Comments stinkycheese has made

  • I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to have that awesome facial hair.On Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change posted 1 week ago 28 Responses
  • An issue with the tankless models is scale build-up; if you're in an area with hard water, you may want to invest in a water softener. With a solar heating system, it wouldn't be as big a concern since the solar heating loop (the piping from your water heater to the rooftop system) would be a closed-loop mixture of food-safe antifreeze and distilled water, for freeze protection. With the kids in the house, make sure that your solar contractor installs a mixing valve on the water heater tank outlet; solar can get that tank pretty hot and you don't want 140F (OK, 60C) water coming out of a faucet or showerhead!On Ask Umbra on replacing hot-water heaters posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago 21 Responses

  • The term "hybrid" refers to the fact that several sources work together to turn the car's wheels. In a Prius, the battery can propel the car, or the gas engine can propel the car. The volt is essentially an EV with a range-extending generator onboard; the gas engine just charges the batteries, and does not power the wheels directly.

    Well, that's what I'd heard anyway. Then I saw this, which apparently says you can call the volt a hybrid, albeit a "series hybrid" rather than the Prius "parallel hybrid." How embarrassing after my snarky comment! :)

    http://green.autoblog.com/2009/04/02/greenlings-what-is-a-series-hybrid-extended-range-electric-vehi/

    -sc

    On GM seeks to outdo Toyota with plug-in hybrid Chevy Volt posted 3 months, 2 weeks ago 9 Responses

  • Contrary to the headling, the Volt is not a plug-in hybrid, as is explained in... um... the above article.

    "Krebs had doubts about the fuel economy figures cited by GM, noting that 'we’re learning from various experts, like battery makers, that the figures are not realistic.'"

    These figures ARE realistic, it's just that they aren't comparable. You can get anywhere between 50mpg (if you are an idiot and never plug in your Volt) and infinity mpg (by only charging and never using the range-extending gas engine). Hopefully they have some better way to work this out by the time the Volt (and its eventual competitors) reach the market.

    On GM seeks to outdo Toyota with plug-in hybrid Chevy Volt posted 3 months, 2 weeks ago 9 Responses

  • So if households can find a way to save 2 kWh/day, they'll cover this projected increase! Awesome. I look forward to hearing Newt tell us how this 23c/day increase will destroy the American family,

    On U.S. climate bill would raise energy costs slightly, study finds posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 1 Response

  • Just as a note, the solar pool heaters are NOT eligible for the 30% tax credit, which applies to solar power and solar [domestic] water heating systems. If you're in a warm climate, solar heaters are definitely the way to go. They cost less to install than a non-solar heater, and of course their operational costs are much, much less--to operate, they just need your pump to run.

    On Ask Umbra on solar pool heaters posted 4 months ago 9 Responses

  • RMoen- That is very interesting!!! If only you had a website available where I could learn more of your personal views. You're right that the only potential solution is to form a committee... before we burden our planet with clean energy and the power of awesome. Maybe we can actually do something in 20 years or so.

    On Deniers are “full of passionate intensity”—and eating our lunch on climate bill posted 4 months, 1 week ago 16 Responses

  • Don't worry--the article's titled "the best U.S. transit systems you never knew existed." Everyone knows that Portland's #1! Still, figured that Portland would get a shout-out in the first paragraph.

    On The best U.S. transit systems you never knew existed posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 15 Responses

  • I think that one of the previous drafts didn't require that the new car have a higher MPG rating than the one it replaced. If I read it correctly, I could have traded in my 33mpg 2001 Accord for a 27mpg car and gotten a tax credit for saving the planet. So while this latest draft has obvious flaws, at least it's an improvement in that area.

    On ‘Clunkers’ debunkers attack Democrats' auto trade-in plan posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago 7 Responses

  • re: carbon cars

    archigeek:
    > Forget about carbon or graphite fiber cars
    > coming to a showroom near you anytime soon...
    > or ever.

    Just because carbon fiber F1 cars cost $1M+ doesn't mean that carbon fiber cars can't be less than $1M. Teslas are carbon fiber and while I'm not going to claim they're inexpensive, they're $100k in relatively low volume production (and of course, you're getting more than just a carbon fiber skin when you buy a Tesla). I'm not saying that CF is ready for primetime but I think it is at least possible.On Green stuff from the L.A. auto show posted 12 months ago 21 Responses

  • another great set of quotes from Caribou Barbie

    "We will encourage Americans to be part of the solution by taking steps in their everyday lives that conserve more and use less..."

