too polluting and maybe costly even though my cost per time to run the furnace goes up because I run it less.  I still need the furnace and it's still good that I have the passive heating for my house.  Maybe this analogy doesn't completely work, but you get the idea I'm trying to explain. On The renewables revolution posted 2 years ago 20 Responses

Is this relevant or not?

How many things do we do for ourselves?  

Do you cook and process your own food that you eat?
Or do you eat in a Restaurant for everything you eat?

Do you clean and wash your own dishes and the table that you eat from?
Or hire a maid to do it?

Do you drive yourself to work?
Or hire a driver?

Do you mow your own lawn?  Put fuel in the lawnmower?  Vacuum your own house?  If you move to a new home, do you pack your own dishes and clothes and move the boxes yourself?  Paint your own house?   Put oil in your car?  Pump your own gas instead of at the full service isle?  That's with out counting the taking care of kids.  

If you do all those things for yourself, it doesn't get counted, but it is still all the things make up and benefit our lives.

Here's a quiz.   If you added up all the counted labor at what it gets paid at and then added up all the uncounted labor, but give it the value of minimum wage, which is greater?

I have no references to the answer, but from what I read, the minimum wage, non-counted labor is greater.   If I'm wrong, set me straight.

What does this mean about the question here?  Just like every one of us doesn't buy every product and service from the economy, regions of our country may be better off doing things for themselves.

Which is easier for a depressed region of our economy to do, develop an industry that provides for good and services that we know people need in it's own region or try to bump out products from someone else's region?  My guess is to develop it's own industries unless the comparative advantages are too great.  Like trying to grow tobacco in Alaska when the better place would be Cuba.  (Ok, not the best example)

Just like if I don't make enough at my job, I'll take over many of these things myself.  If I'm very busy at my job, like working at 80 hours a week which many people have done at some time in their lives, they have to pay somebody for these goods and services from the economy.

The same would be true for regions in our economy.  Food production would be an area that could be produced if the inputs are available.
On We don't need to destroy our economy to save the planet posted 2 years ago 79 Responses

getting it right

How would it be possible to reduce fossil fuel use and still have a healthy growing economy?

Since you are curious.

A good economy also has to have property.   Somewhere there has to be land and buildings for this good economy to take place.

A good economy also has to have labor.   Somebody is going to be doing the labor and all the other things in business, whether it's management, technology, ownership, or education in the economy.

But we tax property, income and sales to pay for our government services.

Well then, lets eliminate all taxes on property and all taxes on income and only then have a tax on fossil fuels.  Does that mean that our economy now stops because we have a tax on fossil fuels?  Not any more than it would stop if we have taxes on property or income, of which we have both and the economy still runs.

The land and buildings will be here 50 years, 100 years, 500 years and land even a million years from now, but the fossil fuel will be long gone.  Doesn't it make sense to tax that, to keep that around longer for future generations to also use, than to tax property which will be around for future generations to use whether it's taxed or not.

Reduce the property taxes on every business for every employee by 1000 dollars and make that up with a fossil fuel tax.   Reduce every homes property tax by 2000 dollars and make that up with a fossil fuel tax.

Or what if we taxed fossil fuel in a consumption fossil fuel sales tax instead to the general sales taxes as we do now.   We would decrease the amount of fossil fuel we use and if it were revenue neutral would bring in just as much to the government and cost just as much.

Which costs more,a thousand dollars in property, income, sales or fossil fuels tax?

We shouldn't eliminate property, income and sales taxes but we can reduce them at the same time we increase fossil fuel taxes and not damage our economy.  And we don't have to start with fossil fuels used by business, we could just start with consumption fossil fuel taxes.  How would someone pay a fossil fuel tax to heat their home?  With the reduced property taxes they didn't have to pay.

We won't be drilling our way to fossil fuel prosperity.  The earth does have some very real limits to the amount of fossil fuel it has as well as the United States has fossil fuel limits.   The United States reached it's oil peak in 1970.   The rest of the world has peaked in oil production in June, 2005 at about 84 million barrels/day and it remains to be seen whether that's the world date or that in the future there will be more oil produced than that.  If that is the world date, world peak oil is just 35 years behind the United States date.

A good oil peak site.

http://www.theoildrum.com/

The fossil fuels will run out.   The faster we drill and extract the fossil fuels from the ground the sooner they will run out.  `Strength through exhaustion' is a mad creed.On One last rant from the Senate's loopy streetcorner anti-prophet posted 2 years ago 34 Responses

why tax the oil

I may not have written why we should increase taxes on crude oil to 150 dollars a barrel in the earlier post, so I'll do that here.

If we increase crude oil to 150 dollars, we will use less of it, and the tax money, from what is 90 dollars a barrel now to 150 dollars, would be 60 dollars a barrel that would go to us, paying off our government services so we could reduce other taxes on ourselves.  If we just leave things as they are now, we will use more crude oil, the world price of crude will go up to 150 dollars a barrel anyway, but the 60 dollars a barrel more will go to foreign oil producers and governments, not to our own government.

We should tax what we buy to pay for our government, not what we own.  We should reduce our property taxes because largely, that is what we own.  We should tax crude oil because that is largely what we buy from someone else.
On Why I don't agree with James Kunstler about peak oil and the 'end of suburbia' posted 2 years, 1 month ago 65 Responses

crops and biofuels

To the above post about 3% contribution of human machine made carbon dioxide; what the author said was yearly, not total.   It's not 3% human machines, 97% natural/already in the atmosphere carbon dioxide.   It's a 3% addition from human machines every year.

The natural level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at which humans have enjoyed their present prosperity was at 280 ppm (parts per million).   Human machines have added to the carbon dioxide level to now 380 ppm which is an increase of 36%.   It's a level of 450 ppm to 500 ppm that the large scale positive feedbacks are to occur which may mean runaway carbon dioxide additions from the earths biomasses.

I rent farmland to farmers and the land rents have jumped quite a bit in the last few years.  Biofuels have knocked out a reasonable economics to using carbon capture and sequestration from plants and soil.

But if I was in charge.

I'd put in a multiuse grove/forest very close to every town of about 500 acres.   Put in walking, bike and hiking paths, maybe some cabins to rent out.  Harvest the trees sustainably for lumber and firewood for the town.  people could exercise daily if they wanted with a walk in the forest and they wouldn't have to travel far to get a forest/vacation fix.  (I walk 4 times a week in my cities treed parks)

Plant trees in what is called alley cropping where the trees are in rows with farming going on in between.  Distances between tree rows would be some multiple of 60 feet (like 60 feet, 120 feet,  180 feet, 240 feet, etc. )  so farmer's machiery can plant row crops without wasted land space.

Alley cropping trees creates a micro climate for the crop plants and has yield increases of 6 % for soybeans up to 20 % percent for hay (even taking into account the land taken out for the trees.)  It allows for more saved moisture, reduced wind stress and wind erosion, and other benefits to the crop.  So flat farm fields could have 3-5 % of the land in trees and still increase total grain and hay harvested

Then my crop rotation would be.
1st year.  Corn
2nd year.  Corn
3rd year.   Alfalfa/hay   Baled
4th year.   Alfalfa/hay   Baled
5th year.   Alfalfa/hay   pastured.
6th year.   Alfalfa/hay   pastured.

Then repeat that cycle.  1/6 of the field would be in each different year of the cycle.  Those that know agriculture would understand the cycle.
First year Alfalfa/hay is the best (plant vigor.)  The pasture years would get he soil ready for the corn.

I realize the vegetarians would be saying, you can put it all in trees if we eat that way which is true.   But without that argument, that's my cycle.

But I couldn't make as much with that because of the biofuels that are being sold now.  I would lose to much money from what I'm making now renting out.  so it's corn,corn and corn.On We have plenty of solutions at hand beyond technology posted 2 years, 1 month ago 11 Responses

prove to me you exist

Simple to do.  for you, you really think you are there.  

