Comments nycowboy has made

  • re: soy concern, low on the food chain still h

    Regardless all forms of pollution are not equal for the environment's ability to sustain it. A 20-cattle head grazing operation on 50 non-brittle acres back east, probably has minimal environmental impacts.

    Pollution is a problem with the overuse of land, where more resources are taken from a parcel of land then are put back. While maybe your own 50 acres won't fix the world's woes, they don't necessarily have to make it worst either.On Umbra on homegrown meat posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 33 Responses

  • Low-Fat Cars

    The problem with energy efficiency is it's too often like a severely obese person stuffing his or her face full of low-fat Twinkies in an effort to lose weight.

    It doesn't work.

    A lot of the reason why the automakers are broke is because we've been forcing them to sell cars that the public doesn't want, and moreover aren't profitable to sell.

    While Toyota was marketing it's Prisus to keep the politicians happy, it was revving up production of a mid-size pickup, the Toyota Tacoma and making it's Toyota Tundra bigger. Toyota saves face, while bigger portions of it's profit come from bigger cars.

    I like my Ford Ranger, and I'm actually going to buy a bigger truck next year. I impressed my friends when I pointed out my Ranger cost only $10 a week to fill up -- when gas was $4.25 -- because I only drive about 50 miles a week -- all up to state forest, to go camping, to my parents farm, or a few small trips around town. Big cars with big engines are fun to drive.

    The only way we are going to reduce energy consumption is to drive less. To invest more in mass transit. I ride city buses about 80 miles a week, and it's a wonderful relaxing experience. Snow is so delightful when you don't drive.

    Cars should be for fun, not commuting.

    The global warming problem is an "urban problem". It's largely the fault of the people who live in New York City, Los Angles, Chicago, and Houston, who have no reason to be commuting in private automobiles. Mass transit works well in populated areas. If those cities halved their car millage driven in a year, greenhouse gases emissions from cars would be reduced by at least 25%. On Bob Lutz: Fuel-efficient cars, like global warming, a crock of sh*t posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 7 Responses

  • Energy Conservation

    I always hear about this wondrous technologies that have technical problems and energy efficiency, but rarely about energy conservation (the act of driving less).

    There is nothing wrong with improving the efficiency of automobiles, but that's a lower priority then decreasing their use. Investing in mass transit is a far lower cost then investing in some moonshot for cars that probably will never work.  On Carmakers hope to head off lithium shortages posted 1 year ago 3 Responses

  • Other Reasons to Save Domestic Auto Manufacturers

    • American made cars are made with environmental standards. Foreign made cars are often made significantly in the third world, even if they are assembled in America to avoid tariffs. That means that factories don't have to necessarily have any kind of emissions control or take pollution abatement.

    • American car companies, and the UAW pay their workers well and take care of them. Well paid workers have more money to contribute to the local economy, more money to spend on local/sustainable pursuits, and more time for outdoor recreation. Marginal people making marginal pay for hard labor don't have the time or money for environmental pursuits.
    On Because small fixes make the biggest difference posted 1 year ago 12 Responses

  • Sure Why Not

    I don't care if Supermarket X knows I shop at Supermarket Y and bring a bag from other places. I do it all the time. I'm not classy or anything. My Hannaford cloth bag goes to Walmart, JC Pennies, and Price Chopper. Nobody's kicked me out yet, regardless of my cowboy mannerisms.

    Stay away from cheap reusable bags like the lightweight polypropylene reusables. They probably will end up be ripped or otherwise. Real cloth bags are only little more expensive, especially if you get them printed with some store logo.

    Occasionally, I will get disposable plastic bags when I forget my bag, or buy more then I have bag space for. I save those bags, and almost always use them for the occasional trash bag or when camping. It's nice to just be able to burn 'em when they get dirty. On Reusable shopping bags not so green if you don't use 'em posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 Responses

  • What's Wrong with Information?

    I can understand that it's a bad idea to buy a tire solely on fuel-efficiency, but why not provide that information with others like how long the tire lasts (on average), how well it holds up under panic stops, it's traction off-road in mud and snow, and so forth.

    The demands of the die-hard off-roader or the person who lives in the mountains with a 4x4 truck is going to be different then the daily commuter. One is going to want an more aggressive tread, and probably won't care much about the trade-off. The commuter, in Florida, most likely only will care about the longevity of the tire, and the fuel efficiency.

