Ways to solve global warming by SignyM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Sadly, Kwicko, because the Tesla still has kinks, AuRaptor does not consider electric cars a viable technology for the remainder of this century.

A judgment we may all be glad was not made of petrol cars in 1909.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Well, there IS *some* validity to what he said - for now, for automotive applications, petrochemicals DO seem to have the energy-storage edge. That's not to say that rapid advances aren't being made and shouldn't be pursued, but we aren't quite there yet.

The Tesla Roadster is a marvelous example of how far we've come - but also of how far we have yet to go. Yes, it beat the Lotus Elise (itself one of the very best-handling road cars on Earth) on a short, twisty road course - and for fun, look up the Elise-versus-Corvette tests on the same course, where the Elise hands the Z06 Corvette its ass). But - and here's the important part - it also ran out of juice after less than an hour of being flogged on high-performance (read "battery draining") runs.

So it's fast, WHEN it's charged up. If you drive it fast, its range is not even anywhere CLOSE to 250 miles - more like less than 50. That's where electrics are still being let down; there's too big a disparity between your mileage depending on how you drive. My CRX, for instance, if I flog the living shit out of the car for a full tank, all city driving with the A/C on, and flooring it off every stop, I can *maybe* get the mileage down to around 20mpg. If I soft-pedal it on the highway, I can push it above 46mpg. So worst case, my mileage is a little less than half what my best-case mileage would be. The Tesla as it sits is more like one-fourth to one-fifth.

But it's still a huge leap forward, and something that should absolutely be encouraged. There are faster batteries coming out that will charge MUCH quicker, and storage capacity and speed are moving ahead quite rapidly. It won't be more than a few years before pure electrics can finally stand toe-to-toe with gas-powered cars.

Mike

just lying smiling in the dark
shooting stars around your heart
dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple everytime
now you're crying in your sleep
i wish you'd never learnt to weep
don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple everytime

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 5:43 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

That's why my dream car is ethanol / reformer / fuel cell / direct electric drive.

Ethanol is a good fuel because it can be derived not just from corn or sugar cane, but also from cellulose and algae. There are several already developed ways to produce cellulosic ethanol, all they need is scale-up and production. Algae is still in the pipeline, so to speak. And being based on plant-material, ethanol doesn't add to the total surface carbon. It handles like our current fuel, so all our infrastructure is appropriate. There are two reformers for ethanol to turn it into H2, one ground-breaking in its efficiency, ruggedness and simplicity. The fuel cells are there already. And one can never say too much good about direct electric drive.

Why isn't that car available ? That's what I want to know.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 5:47 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

But lately, I've been driving to West LA and back 3 days a week. You would not believe the traffic.

While it is true we need better cars, we also need better transportation systems.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

AND better regional planning.

Economic geography. It's one of those immensely fascinating hybrid fields of study.

But imagine planning a region like you plan ... say, a kitchen!

Some considerations are density of services. So the stuff you need every day (homes, transportation, utilities, parks, schools) are ubiquitous. The stuff you need at least weekly (grocery stores, gas stations, churches etc.) all "within reach". The stuff you need monthly- doctors, home improvement stores etc ... a little further out. The stuff that you need almost never (major university-research hospitals)... may not be accessible for miles.

The best regional planning takes synergy into account: Portland has a wonderful contiguous business-historic-university-arboretum-zoo area with great transportation.

The kink is work. Most production is dirty, and has to be done by a larger work force. There's no way to fit that into a residential community. It would be best, in fact, to concentrate production into one area. However, because production creates a big tax base with relatively few services requires, that tax base would have to be shared by surrounding communities. (We have that situation here: Santa Fe Springs has a daytime population of 25,000 and a night-time population of about 1000. Its an immensely wealthy city; but the surrounding cities are bearing the burden of maintaining the schools, houses, sewers, trash and water services for Santa Fe Spring's source of wealth)

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 7:43 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Look at it this way, if they really focus on these batteries, you might have a home fully off-grid within the next 10 years.