But to me all I see is words on a computer screen.  Some computer generated random letters.  Or it was the devil who put letters on my screen.  or any of a number of other hypotheses.

See how easy it is to say 'prove this.' But so hard to prove what someone might think would be an easy thing to prove.

It's the accumulation of knowledge that gives someone an understanding of what's going on.

A Christian will study only Christianity and think that's true.   A Moslem will study only Islam and think that's true.   A Hindu will study only Hindu and think that's true.  A Wicca . . . well, we get the idea.

So when you say the politically controlled IPCC report, is that because you read it?  Or is the reason that you've only heard from criticisms of the report.   When all a person has heard about a subject is one side, it's easy to think that's how the world is.  It's the accumulation of the thinking in a person's mind that has to be done and that is the real work.   Most people don't want to do the real work, they just want to do the easy `politically controlled IPCC' report and not have to do any thinking for themselves.

To give an easy example, I'm an atheist.  If you were to go the best universities like Harvard divinity school, most state university philosophy and theology departments, many science departments, a large percentage are atheists.   I think that anybody who has studied the question honestly of whether there is a god or that we have information from god or gods would conclude that there isn't.

Why doesn't everybody reach that conclusion?  Because most people are comfort seekers, not truth seekers.   Comfort seekers will only seek out information that makes them feel better and confirms their beliefs.   Truth seekers will seek out things that are even uncomfortable to them.   It's hundreds of times harder, both in thinking and in effort.  It takes a lot of time.

Science is ultimately truth seeking and that is why it has been so successful in advancing our human lives in medical care, knowledge about the universe in every subject, economics, technology and business.

To be fair to you and me, it's the easiest thing in the world to say `what I think is truth seeking, what you think is comfort thinking.'   And that is an honest criticism of this post, it is arrogant to answer someone's questions with a discussion of Philosophy.   But what I would say is that to answer your questions in one message post would be impossible.  What you need to do is go to the `how to talk to a climate skeptic' in this website which is pretty good.

  http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

There is also another very good website that explains things as well.  This one is probably the best in the world on global warming from what I've read from the closest to the debate.

http://www.realclimate.org/

Because the subject of global warming is so much more than any message posts.  But it is also work to go through all the thinking that goes into the theory of whether there is global warming or not.

And frankly, I really wouldn't care that much whether polar bears have a hard time or not.   Nature is filled with animals that are eaten every day in a very brutal and vicious food cycle.  If we need to we could just catch some fish and seals for them and feed them ourselves, it would be less work than changing how we use energy.  It's about the humans that global warming matters. On One last rant from the Senate's loopy streetcorner anti-prophet posted 2 years, 1 month ago 34 Responses

I bet

And I bet 3 out of those 4 percent work for coal, oil and natural gas companies that think global warming advocates want to put then out of business.

See, you thought it couldn't get worse.On Poll: Americans deeply, perhaps irredeemably, confused posted 2 years, 1 month ago 10 Responses

just a reply

BILL HANNAHAN

You used fake comparisons, now you do fake answers.

I like how before you used 1999 fuel cost numbers for 2007.   Do you buy your gas for $ 1.20 a gallon too?

What good is it to charge batteries with wind to use for electricity?   Wind comes in the winter 30 percent more that summer.  You going to wait all spring to use the energy in those batteries?  

Why get rid of the plants that are still there, they can handle more of the summer load.   You want to tear down all those power plants to store the power in batteries.   You sure do want to do a lot of unneeded work.

The guy who wrote the article used 35 % capacity factor.  

Prime locations might be a problem, but there is alot of prime zone 4 and above.  You already use them all up.  You got imagination.

But the wind industry doesn't stay the same.  The way to increase locations for wind is to use Zone 3 wind.  The research is being done to use Zone 3 wind, which will open up a lot of new areas for wind turbines.   Wind turbines closer to the electricity markets.    

And then you figure it out as if I wrote that we should do it that way.    Your whole answer is false.    Do you always use false comparisons and false answers?On Is wind worth it? posted 2 years, 1 month ago 72 Responses

big changes to us, small changes to the earth

What would be the temperature of the earth without the sun?   About 2.7 degrees Kelvin which is 270 degrees below zero celsius.    What most people don't understand that we exist in a very narrow window of temperatures and the sun and atmospheric temperature system brings our temperature all the way up to about 290 degrees kelvin or 20 degrees celsius.   so it is little changes in the atmosphere chemical and insulating capacities that has an effect on earths temperatures and climate.  On 'There is no evidence' -- Yes, there is posted 2 years, 1 month ago 59 Responses

honest comparison

You sure do like to make the fake comparisons between wind and nuclear.    

What if I made a comparison between a nuclear power plant that was put on a space craft and then say, well, look here, that thing that went to Jupiter produced 200 milliwatts and it cost 2 million dollars to build, so then if we put in nuclear power in the United States it would cost 20 trillion dollars and we only got one megawatt from it.     Or I could say, lets see, every basement having a nuclear power plant will require a hundred thousand dollars worth of shielding, that's going to really bring the price up.  

Using small wind turbines is uneconomical.   Nobody does it that way or advocates it be done that way, unless it is a hobby or remoteness from power lines.

If you are going to make comparisons, make them reasonable.  I have read that 400 000 wind turbines of 2.5 megawatt (100 meter, 330 feet tall) size could replace all the fossil fuel plants on electrical production alone.  The footprint of the towers would be 6 square miles and with proper spacing between towers it would take on half the land of South Dakota.

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/1 ...

The costs of wind for the last 6000 megawatts installed has all been below 5.5 cent/kwt unsubsidized.  A study of Midwest power requirements and wind supply says that wind power can power 25 percent of the Midwest electrical grid

That's not to say we would or should build the 400 000 wind turbines.     Wind power has some real problems with capacity factors, as you would agree, and even emphasize.   That's why storage is something that is so heavily worked on, especially by wind turbine advocates.  

I think we haven't even started on demand response to energy usage, like having natural gas/electric hybrid water heaters that could switch from one to the other.   If people knew their power was coming from wind, would they space heat with it?  In the Midwest, the wind really blows when a cold front moves in, thus the idea of using wind power and heat pumps together.    Some professor from North Dakota was advocating that it would eliminate a billion dollars in fuel oil that North Dakotan's buy every year.

You get me wrong if you think I am against nuclear power.   I hope it does work and we build a bunch of them if it helps with the global warming problem.    Not having built any for quite a few years makes it curious to see what the costs will be when the proposed ones do get built.   We'll see.  But be fair to the comparisons.On Is wind worth it? posted 2 years, 1 month ago 72 Responses

maybe you deserve an offset

Maybe you should get a 'carbon offset,' but you are way, way behind on 'posting offsets.'   You owe big time here on that.On Web company announces selection of offset projects posted 2 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses

honesty in the numbers.

Reply to Bill Hannahan

Many of the comparisons with wind power and nuclear, coal, and natural gas are unfair and I'm sure you did that on purpose to make nuclear look better and wind look worse.

Denmark may be ahead in wind power, but I hardly think they are 30 years ahead.   I think the U.S. out produces them now.

You wrote:
make electricity in the U.S. in 1999; hydroelectric 0.7 cents per kWh, coal 2 cents per kWh, natural gas turbine 3.9 cents per kWh, nuclear 1.9 cents per kWh.

These are just fuel costs (and maybe maintenance?.) They don't include the cost of the Power Plant, which is a significant part of the costs.

These fuel costs are from 1999.   The costs of these fuels have gone up since 1999.

The government subsides of these power producing methods are worked into these prices, thus they cost less because of the subsidies.    