    We are grown ups. We can use information responsibly.On Our right to know about fuel-efficient tires posted 1 year, 3 months ago 4 Responses

  • Less Toxic

    The reality is that corn-based forks are less toxic to the environment and use less toxic chemicals to manufacture and dispose.

    It doesn't matter if a corn-based plastic or paper-board container is landfilled, incinerated, composted, or burned in a backyard burning barrel.

    The reality is less toxins are produced regardless of disposal method. Landfills leak toxins, even good incinerators send them up the stack.

    Which would you rather be next to? A bonfire with styrofoam containers and plastic forks, or one with paperboard?On Corn utensils not helpful without widespread public composting posted 1 year, 5 months ago 12 Responses

  • Best Solution: Ban Cars

    I don't see why people need to have cars, particularly in urbanized areas. As prices continue to go up, the fair and reasonable solution would be to ban all private automobiles in all cities, all villages, and towns with population greater then 20,000 people.

    All cars are dirty and polluting -- even hybrids. We know all cars, even the newest ones, spew out carcinogens, and accidents in private automobiles in are one of the leading causes of death. Cities are not friendly places to be from the noxious odors of cars and the dangers of crossing streets.

    I have no problems with rural people owning cars. More power to them -- if they want to own 10 MPG cars, then so be it. But there are too many cars in our major urbanized areas, that need not exist.On But soon we will be mad for $6-7 gas posted 1 year, 6 months ago 6 Responses

  • Better Solution: Conservation

    I am oppose to any outright ban on coal for new power plants. That would only push us to:

    1. Keep using dirty old plants to meet daily load, keeping levels of SO2 and NOx high, plus much higher levels of CO2 per kW/h.

    2. Dangerous technologies such as nuclear or carbon sequestration.

    Better ideas include banning all electricity intensive uses and forcing users to use more efficient technologies such as co-generation. In particular the following use of electricity should be banned:

    1. Electric Heat (use muni steam or private gas/oil heat)
    2. Electric hot water (use muni steam or private gas/oil heat)
    3. Air conditioning (buy back all privately owned air conditioners, recycle freon, replace with municipal steam or private gas/oil and absorption coolers)

    Doing those four things, we could cut the grid by at least 1/5 and probably reduce our fossil fuel dependency by a 1/4.

    Create a smart grid that avoids such high power peaks that force the dirtest plants online -- the same plants with the highest CO2 emissions.On Preventing dirty coal plants is the most urgent climate policy posted 1 year, 6 months ago 7 Responses

  • Offsetting Coal

    This plant will generate no more carbon dioxide then existing plants, if there is no demand for power. Coal plants go up and down, and can change their coal burning rate, based on demand.

    If this coal plant is more efficient (therefore cheaper to run) then existing coal plants, then it will offset other coal plants that already on the grid.

    Coal plants don't create carbon dioxide. The demand for and production of electricity does. If nobody wants electricity, or if all the demand is fulfilled by wind power, then Big Stone I and II will simply sit idle, releasing no emissions at all.On Legislators protest Gates family's stake in Big Stone II posted 1 year, 6 months ago 9 Responses

  • Friedman

    When I read the first few chapters of Friedman's The World is Flat I was concerned about what he said -- he often over-emphasizes technology and information over reality. But then I read more and got a different impression.

    Localism makes a lot of sense for heavy materials that we consume a lot of in our society. It's insane to move heavy and low value things like rocks, fluids like milk, food like vegetables, and even worst beef cattle and large livestock, and energy (oil, coal, and electricity), steel building materials, far across the world. That takes a lot of energy and is expensive now. It will be even worst in the future as energy gets expensive.

    Globalism makes a lot of sense for rare, but compact materials that exist in only one part of the world or can only be made with very capital intensive equipment. Electronics comes to mind. High-tech equipment can only be made in very specialized factories, and it requires very specialized materials.

    Globalism, even in era of extremely high oil prices makes sense for service-based economy. If the work can be digitized, it doesn't take too much more oil to move the information to China or India then it does to move the information down the street. In other words, little more energy is consumed to have your taxes, bookkeeping, or call center done online across the street or China.

    Friedman makes another important point in his book. The Chinese and Indians, are going to be adopting the American lifestyle in massively growing numbers. There is no way to stop it -- if we do it, they are going to want to do it -- and with their new found wealth, will do it.

    Within the next decade 100 or 200 million Chinese will be hoping in their SUVs and driving to suburban office park. There is no stopping this fact, and it's going to strain oil supplies to greatest extent ever known to man. It's going to force oil prices up dramatically, and force the Chinese and Indians to implement the world's toughest environmental laws to make their world somewhat livable (because they will have world's biggest pollution problem on their hands -- far worst then today).

