Ways to solve global warming

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, June 16, 2024 03:19
VIEWED: 6297
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 7:41 PM

In the Kristellnacht/ Dancing on the Grave of Freedom thread I posted several pictures of technologies which could create a lot of jobs equivalent to building cars and refining petroleum; from high-tech advances like wind turbines, tidal turbines, solar power and mag-lev trains to advanced forestry techniques. We can also include biodiesel (from waste grease) and ethanol (from cellulosic waste), cool roofs, LED lights, carbon sequestration and no-till farming.

But, when I first saw this about five years ago, I thought HUH, and wondered if anything would become of it.

Well, here it is....

The millenium-old technique called "bio char"

Quote:
For centuries indigenous South Americans living in the Amazon Basin used a combination of charred animal waste and wood to make "terra preta," which means black earth, in Portuguese. Thousands of years later, the terra preta soil remains fertile without need for any added fertilizer, experts say.

"These terra preta soils are older than 500 years and they are still black soil and very rich in carbon," said Steiner, a professor at the University of Georgia. By using biochar concepts, terra preta soils have been proven to remain fertile for thousands of years, preventing further harmful deforestation for agricultural purposes.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/03/30/biochar.warming.energy/inde
x.html

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

WHOZIT

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 9:03 PM

Also if you can get Keith Olberman to shut the hell up, you'd get rid of alot of HOT AIR.......AHHAHAHAHAHA!!

RUE

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 9:36 PM

Amazing - Zit looked on awesome information and saw --- the limited, puerile reflection of himself.

Enjoy your small boring cage, Zit. You and your bagel will be in it the rest of your life.

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

Silence is consent.

WHOZIT

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Amazing - Zit looked on awesome information and saw --- the limited, puerile reflection of himself.

Enjoy your small boring cage, Zit. You and your bagel will be in it the rest of your life.

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

Silence is consent.

I'm off the Bagels now

RUE

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 9:47 PM

Then you'll be there --- alone.

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

Silence is consent.

WHOZIT

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 9:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Then you'll be there --- alone.

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

Silence is consent.

AHHAHAHAHA!!....I do'nt get it?

RUE

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 9:51 PM

S'wneyways

Considering that the biochar is made from biological materials, there's no contribution to the surface CO2 load. I wonder if one can use biological materials to heat up the waste to such a high temperature, or if one needs to use fossil fuels for that.

It appears, though, that overall the creation and use of biochar has a net negative effect on surface CO2. "Worldwide use of biochar could cut CO2 levels by 8 parts per million within 50 years, according to NASA scientist James Hansen."

And, gee, I have a garden ... where can I get me some of this stuff ?

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

Silence is consent.

WHOZIT

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 10:00 PM

Global Warming is a HOAX!

RUE

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 10:17 PM

Oh that's so cute - you're trying to play an April Fool's joke. Run along now, sonny. Let the grownups talk.

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

Silence is consent.

WHOZIT

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 10:45 PM

Keith Olberman is a HOAX!

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 11:57 PM

Signy, since I didn't get a chance to say it on the other thread, THANK YOU for posting those amazing innovations!

One of them - the windmill covered in solar cells (I *think* it's covered in solar cells, at least), is something I've been advocating for a few years now. I knew it was just a matter of time before someone had the bright idea to combine the two alternative-energy sources like that.

My gut feeling in talking to a few friends in the solar industry is that we're about ONE "silicon microchip"-style revolution away from amazingly easy, amazingly cheap, amazingly efficient solar cells. Cells that will be so thin they can be used like window tinting on cars and houses (and also incorporate LCD/LED technology to vary darkness/opacity), cells that can be "painted" onto a house or sprayed on a roof. It's possible now, but still cost-prohibitive, at least for the moment. When that big breakthrough comes, cheap solar will be as prevalent as home computers became in the 80s and 90s.