    Ah, it seems like only yesterday that the McCain campaign lambasted Obama for daring to suggest that Americans should keep their tires inflated...

    "And in the end, with or without the green light from Joe the Six-Term Senator, we will make clean coal a reality."

    So serving in Congress for 36 years makes Biden bad, while McCain's 26 years makes him... awesome, apparently. And what does this "green light" comment mean? Who writes this stuff?On Palin gives first big speech on 'strategic energy independence' posted 1 year ago 4 Responses

  • kites on ships!

    For those of you who missed the memo on sails for cargo ships:
    http://www.skysails.info/index.php?id=472&L=2
    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/12/113159/502On There are simple ways to reduce cargo ship CO2 emissions right now posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

  • Re: Perpetual Motion Machine

    "Frankly, most people (especially those with a scientific background) are very skeptical, labeling it a "perpetual motion machine."

    A simple way to check these things is to remember: Energy In > Energy Out. Always. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something. If these people were onto something in 2004, the rest of us wouldn't be learning about this from a blog comment-- and these things are always at least "a year away."On 'Global warming comes from within'--Is heat at the Earth's core the real cause of global warming? posted 1 year, 1 month ago 10 Responses

  • Re: natural variation

    Borzio, this article talks about mercury poisoning and job loss and energy inefficiency in Virginia. I assume that you agree that these are all bad things. Global warming is mentioned only in passing and is not the salient point of the article. If you're going to complain about the ecological left wing media again, then you could at least answer the concerns voiced in this article along with your canned anti-AGW argument (and non-functioning links) which confuses weather with climate.On The dirty secret behind D.C.'s high-tech Virginia suburbs posted 1 year, 1 month ago 7 Responses

  • what?

    "Evil Greedy Greens, who really hope to impose their taxes on the middle class -- not solve the problem -- will be furious...because hydrogen is the natural solution!"

    Does anyone have any idea what this means? And how is hydrogen viable economically when we have only the Honda FCX and BMW 7-series "available"?On Alternative energy takes a hit as economy slumps, oil prices fall posted 1 year, 1 month ago 2 Responses

  • battery leasing

    I forget where I read this-- autobloggreen maybe-- but I believe that BMW is only leasing these out for 12 months, taking the car back at the end of that period. $850/mo, but at least they pay you back for the cost of the charging energy.On Electric Mini Cooper coming to the U.S. posted 1 year, 1 month ago 3 Responses

  • effect of a nuclear increase

    Borzio, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Architecture 2030 points out (correctly) that building McCain's 45 nuclear plants will have a marginal effect. Is your point only that by building more nuclear plants, nuclear will have a greater share of electricity generation?

    Interestingly though, if Architecture 2030's goals ARE met, then instead of seeing an increase in electrical demand, we should see that drop substantially (and consequently, nuclear will have a larger share). So really, you should be busily promoting Architecture 2030's agenda rather than complaining about their math.

    Also, I'm not sure why you feel the need to make "ecologist" a pejorative term, but I should point out that it's the minority on this site who would break into your house and take your 55" flat screen TV off to be recycled into 16 13" flat screen TVs, which would then be shared by 16 separate communes. I have a 42" LCD and don't feel especially bad about it. I'm also typing on a computer right now, instead of a pile of compost.On Architecture 2030's challenge targets would provide five times the energy as offshore and nuclear posted 1 year, 1 month ago 31 Responses

  • Losses that high, Borzio rebuttal

    Are production and transmission losses really THAT bad? Where 2/3 of the energy generated at power plants is lost before it ever reaches the customer load? I know that power production isn't 100% efficient, but that's crazy. What's holding back this efficiency, and are there any breakthroughs on the horizon in the next 20 years?)

    Also, regarding Borzio, I just spent some time on the EIA site (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity.html)
    "In the AEO2008 reference case, nuclear capacity grows from 100.2 gigawatts in 2006 to 114.9 gigawatts in 2030, including 2.7 gigawatts of expansion at existing plants, 16.6 gigawatts of new capacity, and 4.5 gigawatts of retirements."

    16.6 GW of new capacity is roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of the 45 plants that McCain is talking about.

    From the same EIA link:
    "With capacity additions and improvements in performance at existing nuclear facilities, nuclear generation also increases; however, the nuclear share of total generation falls slightly, from 19 percent in 2006 to 18 percent in 2030."