    The Chinese and Indians will have to use energy much more efficiently then Americans ever had to in the past, but the sheer population will create world-wide problems like never before seen.
    On An interview with The 'Stache pre-pie-in-the-face posted 1 year, 7 months ago 15 Responses

  • Economics

    I doubt estimates that show energy consumption will double in the next 50 years. Higher prices will price people out of the market or otherwise force conservation.

    Poor field hands in China aren't going to be able to afford $4/gallon gas nor will Americans be able to afford $10/gallon gas and drive as many miles as they currently do. $10 a therm natural gas will promote dramatically better insulation, and people keeping their heat much lower. $1/KwH electricity, likewise will cut down on demand, dramatically.

    High prices are the future if too many people demand energy. Price is driven by demand. That's why coal used to be so cheap -- nobody really wanted to coal as it was difficult to burn cleanly, and difficult to transport. Oil and natural gas became the preferred fuel in the second half of the 20th future for that reason.

    High prices are a natural check on consumption. The world money supply is not limitless, much less any individual. People will only consume as much energy as they can afford -- if they consume more, then they will rapidly run out of credit, and the lights will go dark.On What is the impact of peak oil and peak coal? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 10 Responses

  • Not That Dirty

    While I have to say I have a distaste for building new coal plants, I tend to believe that in some cases they make sense. The impact of coal is far lower then nuclear power, and it does provide an inexpensive alternative to building new nuclear power when massive amounts of base load power is needed.

    Personally, I wish those plants would stay with oil or natural gas, as it's cleaner then coal. Yet, I'd much rather see new clean coal technology, rather then old coal dirty coal plants providing electricity, or even dirty plants using other fossil fuels.

    While the clean coal plants put out more greenhouses gases then the alternative, the reality is they are much cleaner then the alternative of old coal technology.On E.U. plows ahead with coal posted 1 year, 7 months ago 6 Responses

  • Benefit of Urban Parks?

    I am currently reading Jane Jacob's the Death and Life of Great American Cities. She seems to make a pretty compelling argument against urban parks, arguing that they are little more then grounds for muggings and perverts.

    Green spots look pretty. But how much do they benefit urban life compared to building traditional communities?On Big urban parks sprouting across the U.S. posted 1 year, 7 months ago 5 Responses

  • Corn Ethanol

    The reality is that even corn-based ethanol is a good thing -- something that the report ignores. Ethanol as an oxygent in fuel, is vastly environmentally superior to MTBE and to a lesser extent other alykalides made from oil.

    I'm all for using more corn ethanol and moving our infrastructure to that rather then petrochemicals. The dangers and pollution from distilling corn are far less then that from conventional crudes, particularly now that we are refining dirtier crudes higher in sulfur.

    Ethanol distilling produces lots of volatile organic compounds and toxins. But so does crude oil -- oil refineries are still much bigger polluters then ethanol plants.

    Climate change is something to be concerned with, but it should not be viewed isolation. There are many pollutants we also should be concerned with besides carbon dioxide, which we all breathe out.

    Not to mention, higher land prices, make agriculture more profitable, and competitive against suburban sprawl. This study apparently does not discuss this.

    Nor does it discuss the impact of higher corn prices on cattle farmers. The now look more towards management intensive grazing and increasing the percentage of feed rations to more competitive hay bailage rather then corn and silage.

    Cows which eat more bailage in their feed ration produce less methane, and their manure is less acidic and drier, which discourages methane. Not to mention it's a lot healthier to both the stock and the people who eating food from the stock or crops manured with it (as there are less pathogens).On Biofuels not helpful in climate-change fight, new studies say posted 1 year, 9 months ago 28 Responses

  • Walmart

    If your shopping at Price Chopper, Hannaford, K-Mart, Agway or Tractor Supply Company, then your no more virtuous then those who shop at Walmart.

    There are no, and have not been local stores, that sell the kind of products that Walmart has sold in the greater Albany, NY-area in the past thirty years. Big box stores like Ames, K-Mart, Woolsworths and Sears killed those stores decades ago.

    Walmart just reflects a bigger and better version of K-Mart. They sell what K-Mart use to sell at a higher price. K-Mart isn't some wonderful local store either.