Also coming along with that breakthrough - and already coming to market this spring on the newly redesigned and reengineered Toyota Prius - will be solar power for the car's electrical system, to help power the accessories and charge the batteries when the car is parked. And with that comes more convenience, in the form of programmable HVAC controls. You want your car nice and cool in the summer when you get off work? Easy - simply program the A/C system and the electric A/C compressor will kick on early to keep your car cool when you're nowhere around it.

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

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
My gut feeling in talking to a few friends in the solar industry is that we're about ONE "silicon microchip"-style revolution away from amazingly easy, amazingly cheap, amazingly efficient solar cells. Cells that will be so thin they can be used like window tinting on cars and houses (and also incorporate LCD/LED technology to vary darkness/opacity), cells that can be "painted" onto a house or sprayed on a roof. It's possible now, but still cost-prohibitive, at least for the moment. When that big breakthrough comes, cheap solar will be as prevalent as home computers became in the 80s and 90s.

Speaking from England, is there anything that works with rain? Yes Rain would be our preferred weather for power generation.

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:40 AM

I would guess that the helical windmill would work well using the force of falling rain. You could have a rainmill - yes ?

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

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:44 AM

Ways to solve it ? There is no solving of imaginary problems.

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:47 AM

I guess you can join Zit in his cage. How do you feel about being his bagel ?

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

And that's really a step down - from Rush's good dog to Zit's bagel.

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Ways to solve it ? There is no solving of imaginary problems.

Yeah, 'cause even if there is no Global Warming, like Rush tells you to think, switching to sustainable, non-polluting potentially cheaper power generation is just plain fucking stupid huh? I mean, what the fuck are we thinking? Spend more money shitting where you eat using fuels that will run out soon, that's what you always say, right?

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:04 AM

"These terra preta soils are older than 500 years and they are still black soil and very rich in carbon ..."

I've been considering this some more. There are a lot of places around the world where the soil has been degraded - washed away or blown away. I wonder if we - as a species - could get involved in Terra-forming Terra. What places could be restored ? What places could be improved ?

This speculation leads to many happy daydreams.

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

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:09 AM

Oh great, the " WHAT IF IT'S TRUE " line of BULLSHIT reasoning.

Hell, while you're at it, why not throw in the fundie classic - " I'd rather believe in God and be wrong than not believe and pay for my mistake for all eternity.

Please, is that the BEST you got ?

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:13 AM

What he said was - even if it's NOT true there are still many benefits to alternative energy ("sustainable, non-polluting potentially cheaper power generation").

And why wouldn't you want that ?

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

Silence is consent.

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Oh great, the " WHAT IF IT'S TRUE " line of BULLSHIT reasoning.

Hell, while you're at it, why not throw in the fundie classic - " I'd rather believe in God and be wrong than not believe and pay for my mistake for all eternity.

Please, is that the BEST you got ?

Oh great, the "I can't argue against what you said so I'm going to LIE about what you said, and hope it sticks" line of BULLSHIT argument.

Hell, while you're at it, why not throw in the fundie classic - "If you dare to think differently to how my preacher tells me to think, I'll murder you and your family (especially your kids)"

Please, is that the BEST you got?

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What he said was - even if it's NOT true there are still many benefits to alternative energy ("sustainable, non-polluting potentially cheaper power generation").

And why wouldn't you want that ?

Because he want's us to shit where we eat? I dunno, he's been slurping up Rush Limbaughs bullshit for so long he thinks shit is a corner stone of any delicious balanced diet.

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:21 AM

The mental picture you just drew - I honestly lost my appetite for dinner.

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

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:22 AM

you can shit where ever the hell you want, it's not gonna affect the climate in the slightest.

IT'S ALWAYS CHANGING, AND ALWAYS WILL BE. Humanity isn't affecting it one god damn bit.

MORONS.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What he said was - even if it's NOT true there are still many benefits to alternative energy ("sustainable, non-polluting potentially cheaper power generation").

And why wouldn't you want that ?

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

Silence is consent.

Because it clashes with his Exxon stock.

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
you can shit where ever the hell you want, it's not gonna affect the climate in the slightest.