Then, its only a hop-skip-and-jump away from having a Serenity-type ship.

I think the distance between an energy self-sufficient house and an interplanetary spacecraft is slightly more than a hop-skip-and-jump. Maybe a gaping chasm several miles wide.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:26 AM

Quote:
we also need better transportation systems.

I am always just a bit appalled at the fact that we have no realistic high speed rail service.

And nothin I got to say about Amtrack could be printed in a family magazine...

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:28 AM

America loves a winner!

citizen

Which fuel source gives off more usable energy per a given unit than gasoline?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:32 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen

Which fuel source gives off more usable energy per a given unit than gasoline?

Hydrogen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:43 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Let me expand on that a bit for Rap, OK Citizen ?
Energy given off by different fuels (the higher the number, the more the energy).

HHV MJ/kg

Hydrogen 141.80
Methane 55.50
Ethane 51.90
Propane 50.35
Butane 49.50
Gasoline 47.30
Paraffin 46.00
Kerosene 46.20
Diesel 44.80
Coal (Anthracite) 27.00
Coal (Lignite) 15.00
Wood 15.00

***************************************************************

So actually, coal and gasoline are rather LOW in their capacity to store and deliver energy.

Lignite delivers 11% the energy of hydrogen, anthracite 19%, and gasoline 33%.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:56 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Let me expand on that a bit for Rap, OK Citizen ?
Energy given off by different fuels (the higher the number, the more the energy).

HHV MJ/kg

Hydrogen 141.80
Methane 55.50
Ethane 51.90
Propane 50.35
Butane 49.50
Gasoline 47.30
Paraffin 46.00
Kerosene 46.20
Diesel 44.80
Coal (Anthracite) 27.00
Coal (Lignite) 15.00
Wood 15.00

***************************************************************

So actually, coal and gasoline are rather LOW in their capacity to store and deliver energy.

But in terms of availability , transportability , abundance, and the means by which to USE those fuels.... taken into account, how does that list change ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:09 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Transporting and storing hydrogen is not the problem people make it out to be -

The problem is infrastructure - it isn't there for mass consumption.

That's why ethanol for use in fuel cell/ electric vehicles is so attractive. Not only is the infrastructure there, but the overall efficiency of fuel-cell to wheel is greater than that of the IC reciprocating engine to wheel.

PS The reason WHY hydrogen has a greater energy content than gasoline has to do with the heat released during burning. H2 when combined with oxygen creates H2O (water) and releases a lot of energy. Gasoline - made of H and carbon - burns such that H burns like above, while carbon makes CO2. The heat released by burning the carbon is very low. That brings the total down quite a bit. Carbon in a fuel is pretty much dead weight when it comes to energy production.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:12 AM

Not a whole lot of diatomic hydrogen here on earth, true enough. The solar wind blew most of what we could have had away because our gravity wasn't strong enough to hold it. But, we do have some hydrogen in reserve... In water. If we could figure out a way to split the water and have it take less energy than burning the resulting hydrogen, hey.

If you're not just limiting yourself to Earth, then hydrogen is the single most common material in the universe... That isn't dark matter, if dark matter is a real thing. Sometimes I wonder if we don't just need to develop a new theory and adjust the math.

For anyone who's interested in knowing, Ethanol sits just ahead of coal at 31.1 MJ/kg (wikipedia). If we could get away from bloody stinking corn ethanol, which doesn't produce the highest potency yield, and instead go for algae ethanol, people could have their cake and eat it too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:19 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Not a whole lot of diatomic hydrogen here on earth, true enough."

That's where THIS reformer

(the glass set-up on the right) comes in - it creates hydrogen from ethanol with nearly 100% efficiency -

***************************************************************

The catalyst pictured - is large enough to power a fuel cell that powers a house. That little white plug with the orange glow is the catalyst in action.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:20 AM

America loves a winner!