    So, even when nuclear power increases its capacity in the next 22 years, it drops in terms of its "share" of generation due to increase in electricity sales. Tripling the planned "new capacity" from 16.6GW to ~50GW means that nuclear capacity will increase by about 50%.

    Today:
    nuclear produces 19% of 3659 TWh -> ~700 TWh/yr
    with 100GW capacity

    2030:
    nuclear capacity increases by 50%, so yearly production increases to (700 * 150%) 1050 TWh/yr, which is 22% of the 4705 TWh electricity sales predicted by the EIA.

    So Borzio, where am I wrong?

    If it helps in your reply, my mom just called, complaining that she smells of elderberries. You seem to enjoy the angry ad hominems. On Architecture 2030's challenge targets would provide five times the energy as offshore and nuclear posted 1 year, 1 month ago 31 Responses

  • gahhhhhhh the oh-too-regular intermittent argument

    All in all a good article. I have to reply to BILL HANNAHAN's comment:

    "Intermittent sources won't work when we really run out of fossil fuel."

    I am so weary of hearing this argument against wind and solar. Yes, if we were to turn off our base-load power plants tomorrow, we'd have an issue. For now, we don't, and every kWh we make from wind and solar means a kWh that isn't produced from fossil fuels. I don't think you'll find a sane person on this site who is advocating that we turn off every coal and nuclear power plant tomorrow, but certainly around the time our renewable supply matches our electricity demand, we'll have energy storage mastered (and therefore, we'll have solved the problem of intermittent power production from wind, solar, wave, etc.). I'd like to see storage installed both at the power plants and on-site for customers-- we'll see how that evolves.On Wind, solar thermal, and geothermal development outpaces expectations posted 1 year, 1 month ago 14 Responses

  • of course, Bartlett just voted AGAINST 6049...

    which is a shame. I like the guy, if only for the fact that he drives a Prius and is named "Roscoe." I guess he was bitter that the House won't listen to his bill, and so he voted against 6049 with 80% of the other Republicans. Too bad this won't become law either. It's good to see the higher residential solar tax credit (though I'm biased, as I'm installing my 5.4kW system next month) and the new small wind tax credit, anyway.

    The voting record for 6049:
    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll344.xmlOn Time to focus on tax credits, not Lieberman-Warner posted 1 year, 6 months ago 2 Responses

  • surprise!

    Hey! A comment from jabailo!

    FYI, the discovery of a new oil field does not make oil an infinite resource, nor does it disprove the fact that we should move on from an oil-based economy. Quoting someone doesn't make it a fact.On Prius sales top one million posted 1 year, 6 months ago 14 Responses

  • Well done!

    This is a great article. Grevangelical, great reply to Jonas's concerns. Jonas, I think it's a bit haughty to denounce Grist for not being "socially minded," without suggesting any alternative ideas. Repealing the gas tax (which I guess is what you're suggesting by posting here) is not going to have a major effect (a maximum of 4%, probably offset by the increased demand driving prices higher) on prices at the pump or food...On Unlike McCain and Clinton, Obama would have us capitulate to Gas Price Terror posted 1 year, 7 months ago 16 Responses

  • looks good!

    And for what it's worth, I bookmarked it as "Original Cinn Chili."On While food prices rise, here's a stick-to-your-ribs pasta dish that won't cause sticker shock posted 1 year, 7 months ago 14 Responses

  • problem with delaying

    Max wrote:
    "That is why I believe being a "delayer" may not be such a bad idea, after all. Let's get all the facts before we rush into action."

    Something that has never been explained to me is, even if you ignore the impacts associated global warming, why shouldn't we be stopping pollution? I'm not going to put on my tin foil hat and try to get all our fossil fuel power plants turned off tomorrow, but why shouldn't we be trying to move past the internal combustion engine and coal-fired power plants? "Maybe global warming is fake!" is too often used as a poor straw man to avoid talking about cutting pollution. Meanwhile, the Model T got the same mileage as my fiancee's 2001 Ford Focus, but hey, why innovate? Let's just stick with archaic technology, because obviously a high-pollution economy is preferable in every way to a lower-pollution economy. The more carbon monoxide, sulfur, and mercury we release in to the environment, the better off everyone becomes!On Why did Nature run Pielke's pointless, misleading, embarrassing nonsense? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 17 Responses