IT'S ALWAYS CHANGING, AND ALWAYS WILL BE. Humanity isn't affecting it one god damn bit.

MORONS.

Man, you're so ignorant and stupid it hurts. Learn to read English, and learn to think for yourself. Rush Limbaugh isn't going to fall in love with you no matter how much you lie for him.

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:26 AM

"Because it clashes with his Exxon stock."
There is that.

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

Silence is consent.

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Because it clashes with his Exxon stock.

Or maybe it conflicts with the masters Exxon stock.

Imagine AURaptor as an Igor who has yet to have he's brain implanted, and it all starts to make more sense.

"Ruthhh Limbaugh ith my marthter, I mutht do ath he commandth!"

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:29 AM

So, Rap

"What he said was - even if it's NOT true there are still many benefits to alternative energy ("sustainable, non-polluting potentially cheaper power generation").

And why wouldn't you want that ?"

Any answer ?

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

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:29 AM

citizen, and you're such a fucking sheep, it's laughable.

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:32 AM

So, Rap

"What he said was - even if it's NOT true there are still many benefits to alternative energy ("sustainable, non-polluting potentially cheaper power generation").

And why wouldn't you want that ?"

To that I would add decentralized, meaning rugged against large-scale failure.

Any answer ?

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

Silence is consent.

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:46 AM

I'm starting to think - not.

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

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, Rap

"What he said was - even if it's NOT true there are still many benefits to alternative energy ("sustainable, non-polluting potentially cheaper power generation").

And why wouldn't you want that ?"

Any answer ?

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

Silence is consent.

Hey, I'm all for efficiency. I laugh at the stupidity of city folks who drive SUVs that never come closer to the wild frontier than rolling over the dirt spilled by a dump truck. But let the public choose what they want to drive, and dont' try to guilt us into driving crap cars that don't come anywhere near " saving the planet " unless that's what they truly want to drive.

The kook fringe Left that's driving the anti- EVERYTHING post Industrial Revolution attack on the world won't even listen to reason. There's no such thing as clean coal ? Oh, ok, fine. No nukes ? Geee, where the fuck are we suppose to get our energy from ? Wind power ? When the giant blades aren't slicing away the planet's bird population, there's nothing. Quite literally,there's NO power unless the wind is blowing, and that simply isn't a reliable source. What IS reliable is Nuclear power, but hell, the wackos don't want that either, because you can't bury it anywhere. ( Don't tell that to France, 80% of their electric power comes from nuke power )

So, sure, there's some things we can do, but the hard core truth about power in the 21st century is that oil gives more bang for the buck than any other source, and it's not even close.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:59 AM

Hey simmer, I'm watching VH1's Greatest 1 hit wonders from the 80's.

My attention isn't all here, k ?

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 2:24 AM

So your short answer is oil, or coal or nuclear - and nothing else.

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

All highly centralized and therefore easy to break.

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 2, 2009 2:46 AM

I wonder how much of that biochar is nanotubes or buckeyballs????

But, terraforming earth... I can think of a LOT of places where that would work well. What the ancients used to do was start a fire on the ground and then smother it... low-tech pyrolysis. One really GOOD place to start would be the tropics. The problem with the tropics is that the soil degrades so very quickly under the onslaught of so much rain.

The northwest areas that have been clear-cut (in preparation for deforestation). Central Valley CA. The Great Plains. Parts of Australia.

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

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 2:53 AM

I was looking it up - there is a UN proposal to use biochar to restore degraded agricultural land: http://www.ecoversity.org/archives/UNCCD-biochar-pyrolysis.pdf

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

Silence is consent.

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 2:58 AM

I wonder how much of that biochar is PAHs ?

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

Anyway ... I'm going off-line now in a nice hazy daydream of a better world ...

ANTHONYT

Thursday, April 2, 2009 2:59 AM

Hello,

It seems logical that if you don’t develop alternative energy, then alternative energy will never be as good as the energy you’ve got right now.

Kind of like how a steam engine is much more efficient than a hybrid gasoline engine that no one builds.