I'm all for ethanol, as long is it isn't corn based, or some other basic food. Corn is best for people and critters, not for autos.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:25 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"If we could get away from bloody stinking corn ethanol, which doesn't produce the highest potency yield, and instead go for algae ethanol, people could have their cake and eat it too."

I'll drink my (corn mash) whiskey to that !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:39 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So we tie ourselves yet AGAIN to a energy that relys on PRODUCTION?

Frak that. I'll take my energy from the sun.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So would I. But still you'll be tied to the production of solar cells. Either way, we have to turn matter that is not directly useful to us (sunlight, silicon dioxide, or carbon dioxide) into stuff that us useful to us (electricity or sugar). One approach uses physics, the other uses biology. Both valid.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Let me expand on that a bit for Rap, OK Citizen ?
Energy given off by different fuels (the higher the number, the more the energy).

HHV MJ/kg

Hydrogen 141.80
Methane 55.50
Ethane 51.90
Propane 50.35
Butane 49.50
Gasoline 47.30
Paraffin 46.00
Kerosene 46.20
Diesel 44.80
Coal (Anthracite) 27.00
Coal (Lignite) 15.00
Wood 15.00

***************************************************************

So actually, coal and gasoline are rather LOW in their capacity to store and deliver energy.

But in terms of availability , transportability , abundance, and the means by which to USE those fuels.... taken into account, how does that list change ?

Okay, BEFORE the refineries were built, BEFORE the hydrocarbons could be "cracked" as efficiently as they are today to achieve high-octane, clean-burning (relatively, anyway) gasoline, how was gasoline in terms of availability, transportability, abundance, and teh means with which to USE it? Remember, early automobiles were mostly electric or steam-powered, because at the time there wasn't really an abundant infrastructure for gasoline.

I'm not trying to be a prick (like I have to "try"...) - I'm just pointing out that not having enough infrastructure isn't a good reason to not pursue new technologies; it's a reason to pursue new infrastructure! After all, before we had a gas station on every corner... we DIDN'T have a gas station on every corner! And they didn't magically appear overnight. They were built up over time, until it got to where you could go just about ANYWHERE in this country without having to worry about having enough gas to get back to civilization.

And yes, I'm actually old enough to remember seeing the signs on the way into Death Valley which read, "Gas Station 2 miles - Last Gas for 160 miles!" - it was like we were the latter-day Donner Party, and if we didn't gas up at that last-ditch stop, we might not be found until Spring...

Mike

just lying smiling in the dark
shooting stars around your heart
dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple everytime
now you're crying in your sleep
i wish you'd never learnt to weep
don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple everytime

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:44 AM

America loves a winner!

Did not the oil companies themselves build the infrastructure by which made the use of their product so readily available ? It's just like anything else.... the installation of cell phone towers, for example, was done by the various phone companies. But now that the gas stations are already in place, it seems to me that basic formula for selling and distributing their product exist NOW!. A new product, it seems, would only require some minor alterations to an already existing infrastructure.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 11:13 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Frak that. I'll take my energy from the sun."

So would I - I live in a sunny place. Most people don't. MOST of the US is not in a sun-zone where solar energy is economically feasible.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 11:14 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Did not the oil companies themselves build the infrastructure by which made the use of their product so readily available ?"

No.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 11:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Did not the oil companies themselves build the infrastructure by which made the use of their product so readily available ?

No.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 11:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Did not the oil companies themselves build the infrastructure by which made the use of their product so readily available ? It's just like anything else.... the installation of cell phone towers, for example, was done by the various phone companies. But now that the gas stations are already in place, it seems to me that basic formula for selling and distributing their product exist NOW!. A new product, it seems, would only require some minor alterations to an already existing infrastructure.

Mmmm-Kay, since part one of your question has been answered already by Rue & Sig, let's look at the other parts.

Did you think that I meant that the government should build the infrastructure for hydrogen fuel cells, solar, etc.? I didn't intend to come across that way at all. No, I'd rather use those good old tried and true tactics that even conservatives seem to love - tax abatement and deregulation. In other words, offering tax breaks to companies who WILL build alt-energy infrastructure (such as hydrogen refueling stations or electric recharging stations, or solar, wind, ocean current, or geothermal power plants) while at the same time relaxing some of the regulations that have thus far kept them economically uncompetitive with "traditional" energy sources - which have, of course, lobbied long and hard to have just those rules put in place that WILL disadvantage anyone who tries to horn in on their energy racket!

In other words, let's let capitalism help build the infrastructure.

Just a something to ponder...

Mike

just lying smiling in the dark
shooting stars around your heart
dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple everytime
now you're crying in your sleep
i wish you'd never learnt to weep
don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple everytime

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 11:51 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Did not the oil companies themselves build the infrastructure by which made the use of their product so readily available ?"

No.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Umm... yes, they did. Unless you want to add into the mix the public roads, which is sort of a silly argument.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:26 PM

Umm, you DO know that initially Gasoline was in fact, toxic waste, right ?

It was a byproduct of Kerosene production which had little use and was mostly just disposed of till some enterprising folk decided to use it in ottos engine, and things went from there.

And those companies have their own laundry list of dirty business, not the least of which was the damage done by TEL (Ethyl) and MBTE, although environmentalist do-gooders share part of the blame for the latter since they pushed it without thinking it through or sufficient research on it's impact and the resulting problems and cleanup did more harm than good.

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetra-ethyl_lead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBE

Of particular interest to Rue and Siggy, I think, would be an aftermath impact study of TEL's resultant environmental lead exposure as regards aberrant behavior and crime trends.
http://www.amherst.edu/~jwreyes/papers/LeadCrimeNBERWP13097.pdf

So if we DO built a new infrastructure on alternative fuel sources, let's make sure to be involved, think it through, and do the freakin research before charging in willy nilly, ok ?

Measure twice, cut only once.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:35 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Umm... yes, they did."

Umm... no, they didn't.

I was looking up specific refineries.

For example, the Chevron refinery built ~1918 in El Segundo made use of oil terminals built by the City of LA in the Port of LA. It received both tax breaks and subsidies, engaged in schemes to defraud taxes (at all levels), spilled a quarter of a billion gallons of product into the local aquifer (taxpayer mitigation), and somewhere I read that it used the services of a rail company that got significant public funds. I'm trying to find that name, it was something like PE. This was not a case of 'free enterprise and business paying its own way'.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:40 PM

People who remediate that stuff have nicknamed it and related species Methyl-Ethyl-Death. Very nasty.

Of course, all the additives in gasoline are pretty toxic. Benzene, Toluene, EthylBenzene, Xylene, Naphthalene... Neurotoxins and cancer by contact. I know people who won't go near the stuff without haz-mat suits and oxygen tanks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:04 PM

Byte ?

Baltimore.
Area code 21225.
http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/lead/county.tcl?fips_county_code
=24510#rank

http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/county.tcl?fips_county_code=2451
0#major_chemical_releases

http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/hap/county.tcl?fips_county_code=
24510#rankings

http://www.scorecard.org/community/who.tcl?fips_county_code=24510&name
=BALTIMORE%20(CITY)&zip_code=21225

I used to work security FOR the number one polluter on this list, when someone else owned em, and thus happen to know it's even worse than reported cause of all the crap they succeeded in covering up.

And yeah, I lived in the downwind/downstream neighborhood.

Ground freakin zero for the very worst of all of that, in a rowhome apt which oughta have been condemned - for enough years that it just don't matter no more.

Imma dead man walking, I know this, which is one of the reasons I get so irate with folk who bash me for smoking - that's right up there with refusing painkillers to someone who has a month to live cause they might get addicted, yes ?

Believe me, if smokin is what kills me, I'll be one heavily surprised old bastard - once I realized just how bad the end of life damage was gonna be, I decided to simply live my life in whatever fashion pleased me the most without worryin about when the clock is gonna stop, cause it eventually does for all of us, and mine just "went into the red" on my projected life expectancy anyway.

Every moment now is stolen right out from under the reaper, and I damn well mean to make the most of it!

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:16 PM

Cripes, and people live there? Still?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:18 PM

Hah! You 'n' me both, Frem. We must be birds of a toxic feather.

My own personal poison is Agent Orange - or near e-damn-nuff to it. I got to spend a wonderful year back in the 70s doing ground-work for crop dusters - flagging the dusters through the mesquite brush of West Texas, while they sprayed 2,4,5-T (the active ingredient in Agent Orange) on the mesquite trees to kill 'em. To make the stuff work better, they mixed it with diesel fuel, then sprayed it all across West Texas. Killed the shit out of the mesquite - and pretty much everything else it touched.

The pay was good - about three times minimum wage back then, which was great money for a 16-year-old kid. We were assured the stuff was totally harmless - just like the soldiers in 'Nam were assured of the same. "Hell, you could BATHE in this stuff and it wouldn't hurt ya!" Instead, we were pretty much showered with it, when the planes didn't turn off the sprayers early enough.

Of the bunch of us that worked together that year, I'm the last one left alive, as far as I can tell. I don't spend a whole lot of time wondering what's going to kill me - if anything, I just wonder why it hasn't already! And pretty much any day above ground is a freebie at this point.

Mike

just lying smiling in the dark
shooting stars around your heart
dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple everytime
now you're crying in your sleep
i wish you'd never learnt to weep
don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple everytime

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:49 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

That soil sounds awesome, definitely something that the world at large should cultivate and make use of right away.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
using fuels that will run out soon, that's what you always say, right?

Drill baby, drill.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quite literally,there's NO power unless the wind is blowing, and that simply isn't a reliable source.

Quite literally, you are dead wrong. My entire household has been running solely on wind power for years. S-O-L-E-L-Y. I don't want you to miss that word, it's very important. Solely. Running solely on wind power, I've had no problems with my power levels at all. For years. Sure, I'm in a pretty windy state, but that doesn't mean it's always spinning the turbines. And still I have no problems.
Oil mogul T. Boone Pickens is 100% convinced that building turbines down the country's wind channel would generate plenty of energy to power everything, leaving our rather vast reserves of natural gas free to power the cars, and our more limited reserves of diesel-type fuel free to power the large delivery trucks. I see no reason to disagree with his vision.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 2:04 PM

America loves a winner!

I don't believe that one anecdotal case ( your house ) is evidence for switching over completely to wind power to run cities. As I've stated, I'm ok w/ using wind power, but over all, it's unreliable. Rare are the places where there's a constant supply of wind ( not too fast, not too slow , mind you ). Of course , Ted Kennedy doesn't want any thing to do w/ wind power, not in HIS back yard.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 2:14 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

You're right, I'm sure my house is the only one. We've paid for the construction of all those massive turbines all by our lonesome.

There's a great deal of open land right behind my neighborhood/house, with plenty of wind off the mountains coming through pretty regularly. They can build more right there if they wanna, I'm happy to have it in my back yard.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 2:21 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quite literally, you are dead wrong. My entire household has been running solely on wind power for years. S-O-L-E-L-Y. I don't want you to miss that word, it's very important. Solely. Running solely on wind power, I've had no problems with my power levels at all. For years. Sure, I'm in a pretty windy state, but that doesn't mean it's always spinning the turbines. And still I have no problems.

So do you generate your own power or do you have a service provider?
If service provider, is it 100% wind generated or a certain percentage?
If a service provider, how can you be 100% sure that 100% of your power is wind generated?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 2:29 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

When it was first implemented, we were told that I think a maximum of 80% but no less than 50% of our power would be coming from wind, and we had to pay a premium for the service. As it gained momentum, cash, and efficiency, our cost went down a bit and our guaranteed percentage of power went up, until it was 100% and our power cost for wind was only marginally more than it might otherwise have been. Can I be sure their claims aren't false? I suppose not, but it seems a stupid claim to make. If you're going to make false claims about percentages like that, raise your rates at the same time, or something. Basically, as there's no profit in the lie, I think it most likely to be true. And I've seen those big ol' blades spinning out by the highways, that can't all be for show

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 2:56 PM

Quote:
Cripes, and people live there? Still?

Yep, no choice - only place they can afford to.

And the nearest grocery store which doesn't charge $4.99/Gal for milk is 15 miles away and the local 14 Bus tends to be awfully snippy about carryin groceries onboard, not to mention no local employer will hire anyone who's phone extension begins with 355 or 354, which combined with the fact that car insurance, inspection and emissions makes it impossible for most folk there to legally own a vehicle - it's a freakin roach motel, once you wind up in that neighborhood, you ain't NEVER gettin out, and most of the folks who find their way there to begin with are kids dumped out at eighteen with no backup or real-life skills, throwaway kids, or single moms dumped by a jackass playa who didn't wanna man up and be a husband and father.

I had the fortune of actual life/household skills and a decent job, leastways before the accident - but even so due to the suicide of my only remaining viable legal guardian, wound up in much the same boat as throwaways, and being seventeen and an emancipated minor with no parental support, had to pay a hefty bribe to even get a landlord to rent to me, which I obtained from mugging a couple of local street dealers.

Playin by the rules damn near killed me, in the end it was crime that got me out of the whirlpool of death, workin three jobs and still not able to pay the bills, watching it all slide oh so slowly to hell and it's only prolonging the agony as you have no time or ability to look for anything better, or pound out the desperate legal fight to obtain any kind of assistance, and then blam, crippling injuries on top of it ?

That place is death, in every way there is.

Oh yeah, when asked why the lung cancer rate for the area was seven hundred times the national average, local officials said "More people in that neighborhood smoke cigarettes"

No mention of the huge pollution previously mentioned, four waste incinerators including medical, badly run and not up to code, the leachates and chromium in the landfills, or the lead and asbestos from the naval yard.
http://www.asbestosnews.com/workplace/shipyards/curtis-bay-shipyard.ht
ml

A completely horrific amount of pollution, misery, corrupt police, exploitive and predatory local businesses on top of many other problems cause of the NIMBY principle concentrated into a teeny little area blocked off geographically as well as economically, from anywhere that isn't a hellhole.

What it takes to climb out, will leave wounds that never heal completely.

People like me and Wulf don't just pop out the way we are, it's one of the reasons I am ever so more merciful to him despite his struggles with his own prejudices, cause I know how he got like that to begin with.
Don't mean I won't bonk him on the head over it, but gently, mind.

Taken in the light and view from ground zero I have just presented it - the idea of us spending billions on a vague and laughable "threat" in the middle east is criminally insane, isn't it ?

The real threats to our people and intended way of life are HERE, right before us.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 2:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm still in love with vertical wind turbines. Damn, they're just sexy! Can you imagine all of the high-rises with a grove of 'em on top????

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 3:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
People like me and Wulf don't just pop out the way we are, it's one of the reasons I am ever so more merciful to him despite his struggles with his own prejudices

Well, I guess... once you put that that way....

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 4:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm still in love with vertical wind turbines.

That one with the solar panels built in is just pure fuckin WIN any way you slice it.

I wonder if they've tripped to the concept of using a submarine drive shaft clutch in reverse to obtain maximum energy per spin in variable wind conditions ?

EDIT: Wowza, while digging for an explaination of how that clutch works, I tripped over THIS!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine
Apparently the Swedish use em to power a couple subs, it seems.

I'd say this idea has way, way more future potential, especially with alternative fuel systems, than our typical otto engines - which have pretty much reached the peak of development, while the Stirling is still quite primitive in most designs.

EDIT2: Here ya go
http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/propulsion.html

Although, the concept of the batteries producing hydrogen gas when charged - it seems a total shame to waste it by venting, doesn't it ?
Hell, power the galley with it or something.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 5:13 PM

The amount of clean-up that would take... I can't even fathom.

Any of these look familiar?

http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchrslt.cfm?start=1&CFID=2135
269&CFTOKEN=58245261&jsessionid=2e30573cbb2d159ce6996e58452761660415TR4a302e3020302830

I notice that shipyard is one, but they're calling it final, that must mean they decided to not take any further action. Is it clean?

Someone should discover that company you mentioned, if they haven't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:07 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

I agree with Auraptor that the “problem” of global warming is a lot of assumptions based more on politics then science.

But I’m also not a big fan of fossil fuels. Yes, it true that they are cheap, which makes them attractive, but they probably won’t be forever. And there are other problems with them as well. Combustion engines are smelly and loud and produce noxious fumes. I’m not a fan. But few alternatives really provide the power and reliability needed to run society.

Solar and wind energy are nice, but the problem with them is that they are not reliable.

Electricity, as a general rule, must be used or lost. There’s no way to store it for use later. Batteries are good for small amounts of electricity, but they don’t scale up very well. Large batteries quickly become unwieldy and dangerous and never achieve the level of storage needed. Only recently has battery technology made the electric car even feasible, and then only when combined with a gasoline engine. But purely electric cars are the toys of fanatics – they will never see popular use until the technology improves dramatically.

One good thing is that MIT has made some breakthroughs on battery technology that might make solar and wind power feasible. Recently I heard of a so-called “mega-battery,” which makes it possible to store energy from solar panels and could usher in a day when cities are lit by the sun, even at night. Still these batteries would require 10-20 acres of real-estate to provide the electricity needs of a city like New York.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:45 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm still in love with vertical wind turbines. Damn, they're just sexy! .

Yeah, I'm fond of vertical things as well.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 3, 2009 12:02 AM

Quote:
The amount of clean-up that would take... I can't even fathom.

Honestly Byte, even if you managed it, even if you bulldozed all the buildings, tore everything down to dirt, plowed it under good and abandoned it for a hundred years...

It would STILL be an evil place - it just reeks of it, like the horror and desperation soaked into the ground right along with all the other pollutants, it's really hard to describe without getting all metaphysical about it, but it's undeniably there - I've taken a few disbelievers up there for a short drive in the daytime when visiting family in the state, and even on a bright sunny day with no visible activity, the place STILL scared the living daylights out of em.

Only place I've seen even *close* to that effect was in fiction, The Shoikan Grove gaurding the Tower of High Sorcery in Palanthas, in the dragonlance works.

Quote:
Any of these look familiar?

You bet, add about a dozen more which have been deleted, and about ten that no one "officially" knows about which are still in use.

Quote:
I notice that shipyard is one, but they're calling it final, that must mean they decided to not take any further action. Is it clean?

Hell no, but the only folks gonna suffer are poor, have no political power, and no one gives a damn about em, so why waste resources on something that isn't even going to net you good PR, much less more funding ?

Quote:
Someone should discover that company you mentioned, if they haven't.

Oh believe me, everybody knows - nobody CARES.

Which is really, when it comes right down to it, what the source of the problem really is.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 3, 2009 4:35 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Solar and wind energy are nice, but the problem with them is that they are not reliable."

Do you think hydropower is unreliable ?

That's the thing with hydropower --- it has to be where the resource is. You wouldn't want hydropower in Kansas. And, just as you wouldn't want hydropower in Kansas, you wouldn't want solar power on coastal Oregon, or wind power in Florida. But put each of these in the right place and they are more than simply viable, they are abundant.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 5, 2009 5:15 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

I`m not sure what would be unreliable about hydropower. It runs or can run constantly. It produces a steady, usually unbroken, stream of electricity. Solar and wind power do not. They are intermittent, whether they are in Kansas or the coast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 5, 2009 5:57 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I`m not sure what would be unreliable about hydropower.

As river origin points lose snow & ice, hydropower may fluctuate some, I conjure.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 5, 2009 6:00 AM