    My hat's off to Walmart for their work greening up their stores. While they will never be a sustainable industry in the long-run, their practices are better then their competitors like K-Mart and Sears.On Don't let Wal-Mart's greenish diversions distract you posted 1 year, 9 months ago 9 Responses

  • Good News

    I'm all for new coal plants -- if:

    1. They replace older, dirtier, coal plants. The current mercury and sulfur dioxide emissions are a national disgrace.

    2. They produce more electricity per unit of coal burned then existing old plants, reducing our carbon footprint.

    If you can't get a glass completely full, it's better to half full then totally empty.On Duke Energy will build likely its last coal plant in North Carolina posted 1 year, 10 months ago 7 Responses

  • BPA vs. Other Dangers

    There is little question that BPA (or even the scarier sounding doixin) is nasty stuff much like so much of the chemicals that underpin our society. It's killing us and doing all kinds of other horrible things we don't understand.

    But let's be realistic on what the impact of BPA is compared to all the other dangers we face everyday -- like getting hit by random gunfire or being run over by a bus on the way home from work.

    What we should be concerned with is real threats in our environment. Things like global warming, acid rain, suburban sprawl, or even known and dammed killer likes smoking, asbestos working in closed spaces without protection, smog, and leaded gasoline.

    I've many time reused old Gatorade bottles, sometimes with hot coffee (once even melting the bottle -- oops), and have yet to die. I've breathed in smoke from burning trash with PVC in it, and yet I still feel pretty good.

    I'm not saying we should not care about BPA. But if the government says it's safe, and around everywheres, there's not much we can do about besides lobbying government to take a second look at it.On Hot liquid increases toxic leaching from plastic bottles, says study posted 1 year, 10 months ago 9 Responses

  • Save It

    Probably the best thing you can do for both the environment and for yourself, is to take any money you may get from the government rebate checks, and stick it in an interesting bearing savings account.

    Why? It's tempting to spend it on frivolous things, that we'll throw away in a couple of days. But besides that, your just wasting your money on something that gives you temporary euphoria.

    Of course, that's not what the rich want us to do to stimulate their economy. Conspicuous consumption makes the rich richer, everyone else poorer.

    When you have enough money to spend the money on something durable and an investment in your future, then spend it.On Put your economic stimulus stipend to green use posted 1 year, 10 months ago 8 Responses

  • High Standards

    Part of the problem is people's standards for electricity are so unattainably high. Everybody uses so much electricity, and always wants it on. 35 years ago -- in the early 1970s it was not uncommon to have regular brown outs in New York City on hot summer days. Now they are extremely rare even on the hottest days.

    There also was little to no pollution controls on power plants in the early 1970s. People still had no idea on how to control nitrogen oxides from power plants in that era, and sulfur emission control was still pretty limited.

    There is no question that we could make the kind of change we made in the 1970s and 1980s with both emissions and reliability if we put some effort and money into it. How dirty are major cities where in the early 1970s (we still used PCBs, lead, and asbestos everywhere then) compared to now -- which is truly amazing.

    Does anybody even remember how the skeptics said the Clean Air Act of 1970 would bankrupt the country and be impossible to implement? Or that it would be impossible to lead out of gasoline, or DDT off the fields?

    I think if we compare 1970 to 1990s, and the progress we made, there is a lot of hope for a clean energy and conservation in our country.On The widening war between activists and coal posted 1 year, 10 months ago 10 Responses

  • Lousey Judges

    The problem is the quality of judges in these cases. Any judge who was not in the hand of corporate interests and beholden to through a right-wing property rights ideology, would have long through out these cases?

    Can you imagine the Supreme Court of the 1960s or 1970s upholding these cases?

    Clearly, where there where cases of signed and infringed patents, then there should be punishment. But aren't many of these cases excessive? Understandably, these amounts are usually significantly reduced after the judgment, but still.On Monsanto's latest court triumph cloaks massive market power posted 1 year, 10 months ago 18 Responses

  • Modernize Your Home

    Why are you using electric heat? How expensive would be to install a conventional oil burner or natural gas plus some extra insulation over the long run?

    Maybe the state simply needs to underwrite more low-cost energy efficiency loans to low-income homeowners, through floating state bonds and reselling them to homeowners at a subsidized rate for periods of 10-30 years. On The poverty of fossil fuels becomes apparent posted 1 year, 11 months ago 9 Responses

  • Re-thinking Energy

    The NYS Office of General Services has a pyramid that describes it's priorities for energy use in an era of climate change.

    While I can't draw it here, imagine a diagram of pyramid like the food pyramid. On top (smallest part) is renewable energy, followed by energy efficiency, then on the broadest part energy conservation.