I do wish that the tree-hugger crowd would abandon global warming arguments that make some people bristle. As someone wisely said, low-cost, efficient, low-polluting energy is its own reward. You don’t need anything else to sell it.

If I was president, there are probably two energy technologies I would strive to develop for the good of all humanity: Efficient Energy Storage and Solar Power.

Of the two, Efficient Energy Storage is much more important. Once you have the ability to store all available energy, you can get energy from all available sources. Heinlein had it right. The future of energy isn’t in some whizbang amazing sci-fi reactor. It’s in being able to store and transport energy easily and efficiently. Capture lightning-bolts in Seattle, Miami, and London. Capture sunlight in Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada. Capture Hydroelectric and Geothermal wherever there is a mountain. Run every energy generating or capturing device at full throttle all the time. The trick is merely to store it for use as needed, and then all energy becomes embarrassingly cheap.

--Anthony

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

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 3:00 AM

So true ...

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

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 3:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So your short answer is oil, or coal or nuclear - and nothing else.

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

All highly centralized and therefore easy to break.

Depends on what you're talking 'bout. Solar isn't going to run your car, but it can, in limited cases, help run a house. Same for wind power. But to power a car, and get it over hills and over the long haul, yeah, oil based fuels are still the way.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 3:37 AM

France doesn't try to bury it, they just try to import it into my state so WE can bury it instead.

I'm not entirely sure how something that produces hazardous radioactive waste can be considered "clean power."

And I don't think I'll be taking the advice from the President of our beloved local nuclear waste importer when he says we can go ahead and eat yellow cake and be just fine. The stuff's not going to blow up, but it's not as safe as I'd like, either.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, April 2, 2009 3:50 AM

Hello Rap,

Solar power can provide the energy you need to move a car just fine, as long as you can store it efficiently.

Electric vehicles are actually capable of doing everything your dinosaur burner can do.

--Anthony

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

ANTHONYT

Thursday, April 2, 2009 3:54 AM

Hello,

I do think Nuclear power is better for the environment than coal or oil. Nuclear waste is still waste, but its volume is astoundingly less than the amount of waste we carelessly disseminate throughout the globe with combustion powerplants. People worry rightly over containment of nuclear waste, but no one seems to worry about containing the waste you take big lungfulls of each day.

Given a choice between the two, I'll take nuclear power. Fortunately, it's not just a choice between those two.

--Anthony

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

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 4:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Rap,

Solar power can provide the energy you need to move a car just fine, as long as you can store it efficiently.

Electric vehicles are actually capable of doing everything your dinosaur burner can do.

--Anthony

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

'as long as you store it efficiently'

Neither solar or battery power matches gas, and it's not even close.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 4:15 AM

Well, over here in the west, the pollution from the coal power isn't as bad as what you get out east. In the east, nuclear might actually be a half good idea... If the east wasn't always suggesting Utah and Nevada to store the waste for them. 9_9

We do have our bad days... That's mostly the sulfur from the smelter, nitrates-to-ozone from the livestock and our cars, and a sort of regrettable air-trapping topography.

Nuclear power here in the west isn't the best idea. We got FAULTS, everywhere, geologic feature called the Great basin. And we get enough sunshine that solar power and wind power actually could reasonably be expected to meet our energy needs. That is, if California got off our grid and invested in some deep ocean turbines or something.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, April 2, 2009 4:18 AM

Hello,

But surely Mr. Raptor, you support research and development into the field. I mean, when you tout combustion as the power generation technique of the 21st century, I can't help but think...

"Really? 91 more years of R&D, and you're not striving to do better?"

We can only improve by doing. So lets do more. The 20th century took us from the Model-T to the Prius. Maybe the 21st century can take us from the Prius to the Electro-zoom-whoosh. :-)

--Anthony

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

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 4:24 AM

*Imitates Jetsons car noise*

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I do think Nuclear power is better for the environment than coal or oil. Nuclear waste is still waste, but its volume is astoundingly less than the amount of waste we carelessly disseminate throughout the globe with combustion powerplants. People worry rightly over containment of nuclear waste, but no one seems to worry about containing the waste you take big lungfulls of each day.