The costs of building new power plants is quite a bit higher than the costs of building power plants 30 years ago.    If you want to compare costs of wind with other power sources, you have to use todays costs to build wind power with todays costs of building nuclear, coal, natual gas, etc., not the average of all plants, many built 30, 50 or whatever years ago.

The real lesson is to be skeptical of the person giving the 'facts.'  What you wrote is completely worthless as an honest comparison of electricity power production.On Is wind worth it? posted 2 years, 1 month ago 72 Responses

libertarians and purity

I did once consider much of libertarian arguments.    They want to make arguments that are so pure in philosophy, but that goes the other way as well.    

The Internet was developed with mostly government money or a large portion of it anyway.    Well, if libertarians think that taxing is stealing and the only way for government to pay to develop the Internet is to steal with taxing, they are participating in the theft when they are on the Internet.    They are co-conspirators from the benefits of the theft.   That also goes to most of everything they do in our society that is touched by government.    Libertarians would pretty much have to become Amish to not be co-conspirators in the whole thing.
On 2007: A record-setting U.S. drought year posted 2 years, 1 month ago 22 Responses

ying and yang

But I'm a landowner who rents to corn farmers. I can see how easy it is to be for it, it makes me money.  How politics is able to ever do the right thing is sometimes beyond me.  The money is such an incentive to be boosting for more tax breaks.

Actually, I'd like to see more trees, groves and forests and more bicycle paths, but not enough people are into that.On Nature on ethanol posted 2 years, 1 month ago 11 Responses

what are the predictions?

In 30 years or was it by the end of 2100, Illinois will have the same climate as the arid parts of Texas has now.  (sorry, that would be important to know which, in 30 years or 90 years.)  Anyway, it will get warmer.  

I hope somebody will get good at making artificial snow.On 2007: A record-setting U.S. drought year posted 2 years, 1 month ago 22 Responses

not the whole solution

The point could be made that this example doesn't exactly explain markets and there value.

What if these farmers were given money instead of the fertilizer coupons, they may have purchased classes that would have taught them how to grow the crops with natural fertilizers and also spent some money on better tools to work the land faster or hired extra labor if that was what was limiting the crop.    Each farmer would have been to maximize their special circumstance.      

Do I think they should have been given the fertilizer?   You bet.    But maybe they were lacking in other things as well.   Or some had figured out the natural fertilizer thing and needed other help.  
On Noticing the elephant stomping Africa posted 2 years, 1 month ago 19 Responses

just call it something else

How should we talk about energy to interest conservatives?

Instead of calling wind and solar energy renewable, we should call it supply side energy.  Because that's also what it is.  Any energy that we can get from the wind and solar means we use just that much less natural gas which can be then used to heat homes and industrial heating.

Lets's call a carbon tax a consumption tax.   Conservatives would be all in favor a national sales tax over an income tax.   Well, then great, make it a national sales tax, reduce income taxes, but have the national sales tax, tax consumption of fossil fuels.  

renewable energy is now it's going to be supplyside energy.

carbon tax is now going to be a national sales tax.   (and reduce income tax.)On Time to end the phony and historically inaccurate debate posted 2 years, 1 month ago 17 Responses

It's when its multiple deaths

It's when alot of people get killed that gets in the news.

Since 9/11 2001 over 250 000 people have died in vehicle crashes and 100 000 people have been murdered in the United States, but we'll still see national news talk about the over 3000 who died on that day.

It's good though to make wind power safe, for the workers and the industry.

I wonder if anybody has been hurt with Concentrated Solar Power.   I realize there aren't enough up but I wonder if anybody has gotten burned by the focusing mirrors. On All along the watch tower, opposition to wind is growing posted 2 years, 1 month ago 10 Responses

that's why

That's why god put all that mercury in the coal, to poison us.

Many somebody should ask him if god put all those tall cliffs around the world so he would drop off one or all those buses so he would jump in front of one.On Notable quotable posted 2 years, 1 month ago 12 Responses

What I thought might work

I thought about what you just wrote about.   I think it can be handled with 2 different tax rates.

1. non import/export carbon tax rate.

2.  import/export carbon tax rate.

The first rate could be higher.

But thats all a guess of what would work.  It looks like the most politically possible is cap and trade.    we'll see.   On The details on Obama's just-released energy plan posted 2 years, 1 month ago 10 Responses

two types of energy consumption

Here's the problem with how we are discussing country to country fossil fuel energy use.  Let me divide fossil fuel use into 2 parts.   one is energy consumption by those that do not have to compete with foreign trade and those that do.

Lets say we put on a tax on the energy use of a Walmart to light and heat their stores.   What Walmart sells in the store, whether its made in America or overseas isn't affected by that tax.  If we were to tax a manufacturer for their energy use may affect whether it can compete against foreign competition.

So just because China, India, or any other country may not tax fossil fuel energy to remain competitive, that would only apply to what energy is used in manufactoring or something that is in export or import competition.   We and other countries could still use carbon energy taxes on non export/import industries.

Certainly a large portion of our fossil fuel energy use is in non export/import industries and we can increase carbon taxes on that use while reducing property, sales, income and social securtity taxes.   And so can other countries.  

  On How do you solve a problem like Maria China? posted 2 years, 1 month ago 13 Responses

S&N book

I'm almost through the S&N book.   It's all a discussion on why there hasn't been a change to noncarbon energy sources.  They spend so much time describing why it hasn't happened and just can't think of anyway to make it happen, they think our carbon energy use is inevitable.

It's about Paradigm thinking.    Paradigm thinking is our thougth patterns, things we think about without considering alternatives.

I think there is one important thought pattern with the carbon-noncarbon fuel question.

That is tax money for government services should come from sales, property, income, social security taxes and others and not from taxing fossil fuels.

We tax 4 trillion dollars from Federal, State, and Local taxes in a 13 trillion dollar economy.   Almost none of this comes directly form cabon and fossil fuels itself.   And yet, fossil fuels is the polluting and depleatable resource.   As an example, farmland, who's owner pays property taxes, will be here 50, 100, 500 and a million years from now.   But the fossil fuels used to plant and harvest crops will be gone in a few decades.   Yet we tax the thing that will be here forever instead of taxing the depleatable resource so as to conserve it for future generations.

The problem is the idea of not taxing fossil fuels and only taxing property, sales, income, social security and other, is such a strong paradigm, we can't make the change.   Let's change the taxes that states have on sales taxes and more that to a fossil fuel sales tax.   Don't pay it at the sales tax at the restautant or store product, but on the fossil fuel burned.  We should do a tax trade.

The mistake S&N makes is that they think nothing can change, even our thinking.   Well, they are wrong.   Things can change, expecially our thinking.    And it is the thing that has to change.   Are there forces against it?   Sure.   But changing our thinking is the most important thing in the world.On The death of 'The Death of Environmentalism' posted 2 years, 1 month ago 16 Responses

ah, the Rumsfeld school

Jabailo-

Not unlike Rumsfeld's school of incompetence.  there are many kind's of climates that humans and the earth may eventually have, and sticking a bunch of positive feedbacks for warmer climates is a risk for bad ones.   The grand experiment is going to run.   Like Rumsfeld and we will be greeted as liberators, not everything turns out the way you had hoped.   From what I have read, the future with the warmer climates have huge risks of being bad.  Larger areas of drought and dessert, wetter areas because of increased rainfall and mountain glaciers melted with no runoff for water use.   Not the good times.On Hansen erroneously accused of predicting an ice age posted 2 years, 1 month ago 39 Responses

Why Europe includes itself it this

Why does Europe include itself in the bush Fantasies/follies?   Can't they not show up for these events so as not to give our president failure any press?On Bush climate speech follows Luntz playbook posted 2 years, 2 months ago 8 Responses

It's how we talk about it.

We also shouldn't emphasize that it will be pain to reduce carbon emissions.