    Energy conservation needs to be our priority -- telling people to turn down the heat, turn off unneeded lights, to drive less and use more mass transit, and not to leave appliances like televisions and computers turned on and plugged in when unused.

    Energy efficiency is a secondary priority. Government needs to force manufactures to sell only the most efficient equipment. We need standards and more research on this behalf.

    Then renewable energy -- the smallest part of the equation needs to be promoted most. It's like the fats and oils in the food pyramid -- it's the good stuff we really like, but should be used sparingly to power our lifestyles.

    In my apartment, a one bedroom with two floors, I use an average of 1.9 KWh a day. That's more then 1/10th the average New York home (which is about 20Kwh a day). I have electric hot-water and supplemental electric heat (not my choice!), but I always turn off the power strip to the laptop, and I don't have any incandescent bulbs or a televison.

    The previous renter in the apartment used 2-3x more electricity then I use in a day -- simply because I have less electronics, use more efficient lighting, and most importantly turn off things when I leave the room. I also pay the 1.3 cents per killowatt hour for wind/microhydro energy.On New developments in solar power make 'clean coal' look even dumber posted 1 year, 11 months ago 35 Responses

  • Banning Elemental Mercury Nice, What About Coal?

    Norway has a very small coal reserves, but they use them like most other countries. It's great to be concerned about elemental mercury, but when your burning a fuel with significant amounts of this element in this you have to wonder if it's a somewhat futile effort.

    Also: I have to wonder what this ban will do to effect electronics that rely on mercury for their existence like mercury vapor lamps and florescent lighting? On Norway will ban mercury posted 1 year, 11 months ago 3 Responses

  • Feed Rations

    The article didn't say what percent of feed ration was distiller grains. I don't think there is much evidence at a 5% or less distilled grain ration would have much of an effect on a cow's health.

    Some farmers are using up 10% or more. That's more troublesome, as distilled grain at those levels has well documented problems, much like feeding too much corn (or particularly alfalpha) to cows does.

    There are many farms that have been using small rations of distiller's grain, near breweries for decades without problems. It's likely that some people are overusing distiller's grain because it so available and so cheap (brewers will pay you take it away rather then have to landfill it).On Feeding ethanol waste to cows posted 1 year, 11 months ago 18 Responses

  • No to Nukes

    I'm totally against using nukes for power. They are just too dangerous, too risky, and have too long term potential risks.

    Coal in contrast is relatively safe. Global warming's impact on the planet will be relatively minor compared to even the results of one nuclear meltdown -- see Chernobyl.

    In the near term, I'm for keeping coal (without CARBON SEQUESTRATION) as the base source of power in our electric grid, with using renewables and conservation as the primary way to address increasing demand for energy.

    Farther on, as renewables become better embraced, then we can start shutting down both nuclear and coal plants. Oil and natural gas, combined with several massive new pump-storage plants can provide peak energy in that future, with eventually a massive network of renewables, partially decenteralized and owned by homeonwers.On A strong and realistic energy policy is not dependent on any one fuel, technology, or supplier posted 2 years ago 22 Responses

  • Let 'em Invest

    Everybody knows that Google and the entire internet is overwhelmingly powered by cheap, dirty coal. It's only going to take more energy in the future to expand the internet to keep up for future demand, so it's encouraging to see Google try to make greener choices.

    I'd love to see Google get somewheres with this project. Some of the money they spend will go for good things, plus it's great P.R. for the company.

    Local is nice, but the internet by it's very nature is not local. But maybe local energy sources can power increasing parts of the internet.On Google funds R&D to make clean energy cheaper than coal posted 2 years ago 6 Responses

  • I Disagree

    In contrast, I believe the Bush administration standards where quite aggressive.

    On average, the Bush standards would require medium duty full-size trucks and SUVs to be about 24% more efficient by 2011 then they currently are.

    (Full-size truck 16.1 MPG * .24 = 21.8 MPG)
    (Small SUV) 21.28 MPG * .24 = 28.4 MPG)

    24% is a meaningful goal. But the way MPG is measured and averaged, it actually distorted the number down from what would actually be saved in fuel.

    See:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005 ...

    and

    http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_7479269?nclick_che ...
    On Bush administration's fuel-economy regs for bigger vehicles smacked down posted 2 years ago 4 Responses

  • Re: Coal can not be clean

    I agree with that.