Given a choice between the two, I'll take nuclear power. Fortunately, it's not just a choice between those two.

So did I, until a few things came to my attention. It's not just radioactive waste, but the reactor and components as well, they're all left highly radioactive after use, and will stay deadly to all life and the environment for thousands of years. There are no long term ways currently of storing this waste, consider that the storage facilities in the US are all nearing or over capacity, and they're all only designed for temporary storage. Who knows what's going to happen in the next 10,000 years, it would be silly to assume that these storage facilities will remain closed and safe. Seems to me that some future civilisation is almost guaranteed to crack them open in the name of Archaeology.

Promises of curses in some long dead language didn't stop the mummy hunters in Egypt, why would it stop people in the future?

As for you AURaptor, if you ever start thinking for yourself, rather than blindly following whatever lies Rush Limbaugh shovels down your gullet, and lying about what people say in order to be contrary, maybe some one would care about what you're saying. Since you don't think for yourself, and since you do claim other people are stupid and sheep, while proving yourself the stupidest authoritarian follower on this or damn near any site, it's hard to see how you could possibly think anyone could take anything you say seriously. If I wanted to know what some insane drug addicted fascist twat thought about a subject, I'd ask Rush myself, I don't need you to parrot every word he says.

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Hey, I'm all for efficiency. I laugh at the stupidity of city folks who drive SUVs that never come closer to the wild frontier than rolling over the dirt spilled by a dump truck. But let the public choose what they want to drive, and dont' try to guilt us into driving crap cars that don't come anywhere near " saving the planet " unless that's what they truly want to drive.

Quite clearly you're not, since you felt the utter irresistible need to lie about what I said when I pointed out certain pros to using renewable sources that had nothing to do with global warming.

Quote:

So, sure, there's some things we can do, but the hard core truth about power in the 21st century is that oil gives more bang for the buck than any other source, and it's not even close.

The core truth is that this is another RapFact (lie) spouted by someone too stupid and sheep like to think for "himself".

KWICKO

Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Rap,

Solar power can provide the energy you need to move a car just fine, as long as you can store it efficiently.

Electric vehicles are actually capable of doing everything your dinosaur burner can do.

--Anthony

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

'as long as you store it efficiently'

Neither solar or battery power matches gas, and it's not even close.

It's quite a bit closer than you might think:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?client=safari&rls=en&q=top%20gear%
20elise%20vs%20tesla&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#

GEEZER

Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Electric vehicles are actually capable of doing everything your dinosaur burner can do.

Some things, yes. Everything, no.

Until energy storage gets a couple of orders of magnitude better, you can't cover long distances quickly in an electric car. Tesla's Roadster can cover about 225-250 miles on a full charge and then needs 3.5-4 hours to recharge, IF you have the dedicated 240v 70amp recharging station. Leaving Washington D.C. with a full charge, you'd have to spend 8 hours just recharging on a trip to Atlanta, and recharge immediately once you got there. This makes a 10 hour trip in a gas fueled car into at least 18 hours and probably an overnight stop on the way. Now imaging trying to drive a Tesla to Montana from D.C.

The other problem with highway travel and the long recharge time is - where do you put all those cars for 4 hours while they're recharging? Filling stations can get away with having just a few pumps because each car only uses a pump for a few minutes. Imagine 100 cars an hour trying to use a recharge station. At any one time you'd have 300-400 cars you had to park and connect to rechargers. Also, what do the several hundred folks in those cars do while they're recharging?
This just ain't gonna work until you have a way to recharge as quickly as you can currently pump a tank of gas. At this time, gasoline is just a much better way to store and transfer energy quickly, compactly, and with little weight penalty.