We have to say that it will be a tax trade.   we can lower sales, property, income and social security taxes at the same time we increase carbon tax.

Will some people be worse off in this effort and some better.   Yes, but everybody will be just as well off as before.  

We tax 4 trillion in a 13 trillion dollar economy.  we can reduce taxes 500 billion dollars at the same time we increase carbon taxes 500 billion dollars and we will be in the same place economically, but we will be using less carbon energy.On Dingell gets off a zinger in a testy interview posted 2 years, 2 months ago 7 Responses

not the truth and make them pay

Well, of course the global warming deniers and delayers are going to get who wrote what paper about what wrong, just like they get everything else wrong.    It's not about getting it right and understanding what is reality in the world, it's about the politics and money.

yah, those damm environmentalists, they use fossil fuel energy, how dare they, they just cant't.    Here's what we should do.   Make them pay.    Tax the hell out of carbon.    Show those guys, like Gore and Hansen and Romm, tax the hell out of the carbon everybody uses and then they will have to pay for the carbon they use.

While you are at it, we can reduce the other taxes we pay, like property, sales, income, social security and the like.    That way these guys will have to pay more to go to all these meetings.     Hit them hard, make the carbon tax high so these guys will feel it.   Write your congressman.   do it now.On Hansen erroneously accused of predicting an ice age posted 2 years, 2 months ago 39 Responses

used to call myself a libertarian

I would have called myself a libertarian at one time and still look to is as some kind of ideal to strive for.  

We have 4 trillion dollars in taxes in a 13 trillion dollar economy.  If we are going to have taxes, at least have it on something that can do some good for having taxes on it as well as bring in money for government services.    Why have taxes on things that just make things cost more without at least doing something good.  

I also think these numbers of people who think that global warming is a problem and we need to do something is a mile wide, but an inch thick.    Not like protecting our country, like people in Iraq feel they are doing, risking their lives and sometimes losing it.     I suppose some of the stunts of Greenpeace or Earth Firsters would qualify on that.   But how many are willing to work for it, whether letters to the editors, politians or influence public opinion in any way.  That's harder.On Poll finds people ready for action on climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 9 Responses

he has other things to do

he's going to make his wife president.   He won't work on something controversial, it's going to be about charity.    
If he does make his wife charity, that might do more than his work with CEO's.   Or he might become the global warming czar.    haven't had one yet.  
On Private sector money will not solve the climate crisis posted 2 years, 2 months ago 3 Responses

what's possible

What's possible to do?   That's politics.  

I made the comment "this is a street fight."   Well, what does that mean?   Am I going to go out and knife somebody?   No.   But I was trying to say is that it's more important than most subjects.   Sometimes we have to go after peoples philosophy of thought, not just advocate the science, which many times isn't very interesting.

Why doesn't the policy makers go stronger after global warming problems?   Because they don't have the votes.   If someone gets elected, they can vote on what to do.   If the votes aren't a majority, they can't get the bill passed.  Feeling really, really, strongly about an issue doesn't give you more votes.

What works best in politics and some other ways of life in my humble opinion?   Fantasy.   An example would be many of the people advocating tax cuts in a economy and great revenues come from that, more than making up the tax cuts.   Well, then just eliminate all taxes, that will give a boost to the economy.   Oh, I see, then we couldn't pay for the troops, bombs, cops and other things we need for a society.   Ah.  So it's only a certain level of fantasy that's permitted.

But eliminating all coal plants in 5 years isn't the answer either.   Most people would object to that, because the value of the electricity service now it greater than a future generations possible needs.  

We have to find solutions that are politically possible.   Some felt before December 7th, 1941, we should be in a war against Japan and Germany, but couldn't convince enough people to do it.  after that date, there was a tipping point that made it happen.   Global warming won't have any tipping points like that.   A person and a movement has to know their limitations.On The ongoing humiliations of the tattered 'climate skeptic' movement posted 2 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

where could the money go?

It all depends of where the money not spent of a moon project could go?

I was a product of the 1960's and 1970's space program and became an engineer myself.  great stuff.

I'd go to Mars if the trip was given to me.  And I'd stay their 10 years (or longer) for research and constuction.

But the moon is a loser.

And for now, that 17 billion a year should be spent on Energy in the NREL or other departments, if that's the only place they can get 17 billion a year.   Otherwise, increase renewable energy research to 17 billion a year, and lets help solve the real problems.  

Actually both the 17 billion energy research and
17 billion in NASA could go on at the same time.On Moon base project sucks up potential climate research dollars posted 2 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

What is being debated

I think people have to go after the deniers.   This is more than just science, this also has to be a street fight.    

I read the fiction book, "State of Fear" by Michael Creighton.   What a bunch of crap.   The philosophy in the book is what I call "Rumsfeld incompetence" just a set of the stupidest ideas in combination I had ever read.    If all you read is the good stuff, you forget how bad the bad stuff can be.

One of the points he tries to make is 'fear mongering', that the global warming group are just trying to make you scared for scared sake.   What is completely forgotten is what if there is something to it, then they are doing what is important work.     The biggest 'fear mongering' I have seen is from deniers and delayers who say if we do something, we'll wreck the economy, it's to hard.   Bunk.   It's what needs to be done, and in some situations it can be a benefit.  

It is the delayers and deniers who are the head in the sand, scared to do what is right and haven't got a clue as to what is real and important.   One of the deniers even wrote that to do something about climate change you would have to "dismantle modern industry."   Nothing could be futher from the truth.   But if all the deniers and delayers listen to is each other, that's just how far gone they are.

This is a street fight.   If it wasn't about turning around the attitudes of a majority of public opinion, it wouldn't matter.   This isn't science that doesn't have to affect and persuade, like an improved design on an intergrated circuit, where if they implement it, 99.999 percent of the people wouldn't know a thing about it.   This is something where the science has to affect and persuade.   This is where people have to change their thinking on a range of subjects, and that means we have to go after bad philosophies as well.   We don't have to just change the minds of the science world, we have to change the minds to the general public.

We don't have decades to do something, we've got to do it now.On The ongoing humiliations of the tattered 'climate skeptic' movement posted 2 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

world war II and not world war II

Okay, it's not world war II.

There just isn't any drama.

How would Star Wars be with Luke Skywalker putting on photovoltaics on his uncle's house instead of doing battle with Darth Vader.   different kind of a movie.

Or what would Star Trek be if Capt Kirk was checking on his wind turbines instead of kicking Romulan ass.

The only thing I can think of would be to have somebody sliding off one of those wind turbines to get any excitement out of it.   And then, of course, who would want that.  

Some way, somebody has to figure out how to get people excited about putting up 1000 2.5 Megawatt wind turbines to turn off one of those big coal plants.

Now, that would be writing!On Is global warming the moral equivalent of World War II? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 27 Responses

there are 3 numbers I'm interested in

3 numbers I'm interested in.  

What is the ERORI of the best (which would be the cheapest) Concentrated Solar Power Plant.   Energy Returned on Energy Invested, would tell you how much we got to put into these things to get our energy back.   I think I remember reading onetime it's 4 to 1, which is really bad.   What if the thing runs 30 years, it would take 7 years to get the energy back?   That seems way to low.  I'm looking.   I wish I keep those links.

What is the ratio of wind in the summer compared to the winter in the midwest?   I think it is 70 percent.   (winter more wind than summer)

What is the ratio of sun for the winter compared to the summer in CSP areas, (CA.AZ.NM.TX)  that might be somewhere around that 70 percent or lower.  

Anyway, the place I would go with this is wind power from the windy states combined with solar power for the sun states, would be a good combination for year round power.   Sure, there would be gaps, but just because there are gaps that would have to be filled with Fossil fuel plants, doesn't mean the combination couldn't be the majority of electrical power.  

As I have read, 3 states, North Dakota, Kansas and Texas wind could replace all of the fossil fuel used for electricity.   An area the size of Indiana or half of North Dakota in wind turbine area (1 1/2 percent of lower 48 states area) with 400 000 wind turbines at 2.5 MWatts each.

Does that make sense or not?   Just hook the whole combo together at New Mexico and Kansas.On Solar thermal company says its generation/storage combo can power the nation posted 2 years, 2 months ago 22 Responses

could be big

Hopefull this will be a net plus.   Maybe I'm skeptical or cynical, but what if it is used by global warming delayers saying, see we can do something with this stuff any time we want.

Ok, I am cynical.  

Let's go get the problem solved.On New membrane technology for capturing CO2 posted 2 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses

Because it would be a tax trade.

We wouldn't just have an increase in taxes, but we would have an increase in a carbon tax and then decreases in other taxes, such as property, sales, income or social security.
Even poor people would be paying a property tax where they live or a sales tax on something they may buy.    Let's eliminate most of the taxes that a poor person would pay in other taxes and only have any tax that they would pay be a carbon tax.

Reduce the property taxes for poorer housing at the same time a carbon tax would come into being.  Change a sales tax to a fossil fuel sales tax instead.   Everytime someone goes to Walmart, there are taxes on some of the products they sell.  Put it instead on the stores use of fossil fuel.    Reduce the first 500 dollars the employee and employer pays in social security taxes and make that up with carbon taxes on everybody.  

We should be careful to not tax industries that compete with foreign companies.   But something like a sales tax, what is the thing that having that tax improves for having it?   Nothing I can think of.   At least if there is a fossil fuel sales tax, fewer fossil fuels might be used.

Even in very poor countries, the first consumption tax that might be imposed on people may be a carbon tax.   Income tax still might be the better, because of differences in income.  Very poor countries may, may, be better off subsidizing things like solar ovens for cooking, insulation for houses and human powered water wells before fossil fuels are used to reduce poverty.
On Thursday event in D.C. seeks carbon questions posted 2 years, 2 months ago 15 Responses

What about Nevada Solar One

Solar Today had this article in the March/April 2007 issue.

http://www.solartoday.org/2007/mar_apr07/nevada_solar_one ...

This one has been going since June.  

I had read a month ago about someone in Isreal who claims to have had a breakthrough on CPV.   Hopefully that is true and will come to market.On A panel discussion on how much plug-ins rule posted 2 years, 2 months ago 32 Responses

cost now.

I remember you putting the figures up before.

You wrote that the cost could be down to 1$/watt.  what is the cost now?

I just happened to be reading the recent Solar Age magazine today and they mentioned CSP in it.On A panel discussion on how much plug-ins rule posted 2 years, 2 months ago 32 Responses

how did you do the math.

Could you do the math for me on that.   Are you talking about CSP?
On A panel discussion on how much plug-ins rule posted 2 years, 2 months ago 32 Responses

he has to say that

Rove has to say that history will be better to G. Bush than what people are saying now, what else does he have.   Could he say, nope, people today are wrong, history will be alot worse than what  people say today.

What, Bush should get credit for an economy.   The economy works whether the politicians give speechs or not.    On Rove believes that Bush's policies will look good in hindsight posted 2 years, 2 months ago 3 Responses

which meats are worse

I got it that some people think we should stop eating meat.  

If you had to choose which ones are the worst, which would they be?   Beef 2.4 times worse than chicken, pork 1.8 times worse than turkey, what are the numbers?On On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 2 months ago 256 Responses

what's worse

What's worse, that he can say that, or that he gets away with it, knowing that there won't be a huge chorus of people telling the president and mainstream medis that he is wrong, that the man should resign that there are thousands of things that can be done that won't lose people their jobs as much as create others.

He can say it because we let him get away with it.On White House advisor reveals Bush view of climate change policy posted 2 years, 2 months ago 9 Responses

nobody thought of that before?

Power from the people?   imagine that.

It must be so wonderful to be so much smarter than anybody else here.   The curse of your gift would be a true burden.

Those who win close elections are of the right stuff and those that don't are wrong?   What an easy way to look at the world.

What is the message that works the best with many people?  A nive soothing fantasy.    The message doesn't have to be true or even best for the person it's told to, it just should contain wonderful mythmaking.

A few years ago, one study found that presidential candidate that won the election for the past 40 years was the one who was the most optimistic.  Which maybe great or not.   Maybe the ideas the candidate had who won were the best.  Or maybe it was just happytalk.

Iraq comes to mind.  Bush was caught with not understanding the mythmaking of a campaign and the need for competence in an occupation.   For some, happytalk is all they come with.

People can be happy with reality that is going good, but also they can be happy with myths in their minds.   Knowing which is which when for all of us is what we go thru.  On It's not that individuals can't do anything about climate -- they just can't do it by themselves posted 2 years, 2 months ago 30 Responses

always say tax trade

We should always say tax trade whenever speaking of a carbon tax.     it gets as tiring as hearing a conservative say global warming after nuclear power, but it has to be tagged together. On WSJ on the carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade debate posted 2 years, 2 months ago 17 Responses

Crichton

If Crichton said : "science should be banishing demons, not creating them "  his knowledge would be incomplete.    He should also say that science should be telling us the truth or what reality is as much as it is able.    If Crichton's disagreement with Global Warming is emotional, that he can't stand discussions that are unpleasant, it's best he is a writer instead of a doctor.  (I think he does have medical and Law degrees)On Why do documented liars and dummies get taken seriously about climate change? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 28 Responses

out of business, now back in

It went out of business and now with the global warming talk, it's gotten back in business.   Hopefully 30 years of research in materials and concepts will let it burst loose.   well, you know, build a lot of them.On Coal industry insider tapped to kill Cape Wind posted 2 years, 2 months ago 3 Responses

they've done it already

They did it in the movies with Soylent Green in 1973.  Oh, they made food out of people.  close.

Look, I get advertising and spin all day long.  Sometimes I want to know and have people talk about what is really going on.

I think it is disgraceful when we have a president who takes credit for research into hydrogen cars and does nothing else to reduce carbon emissions.   Shouldn't somebody somewhere be the reality people?    We've got real reality problems and we need real solutions to real problems.  Politicians want to get elected, saleman want to sell things to people, everybody wants to be employed somewhere for the most part and will talk up what they do.  I want to know from somebody what reality is.

This is not religion.  It's not about feeling better.  I do other things for that.   Want to feel better environmentally, plant trees and flowers.   I've been an Engineer in my life and I was aware that things I designed could kill people if they failed.  We should have enough responsibility as passengers on earth to not screw it up.

 On A closer look at producing ethanol from poplar trees posted 2 years, 2 months ago 39 Responses

I vote Maryland

Out of Maryland and Florida, I would rather see Maryland in brackish water, but that's just me.   I'm sure some people would have it the other way around.On A closer look at producing ethanol from poplar trees posted 2 years, 2 months ago 39 Responses

Pascal's wager and dismantle industry

I'm well aware of Pascal's wager, but it's much more than that and it's used everyday.  Insurance companies have to figure out risk. do I put my house or the town in a flood plain or build it on the hill.   Should we invade Iraq so we can get the oil or leave it up to Sadaam who wants to get paid in Euros.    Do we buy the 16 year old kid that sports car he wanted or buy the junker so he can't go very fast.   To say that it is just Pascal's wager forgets every decision made by every person, company, government on many risk issues, many of them daily.

Dismantle modern industrialised economies.   That is a reach isn't it?    the US is 25 percent of global humanmade carbon dioxide, 40 percent of that is electricity.    That works out to US electricity to be 10 of world carbon dioxide release.   What if we replaced all the coal, oil and natural gas plants with Nuclear which would solve 10 percent of the problem.   Did we just dimantle industry?

I think people lack paradigm thinking to solve the problem.  We can solve many of our problems symbiotically, where we are better off economically by using less fossil fuel with energy efficiency and effectivity.

I think most of that can be done with tax policy.   We tax 4 trillion dollars at all levels of government in a 13 trillion dollar economy.  
We didn't arrive at the way we tax because we thought about what the future would look like and then philosophically argue out the points.   Most of it was based on political power and what could be gotten away with and people getting used to the tax at that level.  

Let's eliminate taxes on farmland and tax the fossil fuel used in farming.   That land is going to be here 50, 100, 500, a million years.  The fossil fuel is going to be here just a few years.   we should be taxing fossil fuel so we use it more efficiently and allow it to be used longer for future generations.   That's just one example of many that could be made.   We are taxing the wrong things.

Let's eliminate all property taxes for every home for the first $100 000 in value and every business $1000 for every employee and make it up with a carbon tax.    Let's elimanate the state sales taxes and make it up with a carbon sales
tax.   Let's eliminate the first $500 the employee and the first 500 dollars the employer pays and make that up with a carbon tax.

None of this will deindustrialise the economy.  It will just change it for the better. On Why do documented liars and dummies get taken seriously about climate change? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 28 Responses

great, just push

Hey, this will all work great.   All we have to do is push that trillion dollar a year fossil fuel industry out of the way.    They'll go quietly.

I wish it would be done.  But I have doubts.   Every option which starts here and we want to go to over there and in the middle is the statement "and then a miracle occurs", we're stuck with being over here.

There is optimism for the future from this post.   We could spend a trillion dollars a year in 5 years and have replaced most of the fossil fuel energy for renewable energy.  It might really take longer than that actually to build everything, but the theory is there.

If the world gets to hot, and deniers even get to hot, it might be possible to make the change.  Maybe the plans should be loosely worked out as an exercise.   What would a flash 5 year energy plan look like?  Or make it 10 years.On It's time to stop accepting the claim that we 'can't' switch to renewable energy posted 2 years, 2 months ago 21 Responses

the problem is

The problem is his comments are the most reasonable of all the republican candidates.
It doesn't get any better than that.   This is the high point in republican science.
On Fred Thompson's confused stance on climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 12 Responses

replying to thebike45

"Your stated conclusion does not seem to follow from . . .  "   what the hell.    I was just commenting on what what thebike45 had written, that the new nuclear power plants that were going to be built in Texas was going to be 8 times cheaper than wind.   I'm skeptical.On Strict safety guidelines cause construction delays at nuclear plants in Finland and Taiwan posted 2 years, 2 months ago 14 Responses

we did this in the 1970's

we did all these calculations in the 1970's only we were going to toss these trees into a boiler and make electricity.    

We had a 100 square miles of popular, with a 6 mile long conveyor in the middle that would bring all the trees to the central boiler.  It's kind of weird that people are still doing the calculations that we used to do.   It didn't make economic or energy sense to do it then either.   You don't see any of those popular boilers around.

There might be more of a possibility of making money, oil being more expensive than coal.    But fermenting trees would be more expensive than just burning the trees.On A closer look at producing ethanol from poplar trees posted 2 years, 2 months ago 39 Responses

I want knowlege and wisdom

I have learned alot from this website.   It's because ideas are presented, then added on to or criticized.    Please don't let that go away.  

Not every idea is good.  Not every criticizism is correct, but it helps me get to doing a better job with the environmental problems and what I can do.

I'm going to criticize offsets.    In the 1960's, the United States and countries around the world had an enormous smog problem in cities.    If the only solution was to have people choose to not drive their cars or people could have voluntarily reconfigured their car to not create smog, nothing would have been accomplished.    Not enough people would have voluntarily changed to smog reduced cars.   Smog offsets would not have worked.  We would still be living in smog full cities, worse than they are now.

the only thing that worked was the clean air act of 1970 and others, which made laws so that 100 percent of all new cars would have antismog devices attached.   If the activists of the 1960's had only concentrated on smog offsets or even pursued it and that took some of the political power away on this issue so that the clean air act did not pass, we would have much worse smog in our cities.

What would happen if carbon offsets were wildly successful at bringing in money, like 10 billion dollars a year.   In the trillions of dollars of carbon usage, it would be ineffectual.

However, if the money that would have been donated to offsets, was instead donated to environmental NGO's and political parties, that might have an effect.    300 million dollars to buy a presidential campaign, 1 billion to buy congressional campaigns.

The only thing thing that will work with reducing carbon from our economy is getting the political will to do the things that will reduce everybodies carbon dioxide release.    

"Government is force."   George Washington.   we don't have a choice.On On the problem of carbon-offset projects in developing countries posted 2 years, 2 months ago 49 Responses

natural gas is to valuable

natural gas is already 18 percent of our electricity production.   I think it should be used to heat our homes and process heat for manufactoring.    We should go directly to wind power now for electricity.   use wind power to make power and natural gas for heat, or combined heat and power where possible.On 'Clean coal' is an oxymoron posted 2 years, 2 months ago 12 Responses

more

What I meant was, the utilities meet the mandates, take money from people who pay more for wind power and make this deal.   They get the wind power (or other renewables) to solve 3 problems and only build it once.On Because voluntary offsets are never, ever like indulgences posted 2 years, 2 months ago 19 Responses

vapor ware and political ware

Rove knows what to say to deflect criticism from any bad thing that happens.   Just claim that what you are doing is actually solving the problem when it is actually doing anything but solving the problem.    

The Bush Admin took money away from programs that were to reduce fossil fuel use to increase spending on Hydrogen research which has the least chance of reducing fossil fuel use.   And then they would claim to not pick winners and losers in the market place when that is exactly what they are doing.  

If you are against Global Warming getting a whole lot worse in the future, you should be for all the methods that reduce fossil fuel use and pick the better ones to use.   If you are not for fossil fuel reduced use, you would be for the least possible method to reduce fossil fuel use, not be for any of the other methods and then claim you are doing the most for Global Warming reduction.    That method is a lie.

Reducing fossil fuel use is best done as a system.   These might include taxes, regulations, products and life style changes to name a few.   Reducing fossil fuel use would not be the advocacy of one product over all the other methods.On Karl Rove says history to view Bush as 'far-sighted leader' posted 2 years, 2 months ago 25 Responses

weather and climate

What is it with people who think if you can't predict weather very well, you can't predict a thing about climate.

I can reasonably predict which teams will win more often in baseball and which pitchers will get the strikeouts and wins and which hitters will get the hits and homeruns.   I just couldn't tell you on which days the teams or pitchers would win or on which day or at bat a hitter will get a hit.

Does that mean I have not idea how many total homeruns there is going to be in baseball season?   No.  It'll be about the same number of homeruns as the year before if nothing else changed.

Now let's say that the makers of baseballs made all the balls go 5 percent farther.   I'd predict that there would be more homeruns hit.   Does that make me a genius.   Hardly, but somehow, people of reasonable intellegence want to think that it would have no effect.  

Adding Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is like using a using ball that goes farther.   There are lots of factors causing a baseball to go out of a park, but if you change the ball itself, and everything else stays the same, the ball will go for a homer more often.  And thus with climate, more greenhouse gases, warmer climate.On Global warming will spawn severe storms and tornados, reports NASA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 12 Responses

this is just one article

This is just one article, there are certainly other important ways to make solar energy usable, it just takes time to go thru them all.

Not everybody would be interested to have a solar anything on there house.   That might be 80 to 90 percent of the population.   (unless there was enough incentive)    That's why we need to get to utility scale CSP, so people who only want electricity and don't care it's source, would also get it from carbon reduced sources.

This one from spain, with a center tower and acres of mirrors, is the one that I have read has the lowest cost potential.  I think it's the one that should be emphasized.

It's good to see more of CSP' getting put in.   If only it could go at a faster pace.

The dish CSP's are to expensive, I don't see how they can make it.On Solar thermal power deserves more attention, due to its lower cost and relative ease of storage posted 2 years, 3 months ago 35 Responses

do you not know?

It's not the release of Carbon Dioxide of any year or years that would cause a change in the climate, but the accumulation of Carbon Dioxide.

Releasing less Carbon Dioxide on any few years would not affect those years temperatures.

Also, these temperatures were for the United States, not the world.On The Wall Street Journal contradicts itself on global warming posted 2 years, 3 months ago 24 Responses

a hurricane is a hurricane

are global warming hurricanes the reason should people shouldn't be living along the southern coast?    From what I saw of a map of risk areas of everything in the US, hurricane areas are the worst with earthquake areas second.  All else doesn't come close.  

It's the living in hurricane areas that's the problem. On When it comes to climate change, prevention is more important than adaptation posted 2 years, 3 months ago 15 Responses

hey, it could and was worse

One of my parents grew up in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's.    Talk about crap.   The world has been more screwed up than it is today.  

What's obvious to those who have studied it, is missed by those who haven't spent any time on the subject at all.   What to do that would change it?  Maybe nothing.  On Why do documented liars and dummies get taken seriously about climate change? posted 2 years, 3 months ago 28 Responses

not enough dead yet

The tipping point for World War II was Pearl Harbor.    The tipping point for "the war on terrorism"   was 9/11.    We don't have enought americans dying for anybody to get concerned.

All the organizing can help.   But we buy 1 trillion dollars in fossil fuels in the U.S. every year.    That's a lot of money to lose to a bunch of environmentalists who want to shut them down.     That's money to pay for people to not let them get shut down, and it's lot's of people who will work to make sure they don't lose their own jobs and will work to not let you shut them down.  

The only possible political thing to do?   Pay for the carbon capture from coal plants with government money.    That way they can still sell the coal and people will just have to compromise their ethics for getting the right thing done.  
Coal companies and employees will just fight you otherwise.

It's hard to get people to change their mind if their livilyhood is involved.   There are just to many people making money on selling fossil fuels.  Until the non-carbon groups can balance the carbon groups we're screwed. On Why is green so low on the political agenda? posted 2 years, 3 months ago 30 Responses

drunk at the end of the bar

there is a danger of replying to the drunk at the end of the bar, because well, then he thinks he's something other than a drunk at the end of the bar.

So the reason the nuclear bombs didn't drop on us was because we ignored the problem?    

Some would say, quite possibly, that the reason the nuclear bombs did not drop on us is because people reconized the danger and worked like heck to make sure that it didn't happen.

That is what we should be doing now about Global Warming.   Not ignoring it, but reconizing the problems and working like heck to make sure it doesn't happen.   Not by living in denial.On Existential threats are a bummer posted 2 years, 3 months ago 14 Responses

the goal will always be 10 percent

Sequestration takes 20-30 of the power output to run the sequestration.   They just tell you the Sequestration goal is 10 percent as vaporware.  It makes it sound like sequestration is possible or that it's just around the corner.   The realities are different.  

Just how non-dispatchable is wind.   I was told that a new report in Minnesota showed that wind could take 25 percent of electrical power before any demand strategies have to be used.   Put in heat pumps up here, when the cold front comes in the wind really blows, it can go even further.  

Does wind have dispatchable costs, sure.   But we aren't charging for coals pollution.    On Not your father's Old Coal posted 2 years, 3 months ago 7 Responses

take the money

take the money and donate money above your costs and what you think you need compensation for to a environmental group that might do some good.  
hah.

take the money.   On Temptation posted 2 years, 3 months ago 17 Responses

with you on wind

I'm with you on wind.   With those 2.5 megawatt, 300 feet high turbines, it would take an area the size of 1/2 of South Dakota in wind turbines to replace coal, natural gas and oil production in electricity.  

But maybe we could put in Concentrated Solar Power in the south west.    It brings in power during the day and when the sun is hottest and air conditioning needs are greatest.    Put in a DC transmission line between New Mexico and Kansas and we would connect the Wind production states and the CSP production states.

The Southeast might still need to put up some nukes, not having wind and not good for CSP.
Its connecting  all that wind with consumers that's a major hard part.    

It should be done.    The United States consumption of electricity is 10 percent of human made carbon dioxide release.     On A new technology to reduce GHG emissions from coal plants posted 2 years, 3 months ago 18 Responses

who can be motivated

may you live in interesting times.

Look how far we humans have come.   It wasn't to long ago that we humans were burning people at the stake for what they believed.    At least this culture, now they bomb people for what they believe in others, but anyway.  From what I read, the people in Jamestown only lived 20 to 40 years if they made it out of childhood.

Benjamin Franklin said while working with electricity (DC) that he thought he was born to early, he thought humans would be able to make great things with this stuff.   Wouldn't he be marveled at what we have done.   (ok, sadden as well)

from movie Gladiator:  the emporiors sister "Is Rome worth one good mans life."

From movie "13 days in october"   Soviet Ambassador to Robert Kennedy:   You and John are men of goodwill, there are other men of good will.

From the movie "untouchables"    The Irish cop to Ness just after the cop got shot:    What are you willing to do, what are you willing to do.

After the signing of the Declaration of Independence:   We all have to hang together or we will all surely hang separately.  

Are there other men of good will.   What is the opinion of professors in the colleges?   What do all the science high school teachers think?    What about all college graduates in Engineering?   What are the percentage of people who are educated in the hard sciences who now think this is a problem and how many can be brought to action in politics and economically?

This has to transend regular party politics.   every college, every science, math, and philosophy department, every professor has to be contacted and moved to action.

What are the actual numbers of professors who think this Global Warming and Fossil Fuel depleation is a problem?

Al Gore made a start, but in his second grand entrance, he appealled to Rock bands and fans.   maybe that was easy to do, but could anybody blame a Rush Limbaugh listener to not be impressed.  The appeals now have to go to academia.  And if they don't go along, well, what can be done.

What are we willing to do?On Economist goes over to the dark side posted 2 years, 3 months ago 17 Responses

a main switch

Sure, every house has a main switch, but I don't think people would use it if they had to walk out of the basement with all the lights off to use it.  The switch would have to be when people walk out of the main walkout door.

I'm just going thru what I'd have to do to get it all wired up for it.  Probably not worth it.  I'd need another electical box or some switch in there I'm not familiar with.  

I think they should have an Energy Gold Star program to go along with the Energy Star program.   It would be those electrical products that go that extra step to get rid of phantom loads.   That would be real off switches on everything.   No clock on the microwave.   lowest draw on the answering machine.   It shouldn't be to hard to have a real on/off switch on the TV that is used once to turn it on.On How lazy people can conserve energy posted 2 years, 3 months ago 4 Responses

gas powered compressors

3 out of 3800 compressores use the exhaust heat. That could be described as not that different than gas flaring.   Both would need money invested the will to get value out the wasted energy.

Like the gas flaring going on next to schools in Africa.    

Interesting interview.  

A little short on what can be done to change it.  Where do we go from here.On Why efficiency is the key to CO2 reduction posted 2 years, 3 months ago 2 Responses

he gets paid from oil, gas and coal companies

He doesn't write this stuff because he believes a single part of it.  He writes it so he can make everybody believe there is just no way to solve the Carbon/Global warming problem except wackoness.    Everybody is way beyond any of those suggestions, so don't even try.

This isn't imcompetence.   This is malicious.   He means to be stupid.

Some of the solutions could be as simple as elimanating property taxes for most primary residences, and businesses and make that up with a carbon tax.    How scarey can it be to Reduce the taxes on the home a person lives in and solve problems at the same time.On We have what we need to beat global warming posted 2 years, 3 months ago 12 Responses

Tax trade, Property tax to Carbon tax

What would also help is to increase/have a Carbon tax and then decrease the Property tax so that the builings owner will have the money to pay for the increased insulation, efficient motors and lights.  

In heavy concentrated areas like cities, still need the property tax because of the need to have high property value usage, but in less dense areas the need for Property taxes is less.  

What has been done in my state and others, are building code improvements, amount of insulation, etc..   surely that has helped.   But to really get more efficient, carbon tax is the way to go.

True about the marginal rate.On Correcting two misunderstandings posted 2 years, 3 months ago 19 Responses

Depleation we have to worry about also

We got the Global Warming and Depleation.    From the oil drum, production of oil around the world is decreasing.   We'll see if this is part of the the oil peak, in may 2005.   Oil production is 1.2 million barrels/day less that the peak.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2864#more

Natural Gas will have it's peak also.   We should try to be as efficient as we can.On The world's expert on recycled energy discusses ... recycled energy posted 2 years, 3 months ago 4 Responses

my state has mandates

My state has renewable mandates (minnesota) that the power company has to meet by various dates to 2020.   That's as command and control as we've gotten so far.    On One economist says no posted 2 years, 3 months ago 58 Responses

increase research for nondepleatable energy

What we should do is increase research in nondepleatble resources.  

From what I've read, 85 percent of the research dollars that the federal government has spent has been for fossil fuels or nuclear (since 1974.)   15 percent for renewables.   I like to say non depleatables instead of renewables.

Nondepeatables energy research should increase to at least 10 billion a year.   I think it's around 500 million a year right now.  give or take 300 million.

Before world war II, in the 1930's, the United States just didn't and couldn't get enough people to agree to even spend money for military reseach into better planes, bombs, bullets and guns.   Had they in the 1930's reseached more into these things they would have been better when they were needed.

what are we waiting for.     The research will be done.   Let's start now in the 2000's to spend 10 billion on research instead of into the 2040's.On One economist says no posted 2 years, 3 months ago 58 Responses

asking this question is a start.

How does anybody unite enviro's?

I go onto some web sites and all they do is argue whether we should support wind energy or nuclear.

I'll state what I think.    Global warming is the worst enviromental problem we have that can have the worst consequences for the planet.  Fossil fuel exhaustion is the most serious material problem we have.    (except for a nuclear war, nuclear detonation or something)    Everything else is important or less, Global warming is necessary to solve.   Fossil fuel substitution/peak oil is necessary to solve.

But when they have a survey of what problems people think is important, global warming and peak oil don't register hardly at all.    Of course, medical care for everybody may be important, but unless people actually vote because of Global warming, it won't be a political mover.    It will only be a political mover when we have the serious climate consequences and fossil fuel exhausted.

We are not near a tipping point for what I am an adovate for, and I don't see one coming anytime soon.On Good ideas, those posted 2 years, 3 months ago 9 Responses

plants to substitute for fossil fuels in the 1970'

I remember proposals in the late 1970's to plant 100 square miles of popular trees, have a 6 mile long conveyor that takes 5 years to go in a circle and feed the cut off trees whole into a boiler to make electricity.   When we did the math then, late 1970s, we found it was not going to be able to help the energy situation.   not enough land to make a difference, to much pollution.   doing it with switchgrass or whatever wouldn't make enough of a difference.  

I'd think though that putting biomass in a boiler and making electricity and having vehicles with batteries would be better (more efficient) than;
putting biomass in a cellulosic converter to make a liquid to burn in an internal combustion engine.
    On Don't let the one color your feelings on the other posted 2 years, 3 months ago 68 Responses

what is a better way?

I always think that farmers should have to use ethanol to dry corn or something like that in the corn raising process.  Then they'd get the idea of how bad the whole corn to ethanol process is.   Drying corn with ethanol would replace Propane and Propane could be used in transportation, certainly in fleets trucks and cars.  This would work as a teaching event if the actual costs were spread thru the system.

I was at a wind power convention where a speaker was talking about in North Dakota, people were spending 1 billion dollars a year on fuel oil a year to heat their homes.   He advocated wind power and heat pumps instead.  (The wind really blows when the cold front moves in)  Fuel Oil is close to diesel fuel with just some additives.

It may be better to just leave liquids to transportation, and try to replace the liquids used for heating with solid and gas fuels and heat pumps.   or even start the whole thing with keeping the building warm and cool by better design and insulation in the first place.

It's nuts trying to convert something to something else that doesn't need to get converted.  Then some people make huge political claims that we're doing something great when all we are doing is changing some forms of energy to other forms of energy without getting anything valuable from it.

How about a program to replace heating systems in houses that use fuel oil now to one that uses gas, solids (wood), retro insulation, or burning corn in corn furnaces or whatever?    Wouldn't that be a better system overall?On Don't let the one color your feelings on the other posted 2 years, 3 months ago 68 Responses

Bridges, medical care and nuclear power

Maybe the bridge coming down will point to larger problems, but there is an explaination that I have.  
I drove over that bridge maybe 2 times a week and the first time and everytime I drove over the bridge, I thought that they were doing the reconstuction wrong.   The bridge in Minneapolis was being repaved and they had 4 lanes of traffic in each direction down to 2 lanes each way.   What they did was close the east 2 lanes of the north and south bound lanes.  That meant all the traffic had to use the west two lanes of the north and south bound lanes making the weight loading on the bridge unbalanced.  Any stresses would have worn it out much faster.  I thought a better way would have had the traffic use the outside 2 lanes for the first part of the repaving and then the inside 2 lanes for the last part of the paving.  
In a well designed and built bridge, it wouldn't have mattered, but if this one was deficient as  reports have said, it might have made a difference.

It's weird how some people say we need to look to France and have Nuclear socialism and have the state decide to build all kinds of Nuclear power plants, but we can't use France as a model for our health care.
In France, because the French government pays for the health care, they decide how many doctors are trained.   More doctors, they can pay less.   In America, the American Medical Association (AMA) decides how many doctors we have and they keep the numbers low so they can make lots of money.   The AMA is a political organization and is very good at it.   American doctors are the highest paid in the world.
France is much more socialitic that America, which is one reason they have Nuclear power plants, all the union labor for nuclear power and such.On Bridge to the 21st century? posted 2 years, 3 months ago 12 Responses

What was learned in California, 2001

Ok, Demand Response and Demand Reduction.  

What was learned in California when it had all those Power supply problems.   What I think I remember happening was after a year into it, they (Cali. citizens) were able to reduce eletricity usage by 10 to 20 percent. Demand Response or Demand Reduction or just Demand Curtailment because they would be down if they didn't turn lots of stuff off anyway?

How much happens when a Public Service Annoucement is made, like scrolling during TV shows or radio annoucements; or does that piss some off so they turn things on?On Information is power posted 2 years, 4 months ago 24 Responses

propaganda

wow.

Do a little thinking.

Inteliorg has a good article on "Distiquishing Science and Pseudoscience."

Then it uses Pseudoscience to write the article "Fire and Ice."

Do you understand that?  On Yeah, coal again posted 2 years, 4 months ago 11 Responses

Can't even get a 1 percent reduction

How could we ever get to an 80 percent reduction.   We can't even get a 1 percent reduction.  Why even try.   Just get another beer.On Ante up posted 2 years, 4 months ago 7 Responses

What we eat.

From what I've read, more carbon is sent into the atmosphere from our food production system of the foods we eat than from the CO2 going into the air from our transportation system.    Is that true?Can the food production system be changed or should we eat differently or both or neither?    What good is a change in transportation if we put CO2's out by food?  (except that every little bit helps)   On Send me your questions before tomorrow posted 2 years, 4 months ago 35 Responses