    But I'd rather have a cleaner coal plant burning coal then a dirtier one. It's better to capturing and landfilling that crap then it is to be breathing it, killing our trees it, and making our cities covered with haze.

    The future of energy needs to be in renewables. But we need to clean up existing plants, until we can fully phase them out.On Expensive coal + hydrogen = ? posted 2 years ago 5 Responses

  • Great

    I think these are great measures of progress on the behalf of Walmart. When you make little changes at this scale, they can have a big impact on society as a whole.

    As for the unsustainably of the Walmart model, there is no question on that. But right now, that's how much of our society is based around, and Walmart makes can make positive choices.

    If not Walmart then who -- Agway, K-Mart, Sears, Target, Tractor Supply Co ?

    Compared to many smaller companies and institutions, Walmart has the ability to do things with a lower-per-sale footprint, by their sheer size and efficiency. Simply said, Walmart can move product with less waste or energy consumed then similar businesses that are smaller.On Wal-Mart releases its first "sustainability report" posted 2 years ago 3 Responses

  • Re: Electric Cars are Just a Bad Idea

    I tend to agree.

    There really is no need for cars to be allowed in most cities, particularly with those with population exceeding 20,000 people or so. A good transit system could service people better, particularly if transit is not fighting against cars.

    I'm not against driving or cars. There is nothing to beat the freedom of having an automobile driving in the countryside. But as we all know, very few automobiles are used for driving on open highways at 55 MPH. Most cars are used to transport people around cities, suburbs, and other urbanized areas in stop-and-go traffic.

    A 10 MPG pickup truck uses less fuel driven 1,000 miles a year then does a Prisus driven 12,000 miles a year. Remember that.

    Our country in the near term needs more Park 'N Ride services with cheap, reliable, and frequent bus services to our downtown. Then the car becomes mostly a luxury -- a fun toy -- rather a polluting neccesity. On Automakers debate skipping directly to full-electric cars posted 2 years, 1 month ago 18 Responses

  • No to Nukes

    There are some people who do believe
    strongly in nuclear power -- and that if we turn to that --
    we can continue to live our lives as we currently do without
    change. They note the lack of smoke stacks on nuclear
    plants, and argue that because there are no direct emissions
    that it must be a clean fuel without carbon dioxide.

    In contrast, my vision is to within the next two decades to
    re-power all fossil fuel power plants and use renewable
    sources, new pump storage, and increased conservation to
    meet our growing energy demands and reduce carbon emissions.
    Simply replacing an existing oil or coal plant with a more
    modern oil or coal plant of the same size, with reduce
    carbon dioxide emissions significantly (10% or more), as we
    can burn oil or coal more efficiently and cleaner. Reducing
    acid rain and smog-producing chemicals in many ways is even
    more important then global warming -- acid rain kills trees,
    defiles buildings, and smog kills people now.

    Clean coal is another technology worth investing in,
    particularly to replace older plants. Coal will always be a
    major emitter of carbon dioxide and it's extraction from the
    landscape will lead to blight and massive piles of coal ash.
    But we can burn and process it in the right way. Replacing
    old coal plants that are terribly dirty with new plants that
    consume a similar amount of coal will cut carbon emissions
    up to 20% and hazardous ones far more compared to plants
    built in the 1960s and 1970s. Despite what our President may
    say -- it's not an ideal technology, but for replacing our
    existing infrastructure it's an much needed upgrade.

    Then there is renewable sources and pump storage -- both go
    hand and hand. There is no question that we need more pump
    storage now, as our dirtiest and most inefficient plants
    across the nation often serve the purpose of providing extra
    power in a crunch (new plants are 75%-80% efficient at
    stored energy).  There are only 25 pump storage plants in
    our country, but there is no reason why we could we build 3
    or 4 times that number with minimal impact. Siting is an
    issue, as witnessed by the proposed 2-gigawatt Storm King
    Pump Storage. That was a great project, that would have done
    much to help reduce pollution in New York City and cut
    carbon emissions, but it would have been very ugly, and
    dumping turbid water directly in the Hudson would have put
    the river's fisheries at risk.

    Renewables tend to be on-off sources that are less then
    reliable. But we need far more of them, combined with pump
    storage to store electricity based on demand. There is also
    a need for new power lines to move power efficiently across
    our country to places that need it. That's why I've been a
    strong supporter of the NYRI, although I believe that parts
    need to be re-routed to address community concerns. New York
    City needs more electricity, and we have an excess of it in
    CNY/WNY especially with new wind capacity and other sources
    coming online. Likewise, we need a government that can get
    renewable energy projects like Wind Farms sited in
    reasonable places, without NIMBYs being able to derail it.
    The fact that Vermont's moron for a governor, carpet-bagger
    Jim Douglas has been so successful at derailing renewable
    energy in that state is evidence of a need for stronger
    sitting laws on the national and state levels.On Rudy Giuliani's stance on climate and energy posted 2 years, 1 month ago 4 Responses

  • Great News

    Great News.

    Policies like this will move our country forward. For small applications like individual houses, it's clear that microhydro and solar will work well. For larger applications, there is co-generation, that can create heat and electric, by burning fossil fuels efficently on site, rather then wasting so much energy as convention systems currently do.

    I would hope that this proposal would include more in investment in pump storage. That's a technology, whose use will have to grow as we use more renewable sources of energy. Done right, it's environmental impact can be done minimally (and be largely self-contained), done wrong, it can destroy whole ecosystems (like the proposed Storm King Project that would dump directly in the Hudson River).On New energy proposal in California posted 2 years, 1 month ago 3 Responses

  • Mass transit

    Traffic can be fustrating -- but it's largely the fault of the misue of the automobile. Commuting, particularly urban commuting, is a terrible misuse of resource and a waste of time for people.

    I live in a very rural area in which I drive about 12 miles to catch a bus to downtown Albany. I never sit in traffic in my truck as there are no traffic lights between where I go to catch the bus into the city. The bus takes me remaining 10 miles -- for a dollar -- into the city.

    This saves on parking and gasoline. Most importantly though it saves my sanity as I don't have to drive in traffic. I don't know how anybody can stand to do that on a daily basis. On the bus, I sit back, read email on the laptop, surf the internet (where I get WiFi), or look at the day's newspaper. I can never do any of those things while driving.

    If anything our country needs is better mass transit, particularly connections from rural/suburban areas to urban areas. This transit needs to be reliable, show up at scheduled times, have buses or vechicles that don't regularly break down on superhighways, and are clean and friendly.

    Unfortunately for most people mass transit is inconvient, and buses are dirty and unreliable. Many buses, at least those on city routes, are filled with dangerous criminals. At the same time, People need to be educated how cheap mass transit is compared to car commuting -- be it gasoline, repairs, or inconvience of driving.

    Cars should be a fun luxury, not a neccessity of life. People should hop in their cars on the weekends, and have enough money in their pockets to go to fun and enjoyable places, That money should not be going up tailpipes, as people grind up their clutches in the daily grind. On How much does congestion affect society? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 4 Responses

  • CCS, CTL, and Priorities

    If anything in the coal industry needs more research, and actual implementation it's IGCC. I have serious reservations about building dozens of massive new coal plants, but IGCC does make sense for replacing older, much dirter, and polluting coal plants.

    I don't know if carbon sequestration will ever work. But I do know that sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury produced from older coal plants are still having a significant impact on our environment -- right now. Old school pollutants like these aren't as sexy as global warming, but they are having a far greater impact on our environment then global warming will have in the foreseeable future.

    An important point made at the hearing is coal to liquid will screw up the entire coal market (to say nothing of then environmental impact from dramatically increased coal mining, processing residue and the conversion problem). Coal prices in a large part are depressed by the limited use of coal for energy.

    Right now, coal use is largely limited to a limited number a power and industrial plants. Start turning coal into auto fuel and demand will expand explosively if it's competitive to gasoline in price. There simply is a limited number of coal mines in our country, and limits to how fast we can get it out of our ground.

    Not to mention we only have a limited amount of accessable coal in the ground, that it affordable to mine and in places where we feel it's appropiate to blow up the mountains and remove the coal. Burn that coal in our 1986 Plymouth Sundances and 2009 volkwagon Toureugs, and there won't be the coal there to keep the lights on -- or it will cause massive inflation on electric prices.

    If anything our priorities in our country when it comes to energy we should be:

    1. Looking towards diversifying our energy profile, particularly by adding more renewable sources.
    2. Ensuring fair pricing of existing energy sources, especially as certain fuel sources start to run up against their limits on consumption.
    3. Assist communities in building compact, pleasant, sustainable, and livable communities.
    4. Replacing old coal plants with newer coal plants that consume less coal, produce much lower toxic emissions, and less carbon dioxide.
    5. Reject attempts to defile scared lands and places simply to reduce the cost of energy in short-time.
    6. Improve efficency in all ways possible in our society.
    On Coal industry asks for still more handouts, and Washington lends an ear posted 2 years, 2 months ago 6 Responses

  • Renewable, Then Natural Gas

    Large scale energy creation and distribution is increadibly wasteful of energy and pollution creating regardless of how you generate it. Electric lines have all kinds of resistance wastage in the form of heat. Electric lines may consume as much of 40% of the actual power delivered.

    To say nothing of the fact that as you consume more electricity, more electricity has to be generated by burning coal, oil, or natural gas at other plants. Extra hydro or wind power can always be sent down the line or stored by pump storage until needed, but if you consume the extra electric now, the difference has to be made up by dirter (and more costly to run) power plants.

    Look at adding to the natural gas boiler as many renewable and efficency choices as possible. Add more insultation to your house -- in the attic is an easy one. Look towards solar water heaters, planting trees around your house, building a burm around your house, etc.

    Also consider wood if your in a rural area and can "grow" part of your energy source. While wood can produce a lot of particulate and other toxins, along with a substanial amount of global warming gases per heating unit (about 20x more carbon dioxide then natural gas when burned in a home woodstove), if your harvesting wood locally, it comes from a renewable source that will be a net carbon dioxide sink.

    At my house we burn wood + an older dirty oil burner. By burning just a single cord of wood per year in our woodstove in the living room, we cut our oil consumption by about 40%. This cord of wood is produced by a healty and mature acre of forested land, from dead and down wood (not cutting down live trees). This forest consumes far more carbon dioxide in a year then we release by burning the dead and down branches/trees.On Umbra on replacing a boiler posted 2 years, 3 months ago 7 Responses

  • CAFE Standards Not the Answer

    CAFE standards do not work and are not a good way to produce fuel economy. In contrast, creating a system like the President proposes -- having tiered fuel economy standards based on vehicle size makes much more sense.

    We want to promote innovation in Detroit and across the car manufacturing sector. We want cars that do more with less fuel, not force people to buy smaller cars or SUV plants to close.

    If people choose to buy SUVs then that is their choice. We as a society should make sure those SUVs are as fuel efficient as possible through mandating all vehicles in that class reach a certain standard for efficiency.

    In addition, efficency improvements should fair for every vechicle. If we set a 2% per year fuel efficiency increase target starting in 2010 (that's doable with some work and pushing technology to its limits), then:

    • 17.5 MPG Silverado pickup will get 20.5 MPG in 2020

    • 31 MPG Impala sedan will get 37.2 MPG in 2020

    • 60 MPG Prisus will get 72 MPG in 2020

    That's fair, doable, and means a 20% increase in fuel economy.

    The important thing here is that we use less fuel, and that we allow consumers to choose what they want. It's not fair that people with big pickup trucks should be forced to tougher standards then the rest of us.

    See http://nycowboy.org/fodder/country/0706fuel.htmlOn Do higher MPG cars mean fewer jobs? posted 2 years, 4 months ago 22 Responses

  • Passionately Disagree

    Biofuels have a real future, despite the fact that some radicals in the environmental community. They can help supplement existing fossil fuel resources, and in many cases they do burn cleaner without the sulfur and other toxic but useless chemicals in oil.

    We will probably be using planes and driving around in cars and trucks for our foreseeable future. We should take practical steps like investing in biofuels, and improving efficiency in all types of vehicles.

    Global warming is a concern as is the future of our oil supply. But neither is going to happen tomorrow, and the effects of both problems are very much overplayed in the media.

    We can't continue to expand our use of fossil fuels like we are currently doing, particularly in the far east, but where we currently are is a decent place to be. Control and limits on growth are the keystone to a good environmental policy, but we can't turn back the clock or get into panic mode.

    Panicking over energy, and insisting we drop our carbon dioxide emissions now dramatically is only going to force us into dangerous technologies like nuclear that will have serious effects on our world in the future.

    We can do better with energy consumption right now with practical steps -- like using technology and building smart cities.On Biofuels scam at 12 o'clock high! posted 2 years, 7 months ago 20 Responses

  • Depends on Where Your Shower Water Goes

    I know in my older house the shower water goes down a seperate pipe, straight out to the back from the field where it runs out about 150 feet from the nearest stream. The toilets go to a regular leach field/septic system.

    So I'm not sure if it's the best idea at least here to be pissing in the shower, where the water isn't getting any treatment before being discharged back into the environment.

    I'm sure this is different in houses build after the mid-1950s.On Umbra on peeing in the shower posted 2 years, 8 months ago 18 Responses