This is not to say that current or near-term electrics couldn't replace internal combustion in a lot of roles, particularly in the commuter or urban-use-only areas. Folk could recharge at home or in garages where the cars are gonna be parked anyway. Commercial vehicles that run urban routes - UPS trucks, say, or garbage trucks - could recharge at their lots overnight. I figure that there will be a mix of conventional internal combustion, hybrid, and full electric for quite some time to come.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:50 PM

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:52 PM

Rap, an electric car, like the Tesla, opens all sorts of possibilities.

Imagine, never having to pay for gas again, for one. Also, combined with solar power cells, you would never have to pay for electricity.

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.

Which I think we can all look forward too.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 2, 2009 3:18 PM

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

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 3:43 PM

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.

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 3:47 PM

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.

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 2, 2009 4:56 PM

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.

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 2, 2009 5:43 PM

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.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:26 PM

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

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:28 PM

citizen

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

CITIZEN

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen

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

Hydrogen.

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:43 PM

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%.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:56 PM

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 ?

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 7:09 PM

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.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 7:12 PM

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.

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 7:19 PM

"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.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 7:20 PM

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.

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 7:25 PM

"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.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 7:39 PM

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

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 2, 2009 7:56 PM

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.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:32 PM

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

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:44 PM

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.

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:13 PM

"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.

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:14 PM

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

No.

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

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:21 PM

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.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:45 PM

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

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 2, 2009 9:51 PM

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.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:26 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

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:35 PM

"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.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:40 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.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, April 2, 2009 11:04 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

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 11:16 PM

Cripes, and people live there? Still?

KWICKO

Thursday, April 2, 2009 11:18 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

PHOENIXROSE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 11:49 PM

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]

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 3, 2009 12:04 AM

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.

PHOENIXROSE

Friday, April 3, 2009 12:14 AM

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]

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, April 3, 2009 12:21 AM

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?

PHOENIXROSE

Friday, April 3, 2009 12:29 AM

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]

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, April 3, 2009 12:56 AM

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

SIGNYM

Friday, April 3, 2009 12:59 AM

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.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 3, 2009 1:02 AM

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.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, April 3, 2009 2:13 AM

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

BYTEMITE

Friday, April 3, 2009 3:13 AM

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.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 3, 2009 4:07 AM

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

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 3, 2009 4:45 AM

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.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, April 3, 2009 10:02 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

RUE

Friday, April 3, 2009 2:35 PM

"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.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, April 5, 2009 3:15 PM

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.

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

CHRISISALL

Sunday, April 5, 2009 3:57 PM

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

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 5, 2009 4:00 PM

BTW_ Electricity generated by boilers and turbine is not more reliable. Just look at the outages California had several summers ago when power plants were taken offline during peak season. Or just google major+ power+failures

Quote:
Major power outage hits New York, other large cities
Thursday, August 14, 2003
Bloomberg says power failure will be fixed in due time and there is no evidence of terrorism in relation to the blackout
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Power began to flicker on late Thursday evening, hours after a major power outage struck simultaneously across dozens of cities in the eastern United States and Canada.

From a security/ reliability standpoint, its better to have distributed power generation. Those huge boilers and turbines are centralized and tend to require long transmission lines which are subject to heat failure (a common cause of widespread blackouts), fire, earthquakes, ice storms, hurricanes and acts of sabotage or manipulation (by Enron, for example), and solar storms

www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1206.

What I envisin is a mixed power structure: In sunny areas, each home having solar roofs. In windy areas, distributed turbine farms, or several turbines on top of each skyscraper. In areas of huge tidal flux, tidal turbine. All of them feeding into the grid. (The technology is possible- it's done here in So Cal with solar power. The most demanding issue is "syncing up" with line frequency and phase.) The sub-grids themselves need to be better "firewalled" from each other than they are now too because taking one major transmission line off the grid dumps the load onto other transmission lines and can cause a series of failures if those lines are stressed.

Now, if you want REAL energy security, you'd have to make each customer able to go off-the-grid altogether. THAT'S more expensive, as each customer would need a big battery for storage.

But overall, if you distribute power production you stress long transmission lines less, and if you re-configure the grid to be able to better isolate portion from each other you have the best chance at energy reliability.

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

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE