DrumBeat: March 25, 2008
Posted by threadbot on March 25, 2008 - 9:11am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Now for some wise words from the readers of The Oil Drum...
Discussions about Energy and Our Future
Posted by threadbot on March 25, 2008 - 9:11am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Now for some wise words from the readers of The Oil Drum...
Crude Rises After 3-Day Decline Amid Clashes in Iraq Oil Region
Experts: China's crude consumption up 4.5 percent in February
After oil and rice crises, a power crisis
Diesel running short in Guangdong
Top scientists warn against rush to biofuel
New Orders
"The cease-fire is over; we have been told to fight the Americans," said one Mahdi Army militiaman, who was reached by telephone in Sadr City. This same man, when interviewed in January, had stated that he was abiding by the cease-fire and that he was keeping busy running his cellular phone store.
Is Oil Slick Dick happy or sad?
as normal the results of ethnic cleansing doesn't last. ethnic cleansing makes each group huddle together, and it's only a matter of time before on group decides they don't want the other anywhere near them.
There was supposed to be a segment on CNBC this morning called "Peak Oil Debunked?". I had to leave for work before it aired. Could someone offer a recap? Or could someone post a video of it? I believe it was supposed to have Simmons and someone from Chevron? Thanks
It was Matt Simmons and here is the video:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=695959732&play=1
It was not about "Peak Oil Debunked" but a reply to Shell's CEO, John Hoffmeister, trying to debunk peak oil.
He gave a pretty good job. One interesting point. At the very top of the hour when they were announcing all the folks that would be on that hour, they played about two seconds of the Peak Oil animated video of the car climbing the hill then going over the cliff. The two seconds they showed was of the car just as it leaped over the cliff.
http://peakoil.com/article33887.html
Ron Patterson
Thank you.
we are on an energy joy ride and toonces is at the wheel!
A cat can't do much worse than the chimp who is currently at the wheel in the US. Hey wait, don't we have a chimp who can drive here?
LOL, a Toonces reference, that was awesome.
Did anyone catch when the host mentioned Simmons' book, Twilight in the Desert, and the image they flashed on the screen was Jerome Cosri's book, Blackgold Stranglehold, which advocates abiotic oil? Something tells me that that was not an accident.
Wow, I made it to the big time - or at least, two seconds made it on air. The original is on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulxe1ie-vEY
The complete QuickTime is free and available to anyone who wants to use it as part of a presentation. You can download a lo-res version (13 MB) or the hi-res original (165 MB) from here: http://idisk.mac.com/warnwood-Public
Thanks for the links Ron.
Joe
Simmons mentions in this that oil from tar sands is bad quality - to book reserves, such as its oil sands project in Alberta, but doing so amounts to an exercise in “turning gold into lead” because of the vast energy and potable water resources needed there to produce low-quality oil.
Is there a posting somewhere that explains the details? What is oil made from tar sand chemically, why is the quality bad?
The bitumen is heavy oil with a low API. Extraction required strip mining similar to the way coal was mined. The sands were crushed and the heavy oil was separated from the ore using a flotation system. The heavy oil was then either upgraded to synthetic crude by cracking and the addition of hydrogen or mixed with diluents and shipped to a refinery area capable of processing the heavy oil mixture. Deeper tar sands were developed by the drilling of parallel horizontal wells in a process called SAGD (steam assisted gravity drainage). The steam was piped down the upper well and eventually melted the tar. The heavy oil sank to the lower well bore and was pumped out of the lower horizontal well to the surface. There is a third process called THAI (toe to heel air injection) that ignited the oil below surface using high air pressure to produce spontaneous combustion. The fire then melted bitumen and the bitumen was collected along with formation water and combustion produced steam condensate water at the other end of the well system. This process was supposed to upgrade the oil to a lighter variety as shown in lab tests. Early field test results indicated they did not upgrade nearly as much as was hoped. There were some remaining problems with sand and well control that have not been fully described. The process is yet in the R&D - pilot test phase.
I am not a chemist, but understand the bitumen is in the form of longer heavier polymers. These longer hydrocarbon chains were manipulated with expensive processes in order to render salable crude.
What is bad quality today might be of precious quality in the future.
Have you ever heard of the Pitch Drop Experiment? That's what comes out of tar sands. Perhaps you can see from the picture why its so difficult to turn into fuels like gasoline.
The term "gold into lead" might, at least partially, refer to the fact that this stuff can be used to make plastics and some other useful materials that are of enourmous value to modern society (especially modern medicine). Putting so much effort into turning it into fuel really is rather silly.
rainsong is right to say that the viscosity of bitumen has to do with the length of the polymer molecule in it. For polymers, the longer the molecules, the harder they are to pull apart from eachother.
That's a good point, but it actually refers to the use of high quality resources - clean water and natural gas - to turn tar into fuel.
Cheers
New Limits to Growth Revive Malthusian Fears
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120613138379155707.html
Double-digit oil price is history: R S Sharma
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Double-digit_oil_price_is_history_R_...
Food prices on the rise worldwide
Bats Perish, and No One Knows Why
NY Times Editorial: Pain at the Pump and Beyond
Food prices on the rise worldwide
Visited my local restraunt supply house, where food has been at far lower prices than, oh, say the grocery store.
Beans that were at sub $10 for 20 lbs less than 6 months ago are now at $17.12
Amazing. And yet - the place STILL has Chineese sourced peeled garlic.
The increases in consumer food prices are much more than the rise of commodity prices or their scarcity.
A loaf of bread, purchased at more than $2 retail, on "sale", has about 12 cents of wheat in it when wheat is $10 bushel.
Its the myriad of other costs that are really shoving the cost of retail food.
Hey everyone, I don't know if you noticed, but the backwardation premium on WTI contracts is really narrowing down. It was over a buck a few weeks back, now we're seeing only 30-40 cents. That means commercial traders are no longer willing to pay so much to entice speculators to go long, for obvious reasons.
My chart:
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/marketquotes/W.html
shows backwardation going out to Dec 09.
Rice almost $20 a 100weight.
I thought of you when I watched grain prices today.
You can buy call options on light sweet crude, $150 strike price, Dec 2010 for $3500. Do you think this is a good investment?
Yes. Be sure to check back as prices get higher for a good time to sell.
It has been several years since I was in the options markets.
You do not have an email address in your profile, so can you send me an email ??
Some good ideas here that have been occasionally discussed on this forum - the merger of human-behavior studies and technology to provide immediate feedback on energy consumption - alerting consumers when the price of electricity is high, and (most interestingly) comparison of their consumption vs. that of their neighbors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/science/25tier.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin
- Dick Lawrence
ASPO-USA
Along the same lines from EurekAlert http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/uosc-tmi032408.php
Too much information? Study shows how ignorance can be influential
Todd
Exactly similar to the MPG feedback one gets in a Honda Insight (and I believe in the Prius). It doesn't take long for someone who is paying attention to gasoline prices to optimize the gas mileage based on this feedback.
It is also in the Camry Hybrid.
For that matter it was on my 1988 Lincoln Town Car with a 5.0 liter V8. This isn't exactly a new feature.
For optimization, isn't a manual shift and tachometer enough? Or just listening to how fast the engine is running? I get 45+ mpg in a stock Hyundai accent that way, and I suspect many/most on this list do likewise. Perhaps it would be useful to make up some little round stickers for the dash which say "Low RPM = better mileage" for those who like visual reinforcement. Another augmentation for those folks could be little transparent stickers for the mirrors which say "Objects in Mirror are More Tangible Than They Appear".
Just a thought.
I know that when I first got my Prius, I was constantly looking at the mpg and trying to maximize it in every way I could think of. Not so much anymore as the novelty has worn off. Only real long term solution may be electric shock treatments.
Here's a few more from around the world...
Iran
India hopes to resume talks on IPI pipeline soon
Japan
Economic ministers warn of downside risks as Japan's recovery pauses
China
China's oil giants blame price rise rumors for worsening fuel supply crisis
I found this 60 minute video presentation, a basic introduction to PO, at the economic site Financial Sense. Apoligies if it has been linked here before. The lecturer is speaking to an investment club although the lecture is listed as a college presentation. The lecture goes a bit beyond an introduction imo, and I believe it to be a good tool for those that are having difficulty communicating the concept of PO to friends and relatives. Recording date is listed as Oct, 2007. Note: To forestall any that would take issue with points made or omitted in the lecture...I do not claim the lecture is perfect and I am not in agreement with every word spoken, or those ommited, in the lecture. IOW, if you have problems with content, contact Dr Petrov, not me.
The speaker, Dr. Kassimir Petrov, near the end of the lecture advises the audience that there are several sites that focus on PO, but far and away the best site is TOD. Kudos and happy 3rd birthday to TOD.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8053133027439445734
RE: the video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8053133027439445734
About 30 seconds into his 60 minute video, he says that (he said in 2006,oil would reach $100 / barrel by the end of 2007).
It looks like he had read my article I wrote in 2004.
http://www.angelfire.com/in/Gilbert1/tt.html
Gilbert (DocScience)
Peak Oil discussion comes to the Massachusetts Legislature March 31:
From ASPO-USA news site:
http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=338&It...
It's great to hear that Massachusetts is starting to do something, even if it's only talk. I hope that goes well.
All the Iron Triangle fans will appreciate this one.
YouTube link - some of his other stuff is pretty crude so mind yourself if you are at work.
Jon Lajoie
An article that I co-authored with my partner is in the current April/May issue of Mother Earth News magazine. Called Choosing Renewables, it deals with the challenges and rewards of moving towards household energy independence. This is not a glowing article about how fabulous renewables are. It deals with the gritty reality of our (my) screwups, glitches and high costs. It also contains some insights we've gained along the way. For example, a short excerpt:
The article is online here:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Renewable-Energy/
2008-04-01/Choosing-Renewable-Energy.aspx
We're pretty pleased that Mother agreed to publish this article. Virtually all other articles I've read on the subject seem to imply that home energy independence is easy. We have no regrets at all about our efforts, but it certainly hasn't been easy.
John
Couldn't get the link to work. John
blue,
I don't know how to do a hyperlink. Maybe if you cut and paste the second line of the url you'll get it.
John
I think you inadvertantly left the ".aspx" part off the URL when you cut.
My suspicion is that your browser is not showing you the entire link in the URL bar, and you cut and pasted what you saw.
For convenience, this should work...
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Renewable-Energy.aspx
John, that link is broken. I found the correct link
here
Hi John as a subscriber I got your email and read the article on windmills and solar water heaters last night. Thought they were well done, would have appreciated some specific product recco's on the solar water heaters. Down here in the Wichita area I am at a loss to find qualified products or installers so it looks like the internet for a purchase and then ??? What a heck of a small biz opportunity in an area of approx 1,000,000 can't believe no one seems to have seized the opportunity in this area.
Would be nice if you guys could knock some sense into your neighbors up there in Topeka and get the Legislature off the snide on getting some incentives passed. Talk about living in the past....
Thanks again always learn something from your magazine.
KC,
One of the big problems with residential renewables is a terrible absence of qualified retailers and installers. This is still very much an emerging field, even though it is thirty years old. But twenty years of low oil and gas prices meant that the industry never matured.
A small example. When we first installed our system I got advice from and bought the components from people I knew and who had been in the business for twenty years. But nobody I sought advice from mentioned lightning protection. The result? A blown up $6k inverter. To achieve household energy independence you have to be prepared to make mistakes and deal with the consequences.
John
John, could you post some info (or a link) on dealing with lightening protection? That sounds like a major issue. The solution might be easy, but if people don't know about it, nothing will get done.
And thanks for your article. It was informative.
The various electrical panel makers (Square D, GE,...) make surgebreakers that fit into two slots.
One can also buy add-on whole panel surge protectors that do not take any slots. I would install one of each and another just before the inverter.
Alan
I use Delta Lightening Arrestors on the AC and DC sides with a site- specific grounding strategy. One size does not fit all, particularly if wind turbines are involved.
Protecting against lightening induced transients can be pretty esoteric, not unlike protecting against EMP in some circumstances.
You will get conflicting advice from electricians and EE's. Find someone with a lot of practical experience in your area to advise you on your specific installation.
I never had a client with a zapped inverter, although they have been knocked off line on numerous occasions by nearby lightening strikes, requiring a manual reset.
The old, made in the U.S.A., Trace Engineering Inverters were outstanding in this respect.
Now, with Xantrex and Chinese production, your mileage may vary.
Defense in depth is to be preferred !
Alan
ozonehole,
I don't consider myself any sort of expert on the electrical aspects. I'm ok on the mechanical tasks but I still rely on electrical geeks for advice and installation. We added ground rods in a couple of locations and also some lighting arrestor devices, one on the DC side and one on the AC. I don't know for sure how effective all this has been, but we've had no trouble since adding lightning protection and that has been a much longer period than when we had three damaging lightning episodes early on. The key is to do good lightning protection of the kind you would do for any other electrical installation. But there are intricacies that I don't pretend to understand.
John
These are pretty reasonably priced and available from many on-line sources:
http://www.deltala.com/
I think they are used a lot to protect motors and drilling equipment as well as solar DC equipment.
We have one at the VFD motor drive that connects to our ground source well. Another where the solar pv comes in the house.
Where ever buried cable enters (main service entrance) is a place where risk of "voltage transients" exists.
Available as AC single phase, 3-phase, and DC that I know of.
I have no commercial connection with pretty much anything.
Joe
This is still very much an emerging field, even though it is thirty years old
Quite true.
Personal anecdote to illustrate: In the recent heat pump class I took (community college HVA
C/R, A.A.S. program), the instructor was lecturing about how printed circuit board with controls are increasingly being designed into the HP.
He was given a tour of a major HP manufacturer not to long ago, where he noticed the assemblers who handled the boards were all wearing what is generally known as wrist/grounding straps more formally known as electrostatic discharge straps (ESD).
My first exposure to ESD straps was 17 years ago in a personal computer program which required achievement CompTia A+ certification. The concept of ESD was first introduced to me 30 years ago in military electronics training.
FWIW, The International Association for Radio, Telecommunications and Electromagnetics (NARTE) even offers a certification program over ESD.
The instructor noted the significance of the strap's function. When he arrived back to his locale, he searched the wholesale houses that serviced HP's to find out nobody had any straps, indeed the reps didn't even know what he was talking about.
Yes, even the 'professionals' are still learning.
Yes, even the 'professionals' are still learning.
Wind turbine maker/installer of the 1+MW class. Has (at least one) $35,000 dollar controll board. Ships them from the field back to the warehouse for restocking (implys to me someone else will get 'em), in white packing peanuts w/o static bags...boards just tossed in one on top of the other.
They hire EE grads and people who used to work in nuke plants...people who are 'smart'...yet it seems they do not follow EDS "rules"....with over 1/2 a million in electronics.
EDS? or ESD?
Electro Static Discharge
Heh.
people who used to work in nuke plants
The heat pump instructor was at one time a nuke engineer.
K.C.
You are correct. There is a tremendous market opportunity for solar water heating. This is not a new technology. Reliable equipment is available. The weak link is competent system design and installation.
Flat plate collector and evacuated tube systems both work very well.
You need site-specific design, equipment recommendations and competent installation to end up with a system that functions.
I have seen many expensive systems with botched installations and I am a firm believer in the KISS Principle. Most plumbers are clueless.
You can get lo-ball equipment on-line but you will be better served if you can find local experts to assist you IMO. Buy the equipment from the people who will install and service the system.
There is no such thing as a simple pipe fitting job. Its all in the execution.
All the old guys who used to do this are dying off or retiring.
There is a tremendous business opportunity here for some new blood,
now and post TEOTWAWKI.
If you must do it yourself, there is an article on the subject in the archives of Home Power Magazine that is the best extant.
Are there any ideas out there on how to scale-up residential solar hot water?
I am reminded of the Solar Hot Water Bubble of the Seventies.
There is a tremendous market opportunity for solar water heating. This is not a new technology. Reliable equipment is available.
One of the podcasts I listen to was stating how many California properties had solar hot water back in the 1800's.
Then oil was found in California.
(and here we are! Wheeee!)
Now....anyone know American Makers of evacuated glass tube collectors?
Kansas: Home Power Magazine #118 had a good in-depth article on SHW systems. Along with other articles in their back-issues, I should think you'll be able to get a sufficient education to tackle the project. They also have lists of installers in the back. Hope that helps!
I still get Homepower, and do endorse it, but it has moved away from its Do It Yourself roots that originally drew me, putting more emphasis now on Established products and the testimony of satisfied RE customers. Usually very good articles on Wiring to Code, proper Grounding, etc, to make sure that installations continue to be safe and reliable, and don't give RE a black eye.
http://www.homepower.com/
For you experimenters, there are a lot of fun projects in the Mother Earth News Archives, as well as a long listing of current homebuilts and experiments over at http://www.builditsolar.com/
Bob
John,
Excellent article! When I first heard about peak oil, I thought using renewables would be a quick and easy way to go. Two or three evenings of research showed me the opposite. It is hard to find articles that talk about the real issues involved.
Congratulations on publishing ME article, excellent piece for bringing some of the hype to reality. Your comment that most of North America is ill suited to wind or solar bears repeating.
Although not a subscriber, I think ME news too often projects the walk in the park attitude. It seems too often to dovetail the ads for finger guided tillers producing bushel baskets of organic produce.
It's late March, someone should be doing an article of the monotony of home grown and preserved foods, of the mini-rebellions over yet another bowl of potato soup for lunch
From a thirty-three year perspective in the field, small wind and solar work great in North America.
But, it is very site- and micro-climate specific.
The little secret is that stand-alone wind and solar are not cost-effective for most people without significant life-style change.
I have found that it is much more effective to have an integrated approach that include the passive solar and energy efficient residential design strategies that work in all climates.
One has to be able to separate the pie-in-the-sky from what works in the real world.
Romantic notions of a nineteenth century life-style wear thin after awhile and that 1000 gallon underground tank of diesel in the back yard will eventually grow algae or be used up in the backup generator.
I agree with Hirsch. My view is that the window of opportunity for mitigation at the national level is past. There might still be time for mitigation in the grass-roots at the level of families and communities.
When the grid drops out as it does with some frequency in my environs, wind and solar are priceless.
Buy the stuff now if you want it. The equipment supply-side is very thin in the alternative energy industry. Any little panic and all will disappear.
Best hopes for wind and solar in the grass-roots.
It is too-little, too-late at the national level IMO; mere drops in the ocean for all the reasons argued so eloquently here on TOD and as even a cursory examination of the EIA data will reveal.
Well said, solardoc, and you have my admiration for sticking it out in this topsy-turvy industry for 33 years. You must have an iron constitution and an enormous passion for it. After only three years in the retrofit solar market, I had had enough, & am glad to be out of it!
One has to be able to separate the pie-in-the-sky from what works in the real world....Ain't that the truth!
One distinction that I don't think is mentioned often enough is that "wind" and "solar" are hardly monolithic businesses. As you know, there is a world of difference between residential/small commercial and utility-scale projects, in every way.
But I agree that homeowners are well-advised to get while the getting is good, an in particular, to take advantage of local incentives as soon as they are offered, because they always decrease over time, and at a far faster rate than the equipment prices.
Hi Solardoc
Speaking of such things, if I switch my DHW production from fuel oil to electricity, my consumption will drop to about 300 litres/80 gallons per year and my tank may be refilled once every two or three years. I've been enquiring about the shelf life of #2 fuel oil and the answers have ranged from 6 months to twenty or more years. The tank is five years old and located inside my basement so this fuel is stored at a fairly constant temperature. Should I be concerned about this fuel going bad and would you recommend adding a stabilizer to help prevent algae growth?
Cheers,
Paul
Halifax,
You appear to have optimum storage conditions. If it were mine, I would certainly add a stabilizer/algaecide/varnish inhibitor and draw periodic samples for examination. The smell of varnish is quite distinctive. Consider having a sample analyzed.
A supply of #2 fuel oil will be a valuable resource going forward. If properly cared for, it should serve as diesel fuel in time of need. Deterioration may not be so critical for heating purposes.
The lighter hydrocarbon fractions are less stable. Gasoline/petrol can go off in 6 months but will last up to 2 years with stabilizers, depending on light and temperature exposures.
I would be careful about relying more on the grid. Maintain flexibility on critical systems. Redundant layers may be less efficient but more secure.
More expert opinion is invited on storage life of #2 fuel oil and potential use as diesel fuel in a pinch.
Thanks, solardoc; I appreciate your insight. My sense was that an inside tank would give me a leg up, but since these estimates were all over the map I wasn't sure if three years might be pushing it. I'm also cognizant of the fact that as tank levels drop the risk of condensation increases and this would, presumably, aggravate the situation further. I'll see if I can locate some sort of additive/treatment product just for peace of mind alone, and when the service technician changes the fuel filter and burner nozzle I'll make a point of asking him how they appear to be holding up.
Thankfully, I have multiple sources of heat upon which to draw. The bulk of my space heating is provided by my ductless heat pump and I have an oil-fired boiler and indirect hot water tank. The boiler is wired to a backup generator and running this generator one or two hours a day during an extended power cut would theoretically provide me with all the heat and DHW I need. I also have in-floor electric radiant heat in various rooms and four propane fireplaces. As a rule, I try to keep a minimum of 500 litres of heating oil, 300 litres of propane and 40 litres of stabilized gasoline on hand at all times. I also keep two 20-pound BBQ sized propane tanks in reserve, plus I can steal another 80 to 100 litres of gasoline from the two Chryslers if need be.
Fuel oil is selling locally for $1.00 to $1.20 per litre or upwards of $4.50 per gallon; at 82% AFUE, this translates to be $0.137 per kWh(e). Electric resistance is currently $0.1067 per kWh and my ductless heat pump provides heat at effectively $0.043 per kWh. Propane now retails for $1.25 per litre/$4.70 per gallon and so its cost per kWh(e) is in the range of $0.29 when burned in a gas fireplace (typically 60% AFUE). Needless to say, under normal circumstances the least costly sources are used first. In the event of an emergency, I would utilize electricity when available, followed by fuel oil and then, lastly, propane. I have a propane cook top, so my intent would be to conserve my supplies of propane to the greatest extent possible. Barring equipment failure and a complete loss of grid power, I would expect to have enough fuel to comfortably see me through an entire winter and maybe even two [my total space heating requirements are roughly 12,500 kWh or 42.5 MM BTUs per year].
Cheers,
Paul
Thanks to all for the additional suggestions and comments. Will seek out the additional support recco's
Substantial improvement in essential cheap solar cell process
http://www.physorg.com/news125229543.html
Hydrogen Technology Fuels South Carolina Project
http://nytechnology.net/archives/47-Hydrogen-Technology-Fuels-South-Caro...
Petrosun to Start Commercial Operation of 4.4 MGY Algae Oil Plant
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/03/fyi-petrosun-to.html
Biofuels: a solution that became part of the problem
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/25/biofuels.energy
We need more nuclear plants to avoid blackouts, say German power chiefs
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/24/nuclearpower.energyeff...
Prototype completed for new ZAP electric truck
http://www.gizmag.com/zap-xl-electric-truck/9039/
"Prototype completed for new ZAP electric truck"
This would be a great replacement for my old Nissan pickup, but I checked out the brochure at Zap's website, and the truck has "speeds up to 25 MPH." In the U.S., at least, it's hard to see this as practical for anything other than as a service vehicle on a college campus or the like. Where I live, I'd probably get rear-ended, even if driving in a school zone.
I used to drive an electric milk float, and certainly could not have sped along at 25mph!
10mph, if you were very lucky, is more like.
I just let others drive around me, and if rear-ended they have to pay anyway.
Here in the UK on narrow, winding country roads a tractor can cause a procession of vehicles behind them, so I wouldn't worry about solving other people's driving problems - just drive the car or truck you are in, at whatever it's capabilities are.
It might be worth it to stick a notice on the back, saying that you are electric, that is why you are slow.
'I just let others drive around me, and if rear-ended they have to pay anyway.'
Things are a bit different here. People carry guns, leagally, and if they get ticked off they sometimes use them. It's not uncommon in road rage incidents for drivers/passangers to exchange fire from their vehicles. At times the angered drivers will pull over and continue the shoot out on the side of the road. If they run out of ammo, they fight with fists or whatever comes to hand.
If a road enraged driver saw a sign that said 'battery powered vehicle' he/she would probably think of the energizer bunny and immediately speed up to flatten it. That energizer commercial was particularly long lived and annoying.
The rest of the world seems to think that the spirit of the old west is gone from America. Not true. We are just as, narrow minded, ornery, self centered, and easily infuriated as the gun fighters of the past. 'Cut me off you butt-head? I'll fix your wagon!'
Once when leaving DC late at night in my VW I was caught in the tunnel between a Caddy and an Olds, each driven by guys dressed like pimps. They were both holding their pistols out the windows, firing at each other. Fortunately for me, pimps are notoriously bad shots and I was not hit. I don't think they hit one another, either. :)
'The Spirit of the Wild West' , alive and kickin' in Reagan-town.
Just for another perspective, I lived in Manhattan for 19 years, and never heard a shot.. well maybe once in Brooklyn.
Bob
River, that was really good. I enjoyed it.
Do you have a literary agent?
Solardoc, glad that you enjoyed it. No, don't have an agent...just a lot of stories gleened from an interesting life.
Which reminds me of the time I was teaching a class of Automatic Train Control students at WMATA the fine points of replacing a trailed switch. Alanfrombigeasy will certainly know what a trailed switch is but for all interested: a trailed switch is one that has been run by a train 'against the switch' and against the red aspect of a signal. Usually the train goes on the ground and must be cleared by a cranetrain and the switch has bent internal parts that need replacement. Normally switches are trailed at crossevers at interlockings so train speed is minimal and no one aboard is injured.
Anyway, I was instructing about six students near the Brentwood Yard near a tunnel entrance when a big car stopped on the overpass above us. Yep, they peed in our general direction, then they lit up a hooter. While lounging above us smoking they took out what I believe were .25 cal autos and began shooting at us. We dived behind a cast iron signals box untill those guys tired of the game or ran out of ammo.
Just another day at WMATA in DC. None of us were hit so we didn't bother to report the incident. I was always happy when the home office would call and tell me to take my crew and go fix a problem at BART or MARTA or anywhere to get a break from DC.
This, it seems, makes gun play seem sorta superfluous when a ton or more of steel, vinyl and rubber can do the job quite nicely, thank you very much.
"According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, approximately 250,000 people have been killed and 20 million motorists injured in traffic crashes between 1990-96. The U.S. DOT estimates that two thirds of fatalities are at least partially caused by aggressive driving.
A study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety that included reports from 30 newspapers, a review of insurance claims and police reports from 16 cities revealed the following statistics among 10,037 occurrences between 1990 and 1996.
10,037 incidents of aggressive driving
218 deaths
More than 12,610 injuries"
Jeff
When I looked at that and figured that's 36 (more or less) deaths a year over 6 yr.s, with how many millions driving is probably statistically insignificant, unless you talk to the relatives, friend and co-workers of the stats.
Yes, the incident with the gun fighters reminds me of my years in Chicago. We heard guns often. Once I saw people fleeing from a McDonalds in my neighborhood where someone "was shooting"! Of course everyone outside the McDonalds had to dash away too. It wasn't a crazy person, just an ordinary dispute among the locals.
How happy I was to emigrate to a country where guns are illegal!!
River;
I grew up in the DC area, and indeed, in the late 80's I was employed as an EMT-Paramedic with DC Fire. Most nights I could hear all manner of gunfire from the firehouse (I worked in Anacostia), and of course, when someone was shot (which was all the time) my colleagues and I would jump in our emergency vehicles and rush to the scene. As you would imagine, the vast majority of those I took care of were rival pharmacuetical sales reps settling disputes over maketing with 9mm pistols. And yes, they typically were not very good shots, but due to the large capacity magazines their weapons were equipped with, they were usually more than able to make up for their lack of skill by firing many rounds in a rather promiscuos manner. I do not have fond memories of those days.
SubKommander Dred
What a stupid remark, anyone who went through the trouble to get a CC permit wouldn't be so stupid. That is why this stuff only happens in the Peoples republic of California, where everyone thinks a BB guns should be illegal. Try your local gangbanger for a source of the bullets, not your local law biding NRA members.
An armed society is a polite society....Heinlien
My travels have led me to believe quite the opposite.
There are a few states left where you can conceal carry all day long without a permit if you stay out of towns and mining camps.
Open carry OK most anywhere if you stay away from schools, government buildings etc. Open vehicle carry OK if in plain sight of the trooper when he pulls you over.
A few years back there was a bit of a ruckus down in Pinedale when a newcomer got into the town government and tried to introduce an ordinance prohibiting guns in saloons. The locals rose up in righteous indignation and got rid of that fella. I heard he was from California.
Its relentless though. We are slowly getting gentrified out here with creeping suburbia and trophy McMansions springing up in the foothills out back. Its getting to where you can hardly step outside and bust a few caps anymore. My neighbor still runs his cattle up the highway to the high country every spring and back down in the fall.
Yep, there are still real cowboys out here. Don't know how much longer they can hold out with the price of feed though.
Some time ago, one of the local boys got a job at the CENEX refinery. He got into a spat with his girl friend over another man. One Saturday after getting off work on the second shift, he decided to try and make up with the girl friend and drove his pick-up over to her mobile home. He found a new Harley parked in the drive way. It seems that the girlfriend was entertaining another gentleman.
He drove back home, put on his cowboy outfit, got his Winchester Model 94, saddled up his horse and rode back to his girl friend's
mobile home.
He rode up to the Harley still in the driveway, and discharged a full magazine into the motorcycle. Well, a 30.30 is not the most powerful cartridge but at close range it got the job done. He rode off into the night a satisfied man.
The Sheriff got him the next day. I think he got off on probation with promise of restitution for the dead Harley.
Honest. These are true stories.
Does anyone need a McMansion? There are some in the foothills out back that have been marked way down.
DaveMart
Just getting back to you on your question about my brothers' store in Bristol who was also a milkman who drove an electric truck. The store was Where The Wild Things Are. His name is Bill Street.
Hey, that was in park Street, wasn't it?
I have certainly seen it, can't place where at the moment
No, that was on Ambra Vale
new ZAP electric truck" ... "speeds up to 25 MPH."
Which just re-enforces my thinking on the amount of 'power' behind snow moving EQ - just to keep roads cleared for things like cars or emergency EQ.
How willing will citizens be to have roads (that lack personal cars) maintained? With Tax loads VS spending what they are - what will be breaking points?
Eric:
Good point. The school board I work at is $300,000 in the red this year with the snow removal budget. We had a record year. We had several freeze thaw cycles, record snow. Frost heaving, salt and ploughs have totaled our roads. Climate, declining FF availability and increased costs for fuel and materials, and depressed tax revenues from a pronounced recession may cause a serious reduction in the quality of our roads.
I am starting to believe we may experience a death from a thousand cuts; electrical grid, transportation , municipal water and sewer system degredation.
You might want to read this at Wired Magazine.
Pete
Your link utterly crashed my high hopes of owning one of these things.
I wanted the truck, and I was going to put a "pipe-rack" style solar collector over the entire roof area of the truck.
I was already expecting the solar panel alone to provide all of my minimal needs as a retiree wanting quickie trips to WalMart, grocery store, and church.
Thanks for the link. Its much better I find out this way than AFTER I had the experiences Wired reported.
Although I would love to design an electric car of my own using SEMA motors, Lithium LIPO batteries, and solar cells, the R&D costs for doing this is just out of my budget.
Seems a shame because the technology does not scare me in the least. I fear that I am no different than the bicycle inventor that got kicked out.
Its been my experience in the Aerospace sector that when big money arrives on the scene, the people who actually do the detail work that make the product work are expended so they can have more money to pay the people who laid them off. From then on, the company is all salesmanship and presentation skills; all tie-guy work. The tool-guy is gone. Laid off. Retired.
If you just want a car, as opposed to a truck, it has already been done for you:
http://www.gizmag.com/ukp14000-thnk-city-electric-car-ready-for-showroom...
UKP14,000 TH!NK city electric car ready for showrooms
These guys, a spin off from Ford, with considerable input from Porsche in production, are a lot more serious than ZAP
Mitsubishi is building a model for the Japanese market:http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10/14/mitsubishi-imiev-gets-20-30-percent-more-range-from-new-battery/
Mitsubishi iMiEV gets 20-30 percent more range from new battery - AutoblogGreen
BMW is also thinking about an electric car:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/19/travelandtransport.car...
Battery-powered car on the cards for BMW in bid to cut emissions | Environment | The Guardian
In my opinion, the best bet for personal transportation investments, considering peak oil and the inevitable decay of our roadways is Zero's new S model. A fully electric, street legal, indestructable motorcycle available next month.
http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/
Around $8k with a lithium pack.
Wow,
It's something watching the demo videos at that site. I've been predicting that electric vehicles are going to have sound systems built onto them just so you can hear the damn things coming.. you just find the samples from your favorite Turboprops, Starfighters or MuscleCars, and pimp your sounds out a little!
The article about Germany needing more nuclear plants is scary.
According to the article, current electrical capacity is 84GW (since nuclear capacity of 21GW is 25% of the total). If there is a 30GW gap by 2015, that is 36% of current capacity. (Hopefully, the article or my calculation is wrong.) Earlier in the article it talks about a gap of 12 to 21 GW, which I am interpreting to be a current shortage.
The article doesn't explain the problems, other than the short statement quoted above saying "blackouts could occur as early as this summer because of problems with wind power and cooling difficulties in other power plants."
EdF needs to start building more nukes on the Rhine ASAP !
And Poland too, on the Oder !
Can the Czechs be talked into building a handful as well ?
Alan
Build nukes on the Rhine and Oder? What a top suggestion. Perhaps you missed the bit in the article about the problems posed by water shortages in summer? Do Germany's rivers await the same fate as that of the once splendid Rhône.
Some people don't like rivers that are 30 degrees centigrade, some people like to swim in the rivers or catch fish in them - ones that can actually be eaten. New nukes are (for the time being) a non-starter in Germany anyway. There is no public support and huge organised opposition - two reasons for which are stated above.
BTW, what is the situation with the Kashiwazaki and Kariwa power plants? Anyone? There's deafening silence from the pro-nuke crowd on these topics. It would be a breathe of fresh, non-radioactive air to hear the grave shortcomings of existing nuclear power highlighted and then an outline of the opportunities for improvements afforded by future technologies.
And how many deaths were caused? None? How many have died providing the coal which Germany has in practise fallen back on as the alternatives are just fooling around at the fringes?
Do you think renewables cause no fatalities?
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html
Rooftop solar power is actually more dangerous than Chernobyl.
There is no perfect energy source. Get over it.
Nearly 60% of the energy produced in a thermal (gas, coal, oil nuclear) generation plant is rejected into the cooling water. Thermal pollution.... higher water temperatures, lower oxygen content, algea bloom. I think he has a point.
I agree that thermal output should be minimised.
What I find unrealistic is the demand that all problems should be solved instantly.
By and large, nuclear power has been used to replace coal burn, which uses just as much thermal cooling and also churns out far more pollutants, including mercury, which has a half-life of forever.
What is more, there are real prospects of greatly improving the thermal efficiency of nuclear plants.
There is also an argument that, at least in France, the ecosystem is already adapted to some level of heat input, and that a reduction might actually cause damage, although I agree that in drought conditions care needs to be taken - France went a bit cheap on designing their cooling in some of their plants.
The problem is much reduced in coastal sites, due to the shear volume of water available to dilute the heat.
It is the presentation of very containable issues as show-stoppers which I find disingenuous, and often arises because the person who is making the argument already has a prejudgement regarding nuclear power, and will use any stick to beat the dog - in reality, if no thermal pollution happened at all, then for some their prejudgement would not alter in any way.
So yes, thermal pollution is an issue, but no more than for coal, and is very addressable.
I wasn't arguing for or against nukes. I was trying to make the point that all types of thermal generation require a cooling source. usually a local lake, river or ocean. Either way 60% of the heat from the fuel is rejected in the cooling water. There are no ways to change the laws of thermodynamics. What we can do is ensure that there is a use for the waste heat. Combined cycle plants use that 60% to create a hot water loop for district heating and absorption cooling loops. Maybe one part of the solution is to legislate that all new thermal plants must be combined cycle with minimum efficiencies. 30% isn't good enough in the age of peak everything.
It is not really any problem for nuclear plants to use all the energy.
They could easily and safely be buried 100meters down under cities - a very secure location for them, and the cooling water could be piped to the city - of course, even though the risk is then way reduced even from present very low levels by underground location, whose extra cost would be offset by the nearly 100% efficiency obtained, Greenpeace and so on would try to spread panic.
It would not surprise me though to see such a system used in China, for instance.
As Charles said though, nuclear should be able to reach a thermal efficiency of around 60% anyway.
Rooftop solar power is actually more dangerous than Chernobyl.
Right, Cuz when there is a failure in rooftop solar power, many people have to abandon their property and have their lives shortened via toxins released into the environment.
There is no perfect energy source. Get over it.
Oh? So that makes any failure modes OK?
You engineer for as much safety as possible.
The original post did not distinguish between some kind of breach of the actual containment vessel and a relatively minor release.
Equivalent leaks have happened at chemical and oil plants time out of mind.
To demand perfect safety for the nuclear industry is just a fancy way of ruling it out, and you can't guarantee perfect safety from renewables either.
You are still dead if you fall off a roof.
In the West, the nuclear industry is not perfect, but it is about the safest energy production system ever built.
Anyone who works on a roof without fall protection is asking for a Darwin Award.
http://www.darwinawards.com/
E. Swanson
Right, because the danger is being 'offshored' to your grandkids..
Radioactivity decreases enormously after the first 40 years.
The bits that hang around aren't very radioactive - that is why they have long half-lives!
Yep, there is some nasty stuff in nuclear waste, and in my view we should develop reactors which will burn it, but compared, say, to the coal industries output of mercury, which has a half life of forever, you are not talking of huge amounts or levels of waste - and we know how to further improve it.
There are maybe a half dozen isotopes which one should be concerned about. They have half-lives from 12 to 50 years or so. But unfortunately humans have a short attention span.
What's the fate of all that radioactive crap from the bomb projects of 60 years ago? When did it stop being radioactive? When did the DOE start publishing site surveys and such so you can know and avoid it?
I don't know...I looked at that link you posted on deaths/TWh and the methodology (as one commentor pointed out) was pretty badly flawed, and the conclusions therefore dubious. There is also a huge difference between rooftop and ground-mounted installations, which are not broken down.
It did occur to me that it's not really a fair comparison anyway. Nukes have arguably the most well-developed safety standards of any energy technology. Whereas the solar cowboys I've worked with on roofs regularly take lots of risks, many of them avoidable, in an effort to speed things up and keep the installation costs down. It takes time to tie off, it's awkward to work in a harness, the ropes get in the way of moving around on the roof, it's time consuming to set up scaffolding, it's expensive to rent a lift instead of using ladders, etc. etc. All of the risk is on the contractor, and successful shortcuts go straight to his bottom line. And there are hardly any applicable laws to ensure safe practices.
Whereas the risks of nuclear are broadly shared and in some part externalized, the standards and practices are highly regulated, and so on.
I am sure Brian will be very happy to seriously consider any mistakes he has made in methodology, if you comment on his site, or alternatively you could list them here.
I did not look in detail at the workings, as the basic fact is that in the West at least the nuclear industry has been very safe, and that some level of risk is involved in any human activity.
The risks of nuclear energy seem to me to be grossly exaggerated, and in practise we have carried on burning dirty, dangerous old coal, at God knows what cost to the environment both in deaths and in global warming consequences.
I'd point out that even the deliberate dropping of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not result in some kind of dead zone, both are thriving metropoli.
I am sure Brian will be very happy to seriously consider any mistakes he has made in methodology.
In the comments thread, he dithered about answering the methodological questions, and then finally admitted that he simply couldn't find the finer-grained data that would be necessary to buttress his conclusions.
Fair enough, serous and well-founded critiques are always welcome, and I will take another closer look, and not reference it again if it seems that there are serious issues.
I can't conceive that the basic case is incorrect though - I used to work on buildings, and as soon as you are at height, particularly in a relatively unstructured environment, say some guy has snow on his roof and thinks he will 'just pop up to sweep it off' his solar panel, the accident rates are huge.
The kitchen, for instance, is a lethal place, and traditional indoor fires in the third world mass-murderers.
It is the complete disproportionality of the way many people look at the risk from nuclear energy that gets me - the public is being gulled by people who know better with alarmist nonsense, led by Greenpeace.
To demand perfect safety for the nuclear industry is just a fancy way of ruling it out, and you can't guarantee perfect safety from renewables either.
I am not demanding perfect safety - I ask about the failure modes.
You seem to not understand.
If a PV panel 'fails' - who is hurt and for how long?
If a wind machine tosses a blade - who is hurt for how long?
Fission plants have a demonstrated history of expensive failure as man can not build or manage a machine without breakage.
Topic Switch -
You are railing about Mercury - a fine heavy metal. Why not the same passion over Uranium?
You can easily kill yourself attempting to clean a roof mounted anything, including solar panel.
How many have actually been killed by nuclear power in the West, compared to, say, the chemical industry?.
What is the 'failure mode' of an aircraft, since they killed 2,000 in the World Trade Centre? Should we give up flying because of it?
Would you refuse to fly ever again because at one time a design which is no longer in use crashed?
There are far, far more proven deaths from air crashes than nuclear power, you know.
Why are you applying different standards?
I certainly agree about uranium - the coal industry just distributes it over the landscape in it's emissions.
How many have actually been killed by nuclear power in the West, compared to, say, the chemical industry?.
I see. You are now going with 'dead' as unacceptible harm. Millions have been effected by Depleted Uranium - either Dead, maimed, or poisoned with heavy metal that has been airsolized. The Depleted Uranium comes via the desire for man to concentrate Uranium to then release energy.
Life being shortened or increases in cancer does not matter in your eyes - good to know where you stand in the matter.
What is the 'failure mode' of an aircraft
Air craft failure modes are like wind turbines as once the physical material of said item looses its physical velocity, said material leathality drops WAY off.
You have admitted that the radioactive material is dangerours for YEARS after a fission plant failure.
Would you refuse to fly ever again because at one time a design which is no longer in use crashed?
Is this supposed to be some sort of logic that is to be applied to fission reactors?
There are far, far more proven deaths from air crashes than nuclear power, you know.
Bullshit. The US Military has many, many video tapes of killing via DU rounds. *I* lack access to them, but with tons of DU used, the odds favor DU.
Why are you applying different standards?
I am not applying different standards. But you have made the claim, now man up and *PROVE* your claim.
You have been challenged Davemart. Response at dawn, 10 paces. You can select the keyboard to be used.
References please, and from respectable sources like the World Health Organisation, not some nutters at Greenpeace.
from respectable sources like the World Health Organisation
In August 2002, the UN published a report which cited a series of international laws and conventions breached by the use of DU weapons, including: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the UN Charter; the UN Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 which all forbid the deployment of “poison or poisoned weapons” and “arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering”.
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/DU-Medical-Effects-Mar99.htm
The purpose of this work is to present an outline of the metabolic pathways of uranium isotopes and compounds, medical consequences of uranium poisoning, and an evaluation of the therapeutic alternatives in uranium internal contamination. (over 100 references cited in the link)
This was after 4 minutes with a search engine. So the information is out there.
Doug Rokke used to have the job of dealing with DU for the military
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+doug+rokke&btnG=Search
(that was 8 mins)
Now I've asked *YOU* to prove *YOUR* claim upthread. You gonna man up and do that? I doubt it, what with a morally bankrupt position. But come on, *PROVE* me wrong. *PROVE* your claim like I asked you to do in the previous post.
not some nutters at Greenpeace.
You don't like an answer - so you go for the name calling. Tis fine, just making sure you are called out for it.
That hardly proves your contention of millions of deaths.
I am also confused as to what you are asking me to prove.
Er...that is what is known as a 'war' - a lot of people there were killed with good old fashioned bullets too.
I was under the impression that what we were discussing was the construction of civil nuclear reactors.
I was under the impression that what we were discussing was the construction of civil nuclear reactors.
Really? Yet you keep talking about people falling from roofs and Mercury from smokestacks. Or airplanes.
My understanding was the harm from fission power cycle is up for discussion.
I can see why you would want to restrict the discussion that way your losing position is not discussed.
Pointless discussion then, if you wish to confound warfare with power generation.
Do you disapprove of air travel then, as aeroplanes have been used to bomb people?
Or water, because some people have died swimming?
I certainly agree about uranium - the coal industry just distributes it over the landscape in it's emissions.
GREAT! Now, how about that Depleted Uranium that gets made into airsols via the military....I note your lack of public concern over that.
Or a dam busts... oh whoops.
The French have one plant already at Fessenheim and the Swiss have a couple of nukes on the Rhine already.
Just build some more, and export any unneeded power to Germany across the river.
If the water gets too hot (river flow too low), then just shut the reactors down and let the Germans sweat in the dark.
Some people don't like rivers that are 30 degrees centigrade
But we do in Louisiana :-)
Alan
The fact that the European grid is a lot more interconnected than I had known raises my hopes for a more rapid resolution.
Grid failure in Germany caused outages in France, Italy and Spain.
If their neighbours won't get serious about building some nuclear power, or take their time, it seems to me perhaps likely that the
French will build additional plants on their own soil, as the problem will affect them.
It would be the water for coolant that makes me more doubtful, but coastal sites are available and I believe that reactors can be designed to be more economic of water, although that is presumably a major redesign.
Perhaps it could be combined with pumped water storage and dams, which would also help.
I think the 30 GW gap figure includes the decommisioning of current nuclear plants, while the lower figures do not. That being said, I live next door to the Germans and have never even heard of brown-outs in Germany. The difference between 12 and 21 GW is probably due to their calculating wind energy at 0% capacity (i.e. no wind for the higher figure).
Problem is, they are talking about 'cooling-related powerdowns'. Nuclear power plants are considerably affected by cooling-related powerdowns. This is a well known problem all over the world. So putting in more nuclear power plants doesn't actually solve that problem. Funny thing isn't it, that nuclear power is ALSO affected by the weather?
Thanks! I live in the Atlanta area. Much of the talk you have heard about the water shortages in the Atlanta area really relate to the need for water for power plants. If we only the people and crops, we would have enough. It is the heavy use of water by power plant that causes the problems.
Here is some more information on problems in the European grid:
And:
http://www.newenergy.info/index.php?id=1348
http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis/2006/11/10/analysis_european_power_gr...
This couples with the present German plans to retire their nuclear power - IOW if renewables are used then it will not be possible to build the required grid capacity in the time involved.
German energy policy has long been based on a fantasy of what is possible in a cold northerly country, and in spite of the electricity rates at one of the highest in Europe, still is effectively choosing coal over nuclear, with all the implications that has for climate change.
The rest is vastly expensive window-dressing, conservation excepted.
It is time reality was taken into account.
Cold weather can also cause problems, as well as hot:
http://www.utcpower.com/fs/com/bin/fs_com_Page/0,11491,075,00.html
Does anyone else thing the Petrosun story is fishy? The April 1st thing was one thing that triggered my BS alarms (possibly a press release joke). But even if that wasn't intended, the company is a penny stock, and such companies seem to routinely make fantastic claims. I don't know the story behind this one in particular- I guess my point is that the whole story is fishy.
This was also posted this yesterday and I posted this in response
What about Petrosun?
One of the biggest problems with algae for fuel is contamination issues. Energy recovery from target species negated by filtering costs, theoretical yields can not be achieved if contaminant species are consuming energy and nutrients.
With no word on these issues, and yet a boast of thousand acres of open, salt water ponds tells me they are fishing with a rusty, bare hook.
Yup the Petrosun story has just about pegged the BS meter.
For one thing, why would any prudent business start commercial production with about 1.75 square miles of ponds when that sort of scale is not required to prove the concept [and presumably generate positive cash flows]?
A Pathetic Algae-to-Oil Story
I read an interesting article by a professor of mining from Rolla, Missouri (in their alumnae magazine). He was interested in all that cool algae-to-oil technology, and apparently aware of the potential contamination problem. Since he knew all about mining, the solution came to him in a flash: grow the algae underground, in mines!
Of course, you need lights to supply the photonic energy for the algae; the key phrase was something to the effect "I'm sure the electrical engineers have very high-efficiency light sources".
A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation with example photosynthetic efficiencies would have told him any such scheme was doomed to failure. But he never bothered to do the math.
- Dick L
It really doesn't require any more than a simple back of the brain conceptual thought about the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Not that prepetualy motion algea wouldn't be nice...
Definitely a combination funny-and-sad story.
No doubt this "Professor" has seen one too many sports or business ads about "giving it 110%".
This is another example of the blind spots in our "specialist" oriented society.
Each of us is a myopic cog in a big machine filled with other myopic cogs.
Each of us dreams of a "they" who surely can do X or Y to the 110% level.
If "they" can go to the moon, then surely they can _____ (fill in the blank).
Actually he did and the numbers are not nearly as bad as you might think. I understand (vide the comments on Euan's comments below) that being a mining engineer is rapidly becoming evidence of either total ineptitude or a fixation with being evil, but there are some quite valid arguments for why you might want to go underground. As one example you can maintain the temperature of the culture at the optimal for growth - which is some high lipid varieties is quite narrow - and, I gather, you can also do interesting things with the light that enhance growth but which are not practical on the surface.
The problem with back of the envelop calculations is that they don't include all the variables.
"Peru Tribe Battles Oil Giant Over Pollution"
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/24/7845/
"It is a familiar story. Big business moves into a pristine wilderness and starts destroying the environment and by turn the livelihoods of the indigenous people who live there."
I have been looking for a graphic on Saudi production vs exports to illustrate the Export Land Model. Does anyone have a link?
It won't be long before we start talking about the export land model as it relates to coal.
Coal shortage of 66 mt by end of 11th Plan, says CEA
According to the Australian Coal Association, world thermal coal exports in 05 were 566 Mt. India's thermal coal imports in 2012 would be something like 12% of the 05 world export total. By then, allegedly, the U.S. could be vying with Australia to be the world's leading coal exporter. But you have to be wondering how much longer world export capacity can continue to increase with China and India as net importers and U.S. thermal coal demand expanding by more than 2% annually.
Just an aside ;}:
"If this deal is allowed to stand, it implies the possibility of a Federal Reserve bailout of Fannie Mae without Congressional approval."
Is Bernanke really loaning Fed funds? If a bank defaults on paying back these Fed loans, guess who gets the collateral? Transfer of ownership is a sale. At that point it is is no longer a loan; you bought it sucker! Bernanke has overstepped his mandate. Congress spends our tax dollars not the Federal Reserve.
This mess is a little like using battery acid to remove a coffee stain on a white shirt. It kind of works, but it doesn't solve the problem. It only makes it worse."
http://greatdepression2006.blogspot.com/2008/03/tooth-fairy-runs-amok-at...
Look on the right side of the table:
-------------------------------Notice of Sale Amt: $503,088.39
---------------------------------Opening Bid Amt: $370,000.00
-------------------------------------------Sold Amt: $370,000.00
The Opening Bid Amount and Sold Amount are the same. That means no one bid on the property. The bank got it. The difference between the Sale Amount and the Sold Amount (133K) are the secondary liens that have just dropped off the title.
Those 5 trustee sales had over a half a million dollars total, of secondary liens -- up in smoke, on the court house steps. This money was loaned by someone, somewhere. Now it's gone.
San Diego County holds a Trustee Auction and nobody shows up? It kind of makes you wonder about those second trust deeds. How many is Bernanke going to buy?
http://greatdepression2006.blogspot.com/
The loan will be made from the coffers of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, not the US Treasury. Congress controls spending from the Treasury, not loans by the Fed. The loan will be made at 2.5% against assets of Bear Stearns valued at 30 billion dollars.
NY Fed loan to JP Morgan for Bear Stearns takeover 10 years at 2.50 pct
Who owns the Fed
Ron Patterson
Unless you are an attorney and rendering a professional opinion, I think you've gone beyond what is known about the deal. There are, according to some attorneys, questions about the legality of the Fed bailout of Bear Stearns. Here is an article explaining the legal issues. To quote from the article:
Now, I am not an attorney, so I do not have a professional opionion to render. However, it seems that someone (But who? Our impotent congresscritters? Regulators? *sigh*) should take a close look at what obligations the Fed has imposed on the American people, and whether those obligations were legally imposed.
Lets See
Who owns the Fed
Read this part again.
The Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to “member banks” that are part of the larger banking system that the Fed is charged with regulating
Did that guy write that with a straight face???????????
Though Congress set it up, the Fed is not managed like other government agencies. Since it makes a nice living without having to ask Congress for money, the Fed enjoys a level of independence not found anywhere else in our government.
Well, They don't answer to congress or the president. They only have stock holders like JPMorgan Goldman Sach, Several Banks in Europe, No one can "Buy In" to this club. Shares can't be traded or sold.
Boy, don't you feel better having the guy hitting you also there to hold you up?
Read this part again. The Last paragraph. Who's side/sentiment did the article end with to be your last subconscious memory of the subject ??
But there’s a good reason for giving the Fed so much independence. Decisions about the stability of the financial system often require quick decisions in times of crisis. And the Fed is the biggest piggy bank we’ve got. Given the track record of Congress and the White House in managing the federal budget, it’s a good thing they can’t get their hands on it.
This guy at the end says. "Trust JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs, They know what's best for you..."
"Trust JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs, They know what's best for you..."
Of course they do! There's a revolving door between GS, SEC, Treasury, and CIA. If you follow the players, it's all right out in the open. Here's a starter:
Wall Street, The CIA & The Terrorist Attacks, an interview with Michael C. Ruppert with Kellia Ramares and Bonnie Faulkner
It wouldn't be good for the general public to see the government directly printing money out of thin air. So they have the "banks" do it for them.
Abbra Cadabra. Let the prime descend another basis point.
mcgowanmc,
Thank you so much for that second link; I had wondered why even AAA conventional mtg MBS tranches are getting 70% bids, now I know. As the Mogambo puts it, we are SOOOO doomed!
Errol in Miami
How are we going to build/upgrade the infrastructure when we are collectively and individually totally tapped/broke???
How are we going to build/upgrade the infrastructure when we are collectively and individually totally tapped/broke???
Open Record laws and aggressive enforcement VS those who violate laws WRT the misuse of the public purse? Work Camps? "Manditory Public Service?" Local Currencies for doing local muni work to pay the local taxes?
Raise taxes, reduce consumption, increase spednign on investment and reduce spending on other items (fewer prisons, less military, etc.).
A current lack of political will does NOT make it impossible.
Alan
Alan, have you forgotten that the 'American way of life is not negotiable'? The VP said it so it must be so...
Political will? Here is the political will of the American People: 'A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.' (nuclear weapons is buzz for stopping Iranian oil sales in currencies other than dollars). People that sell oil for other currencies get hanged on occasion...ask Saddam's biographer. The polled Americans really, really, really want their SUVs and McMansions...If a lot more murder and mahem are required, so be it.
And...53% said that America is likely to strike Iran prior to the next presidential election...same poll.
Americans made the entire world aware of their political will by their votes to leave the neo-cons in office for another 4 years in 2004. This is not going to end well.
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1379
US deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf
An American nuclear submarine has crossed the Suez Canal to join the US fleet stationed in the Persian Gulf, Egyptian sources say.
Egyptian officials reported that the nuclear submarine crossed the canal along with a destroyer on Friday and Egyptian forces were put on high alert when the navy convoy was passing through the canal. An American destroyer recently left the Persian Gulf, heading towards the Mediterranean Sea; earlier Thursday, a US Navy rescue ship crossed the canal to enter the Red Sea.
The deployment comes as recent reports allege that US Vice President Dick Cheney is seeking to rally the support of Middle Eastern states for launching an attack on Iran. This is while US officials deny that Cheney's Mideast tour is linked to a possible military attack on Iran.
According to the latest reports, in recent months a major part of the US Navy has been deployed in and around the Persian Gulf. The fleet is armed with nuclear weapons and cruise missiles and carries hundreds of aircraft and rapid reaction forces.
link
... the 'American way of life is not negotiable'? The VP said it ...
To not negotiate is to negotiate poorly.
And I don't think this is going to end well, either.
I really laughed about this when I saw it in the food store this morning:
Fly me to the moon . . . in 2029?
Are these the same NASA "officials" who say we are heading for catastrophe due to climate change?
No. NASA has many different teams, some of whom work on climate change issues.
2029 is a technologically feasible timeframe, I assure you. What makes the scheme less feasible is PO. We simply won't have the excess energy to be building (and fueling) these spacecraft, nomatter how much money some rich tourist has.
New news:
NASA is being sold to China. For $150 billion, I think.
Partly as a goodwill gesture. For when we boycott their Olympics.
"If the investment company's assets turn out to be worth less than the principal and interest due the Fed, then the Fed's loan won't be repaid. If its assets appreciate, J.P. Morgan gets paid out, and the rest belongs to the Fed. The only significance of the "interest rate" would be if, as the fund unwinds, asset values are high enough to make only a partial payment to J.P. Morgan. In this case, the interest rate would help determine the split between the Fed and JPM.
Huh? So, if the value of these SIVs don't rise, JP doesn't pay back? What the FFFFFKKKKK???? They only pay us if the funds make them money? Eh? Talk about a deal! Wow. So, if we did this to homeowners, they don't pay the banks back on their mortgages unless and ONLY if the house goes up in value? I once lost $100,000 in a deal during a down market. Perhaps the government should give me back this money with interest. Why should I take any hits like that? Everyone who loses value on their house should stop paying, right? HAHAHA. Talk about bankrupting an entire system!"
World dynamics now come back into play: Russia likes rising commodity prices. Russia wants rising commodity prices. Europe, Japan and the US don't. Except the foolish US is no longer a value-added nation, we are a COMMODITY EXPORT nation! So we should want higher commodity prices! Only we import huge amounts of oil so we need low oil prices but high farm prices! We are insane, of course. Once again, the Horns of Dilemma rear their ugly points.
http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/money_matters/
Mac, here is a link that you might already have but if not you might find interesting.
This person (Genesis) is an active trader, commodities mostly, I think...and, he/she is really ticked at the sehnanigans at the Fed, BS, GS, et al. Title of yesterday's entry?
'The Insanity of Bear Stearns / JPM Continues' Below are some other recent entries...
Articles of Impeachment? Bear Stearns Buyout Illegal...
Why Dick Bove (And Market Callers Like Him) Are Wrong...
Dick Bove, Bear Stearns, And Controversey...
"The Fed Will Do Whatever It Wants" and RAISE CASH...
The Truth About Our Financial Problems In America...
Insanity In Our Capital Markets...
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/
Hi JR, I live in El Paso, Texas, and about 100 miles to the north of here (in New Mexico) is the site for Spaceport America. Largely the brainchild of Sir Richard Branson (of Virgin Airlines fame), the Spaceport is supposed to be a commercial venture offering high-priced joy rides into space. That's "inner space", as opposed to "outer space".
So far, they've made two unmanned launches: the first one crashed. The second flight was deemed a "success", mainly because it didn't crash on lift-off - rather, it successfully reached an altitude of 60 miles before crashing back to earth. That "successful" flight was almost a year ago, and nothing has happened since.
No manned flights have yet flown, and none have advanced beyond the drawing board. The "commercial" venture has been begging the New Mexico state government for funding, which has not been forthcoming. If it ever does fly, the space plane will offer the well-heeled an opportunity for a 15-minute joy ride to an altitude of 60 miles for a mere US$200,000. The planned space toys are "suborbital" - they will not be capable of reaching Earth orbit, let alone the moon.
As things now stand, Virgin Airlines will be lucky if it can keep flying the London-New York route at a profit, let alone offering space adventures.
So far, the chief "benefit" of the Spaceport has been to help raise real estate prices in nearby Las Cruces, New Mexico, where realtors will breathlessly tell you how the Spaceport and its alleged financial "spin-offs" will cause a local economic boom.
Yea, I saw this on Discovery a while back. I laughed then too. I recall in the 1960's being told that by the year 2000 we will be getting to work in our own private flying cars. I'm still waiting for mine. By 2029 few will be flying anywhere, except military pilots fighting wars.
There have been an interesting interview on CNBC just now (I only watched the end of it). A person (I believe he was CEO of BP) was answering questions from commodity traders. One thing that he said is that major oil companies have hit peak oil and now they are in the liquidation.
I believe that was Matt Simmons that was being interviewed on CNBC. The video is posted upthread posted by Darwinian.
HiFi, that was Boone Pickens, the CEO of BP Capital. The BP in this case stands for Boone Pickens, not British Petroleum. He was on for several segments during the hour and I think the part you are referring to was in the second segment. I will post a video link if it comes available. But here is the video link to his first interview during that one hour.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=696001858&play=1
Ron Patterson
Yep some news about it:
http://biz.yahoo.com/cnbc/080325/23794175.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=aTN9dHEg.ESo&refer=e...
The part about natural gas seems illogical to me. If natural gas is so much cheaper then gas, then why is it not replacing gasoline already? It has nothing to do with building wind turbines.
The Kings of Copper
Farmer and Lilley are the two kings. One of them bikes to work in London.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a8jtLSxIdqK4&refer=home
Whatever happened to Marc Rich and The Metal Men?
I recollect a Clinton pardon.
It looks like these two gentlemen (Farmer and Lilley) are cut from a different bolt of cloth.
Hi folks, I visit TOD almost daily and post occasionally. I have what appears to be a simple question for the experts out there, if only I can phrase it properly.
Down here on the Isthmus, I've been watching the unrelenting progress of prices for gasoline and diesel just like the rest of the world. Four years ago #2 diesel per gallon was priced about 30 cents less than regular unleaded, and both less than two dollars. The price difference between the two has slowly been decreasing, and now both diesel and gasoline are priced the same at about $3.70 per gallon. As far as I've been able to learn, neither of these is being subsidized by the government.
My question is: What is the outlook for both the availability and price of these two products relative to each other as crude oil prices continue to increase and scarcity occurs? What are the underlying factors that are involved that would cause the wholesale price or availability of either product to vary relative to each other? For example, the increasing predominance of sour crude in the market would favor the refining of diesel? Or no difference?
To put it another way, if someone was considering the purchase of a more economical vehicle, and all other things were equal (vehicle quality, mpg, etc.), might it be smarter to own a diesel or gasoline powered vehicle for, say, the next five years?
Any thoughts on possible trends?
This is from this week's Peak Oil Review, published by ASPO-USA:
"For the fourth straight week, diesel prices climbed to a new high last week. At a US average of $3.97/gal, prices are now up by $1.29 over the same week last year. The demand for diesel and heating oil in the US is now down five percent from last year. Although crude prices slipped by $10/barrel last week and some are saying we will see lower prices over the next few months, the situation is volatile and there is no assurance that retail prices have peaked.
"Distillate fuel inventories dropped by another 2.9 million barrels last week to 113 million barrels, and unlike crude and gasoline inventories, are near the bottom of the seasonal average range. Stocks usually fall at this time of the year as refineries undergo maintenance and there is still a demand for heating oil. Stocks bottom out in May somewhere above 100 million barrels and then start to build for the next heating season.
"Underlying the rapid climb in prices is a slowly developing world-wide diesel shortage. Chinese diesel imports hit a record of 6.1 million barrels in January. In February China imported 2.4 million barrels as compared to 219,000 in February 2007. It now appears Beijing will import at least 3.5 million barrels in March. Last week diesel shortages were reported across southeastern China for the second time in six months. Reports of electricity shortages suggest that once again factories will switch on backup diesel generators in order to remain in operation.
"As the winter heating season in the northern hemisphere is nearly over, outright diesel shortages are unlikely to develop before next winter. Should spot shortages develop in the US, as they did last fall, environmental regulations on burning higher sulfur motor fuels are likely to be lifted. In the meantime the high prices are causing considerable hardships in the trucking industry and will continue to add inflationary pressure on the US economy.
"As worldwide demand for diesel continues to increase, while supplies remain steady at best, it seems likely that debilitating diesel prices and shortages will soon begin to do serious economic damage to the industrialized countries."
Since diesel makes up a smaller % of a barrel of oil compared to gasoline, its price will accelerate faster over time. You may want to visit this discussion from yesterday's DrumBeat about the proposed truckers strike. The comments to the original article are very revealing, http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3766#comment-320174
Thanks karlof for the info from ASPO-USA, guess that pretty much answers the question. Diesel shortages and price increases are showing up much sooner than those for gasoline, a trend likely to continue to get worse.
May be the time to trade in my diesel four-banger Toyota pickup (25-30 mpg) for a gasoline hybrid vehicle maybe, or put some solar cells on the roof and hope for a plug-in vehicle sometime soon. But then there's always my little gasoline powered scooter!
"Since diesel makes up a smaller % of a barrel of oil compared to gasoline, its price will accelerate faster over time."
Somehow I don't see that cause-effect logic. Price is dependent on demand vs supply. If supply is less, prices increase. The amount of diesel you make from a barrel would actually increase if the price of diesel increases faster than the price of gasoline.
'The amount of diesel you make from a barrel would actually increase if the price of diesel increases faster than the price of gasoline.'
Not so, according to a refinery engineer that posted on the topic a week or so ago. He stated that it is possible to get more diesel from a bbl of crude but that it requires much more refining time and expertise...something to do with the molecular chain of gas vs diesel. I am not a refiner or petroleum engineer but that is what was said in an earlier discussion.
Crusty is right about price increasing as supply drops, and River is correct about what was discussed regarding what % of gas and diesel come from a barrel of oil and whether or not those % could be altered significantly--they cannot. Thus, we have a long term diesel price rise as the amount of crude (and it must be crude as NGLs don't have the proper hydrocarbon chains, IIRC) being extracted declines, which means lesser amounts of diesel will be refined. However, it seems to me that the more promising biofuel is biodiesel, thus a plugin hybrid diesel will likely be the best future vehicle to buy, provided they are developed and marketed.
There's another problem. Europe is rapidly increasing its use of diesel in private cars. That's got to give some serious market leverage to refiners at a time when the margins on gasoline are thin.
Panama, our resident refinery engineer, Robert Rapier, seems to be out of pocket right now. However it is the amount of diesel in a barrel of oil is pretty well set and cannot be improved upon without great expense. A diesel molecule has 16 carbon atoms to gasoline's 8. You can crack long molecules into smaller ones but it is much more difficult to make short strings longer.
As to your question about sour crude, sour simply refers to the amount of sulfur in the oil and has nothing to do with weight. However sour does usually go hand in hand with heavy. And yes, I believe there would be more diesel in a barrel of heavy oil than in a barrel of light oil. Not being a petroleum engineer however I could get this all wrong. But when most of the molecules are very long, as heavy oil is, it would make sense to me that you could get a lot more diesel from it. The diesel molecule is twice as long as the gasoline molecule.
Ron Patterson
The last I heard, Panama was getting 82% of it's refined petroleum products from nearby Venezuela. No refineries here yet, but they're talking about building a couple of 'em now about ten years too late, but that's Latin America for ya.
With all the 'heavy' crude in Venezuela (thanks for the correction on 'sour'},maybe I'll hang on to my little diesel truck a little longer...at least until the Venezuelan war with Colombia/USA gets rolling.
Money Troubles Stall Green Town Project
A little humor for the day. I found this comment when looking for an update on the proposed trucker strike:
currently the last post here
Hyuk Hyuk. Why not just use one of them oldfangled steam engines instead? Thems just use coal! No diesel needed fellas!
RR freight efficiency. Small PDF
http://www.aar.org/getFile.asp?File_id=466
I had always heard that in the U.S. we ship about 1/3 of our freight by rail and 2/3 by truck. I just poked around a bit and came up with a number of about 71% for truck, and 1% for air by weight (from http://www.nwcommission.org/images/PDFs/FreightAnalysis2.pdf). If that's right, it would leave about 28% for rail. Probably those percentages should be reversed, but I have also always heard that the rail infrastructure was pretty much maxed out in this country. Hmm, perhaps the best way to combat high fuel prices and cut emissions would be to build lots of more railroads. This might help the economy too since you'd be providing jobs to citizens and buying steel and lumber for the roads. On second thought, I can't see many Americans that would be willing to build railroads, they'll probably hire mostly immigrants.
Well, rail is a fundamentally more effecient way to move frieght than trucks (by looking at the numbers). I think the teamsters would have something to say about it though....
Of course, if we were to stop buying all of the useless JUNK that fills the store shelves, that would cut it down about 2/3 right there, meaning that our rail system would be just about right-sized for the truly essential freight.
Ton-miles and not tons are the common metric for freight movement.
Barges and pipelines get some %.
The study overstates the % of ton-miles carried by truck (slightly but not dramatically greater than rail).
Not enough time ATM, I will edit and addd more later.
BTW, track laying is a skill, hard work with decent pay, and almost every track gang I have seen was African-American.
Alan
Carbon tariff trade war?
Perhaps the climate change models are wrong
So when do the oceans stop rising?
Easy--
When the Ice Caps, and all the glaciers melt---
A path we seem to be putting petal to the metal to accomplish.
Of course if the earth is flat, the water will just spill over the side, and we wont have to worry.
I think that is what the wingpawns are assuming, as that is what their corporate masters are telling them.
Shortly after the Coronal Mass ejection that hits the earth as that should melt most of the remaining ice.
You owe the UseNet Oracle some sunblock.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Sea_Level_Gallery
There has been no accelaration in the rate of rise, the same rate that has been happening for the past 110 years of measurements.
Bullshit.
You can source anything, BTW. ;}
But he sources nothing. Wiki? He doesn't cite where the graphs came from. Typical of the deliars. O, sorry, deniers.
Every chart showed rising oceans. That's a fairly stupid way to support your argument. The rate increases of the last several years are not going to show themselves on such charts.
But, hey, the arctic hasn't lost 80% of it's ice mass... nah...
Jail 'em all, I say. It's criminal to spread lies that end up killing people. And such lies will, if they aren't already. The delays created by Exxon and supped upon by the gullible or greedy are resulting in property losses and will result in deaths.
This is a guarantee.
Cheers
Hey, glaciers and ice caps are melting like crazy, dumping billions upon billions of tons of colder water into the ocean. A little cooling of the ocean should be expected. After all these buoys measure the ocean temperature, not the atmospheric temperature.
Ron Patterson
Ron, the problem is the predictions have been that the oceans will warm first, their swelling causing more sea rise. That's been the big prediction, many of which people here have posted as "evidence". Yet it's not happening, save the opposite.
Well there's the problem with predicting the behavior of complex systems, eh? You think it'll play out this way, and it plays out THAT way.. still, because some piece of this prediction didn't follow the script, are we supposed to ignore the MASSIVE loss of polar ice and other signals and just assume everything will be fine?
Maybe you're tired of hearing alarm bells, but that doesn't mean the right action is to unplug them.
Obviously, 'critical thinking' isn't your strong suit. I don't see why people waste their effort to try to change your mind, since you don't have one.
Arctic Ice may 'melt away' this summer
The loss of old, thick ice has continued through the winter months, despite the unusually cold weather deriving from La Nina conditions (the other extreme of the El Nino Southern Oscillation) in the Pacific.
The winter ice loss is thought to be driven mainly by the transport of old floes from Arctic waters out into the Atlantic Ocean. The currents driving this are stronger than usual as a consequence of another natural cycle, the Arctic Oscillation.
The net result is that most of the cover consists of ice that has formed since last summer.
With the ice pack containing such a high proportion of thin, salty ice, the scientists believe another major melt is likely in the summer.
"It's becoming thinner and thinner and much more susceptible to melting during the summer - much more likely to melt away," commented Walt Meier from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder.
"It may look OK on the surface, but it's like looking at a Hollywood movie set - you see the facade of a building and it looks OK, but if you look behind it, there's no building there."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7303385.stm
I don't see why people waste their effort to try to change your mind, since you don't have one
I have found Mr. Wakefield, on several issues, to be immune to reason and logic, so I no longer try.
Best Hopes for His Return to the Evolution Debate,
Akan
Cid and Alan, always remember that you're really answering for all the people who can learn, and who have just arrived and don't know why a post may be wrong.
I keep learning new things from you, and really value your posts.
Yes, like I learned about Alan's otherwise unknown knowledge on lighting. At the point where I get around to building the 12DC inverters I'll ask some questions.
Yes, like I learned about Alan's otherwise unknown knowledge on lighting. At the point where I get around to building the 12DC inverters I'll ask some questions.
I have found if you have more than 3 rebuttals, more often than not it's mental masturbation and a waste of time. Time to drop it.
Alan, Cid et al , Don't reply to him. It gives no gain.
respectfully
Here is today's article about an Antarctic ice shelf breaking off:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7313264.stm
Monaghan, A. J., D. H. Bromwich, W. Chapman, and J. C. Comiso (2008), Recent variability and trends of Antarctic near-surface temperature, Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, D04105, doi:10.1029/2007JD009094.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/27/antarctica-ain%e2...
Thomas, E. R., G. J. Marshall, and J. R. McConnell, 2008. A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850. Geophysical Research Leters, 35, L01706, doi:10.1029/2007GL032529.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/21/antarctica-snowfa...
Antarctica Ice Cap Growth Reaches Record High Levels
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/antarctica-ice-cap-growth-reac...
Antarctic Cooling Down; The Antarctic Ice Sheet is Growing; Hansen Downgrades Warming Threat
http://www.globalwarming.org/node/160
A NEW study publshed over 6 years ago? "Hansen downgrades warning threat". You're just being downright dishonest now posting this as current.
Ah, so the others about the ice growing, the recent observation that Antarctic ice is the largest its been in 50 years, that the temps over the past 20 years have not changed is wrong?
See I knew you would attack that one old reference, that's why I put it in there to see if you would take the bait, you did. You attacked that one old ref instead of dealing with the new studies I put in there.
That's the definition of trolling. If you're not a troll you're an idiot.
He's an idiot, it's obvious.
He isn't any smarter than yeast that's for sure.
When Leanan's away, the trolls will play!
Antarctica is Cold? Yeah, We Knew That
Filed under: Arctic and Antarctic Climate Science— group @ 5:22 PM - ()
Guest commentary from Spencer Weart, science historian
Despite the recent announcement that the discharge from some Antarctic glaciers is accelerating, we often hear people remarking that parts of Antarctica are getting colder, and indeed the ice pack in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica has actually been getting bigger. Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict… and have predicted for the past quarter century.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold/
Ah, The National Post! Here is the #1 story linked on the same page: U.S. man claims to be pregnant
'Nuff said.
If you google the title you will see a number of other papers carried the story.
So the guy is pregnant?
He's pregnant? I thought he was just a troll.
She's not a man. She had her breasts removed and takes testosterone, but still has all the female equipment downstairs.
But are her ice caps melting?
Yet another shameless suggestion to read the report at: Climate Code Red
No, they've failed to detect the expected rise is ocean temps at depth that the models predicted. To make the leap that is or is not THE indicator fo Global Climate Change/Warming is, well...IMHO
It's a pretty complex - this earth we live on.
Pete
If you live in an area suseptible to hurricanes you would know that 80+ degree ocean surface temperatures contain the energy that drives hurricanes. These high temps extend down only approximately 18 inches, therefore when one hurricane passes and roils the surface water, the next hurricane often has no energy (warm water) to feed on. IOW, warm water is normally limited to the surface of seas and oceans...except in inland seas, etc. Of course the oceans contain thermoclines and salt/fresh water layers with currents going in many directions. Why would scientists expect to see much, or any, temperature rise 2 kilometers down, where no sunlight reaches?
"Why would scientists expect to see much, or any, temperature rise 2 kilometers down, where no sunlight reaches?"
Because the oceans circulate their themoclines. Currents move the warm and cooler regions around, including at great depths.
Thermohaline circulation is on a much longer time scale than recent climate changes. You wouldn't see temp changes at depth yet.
That's what I thought Sid, My bs detector went off when JR answered. 'If you can't wow the with knowledge, baffle em with bs'
Why would scientists expect to see much, or any, temperature rise 2 kilometers down, where no sunlight reaches?
Because the Thermohaline Circulation system is driven by dribbles of brine falling from sea ice around the poles. That is where the cold cold water came from at the very bottom of the ocean. Otherwise geothermal heat would have it much warmer. (probably not 80° but warmer than it is currently, ~30°)
In contrast, the fresh water from melted ice floats. The key is that we will have global climate change. It's much harder to predict the future weather for any particular locale. And watch out for those clathrates ...
Five years is a pretty limited sample set. Hard to distinguish trend from noise just with that.
OK, Wakefield. Time to fire up Greasemonkey TODBan and say goodbye.
edit: sweet, I filter out your name and the noise goes down by 1/3.
Of course they are "wrong." They are always "wrong." They are models. But not one of them supports the lies and bull you spout. The very article you cite says zero about the models being "wrong" about global warming, only that there is something the data is telling them they don't fully understand.
You can't be bothered with that inconvenient factoid, eh?
Blech.
THE IPCC: ON THE RUN AT LAST
JR, you really know how to choose your sources, I have to admit.
Why don't you submit this crap to a dedicated, professionally administered climate web site such as Real Climate and see what happens.
Probably nothing. They've got better and much more important things to concern themselves with than your cherry-picked nonsense.
Can you say "Good Bye", little troll?
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's the best laugh I've had in a long time! Thank you!
RC is owned and funded by a radical left wing political organization and run by a small group of NASA "scientists" who get their funding from Al Gore. There's been a large number of scientists who have claimed that RC often censors them. Do a google on "RealClimate" Censorship.
This is not MY cheery picked non-sense, this is a growing number of scientists who have had enough of the alarmism crap. The number of scientists at the recent meeting put on by the Heatland Institute was well over 200 (not the 19 someone alleged here attended), and many more are being added to the list of dissenters to the AGW dogma.
You would be wise not to just dismiss it as "crap" for when they shit really hits the fan over this, as the planet refuses to keep up with AGW predictions; you may be eating more than just crow. It will be fun to watch the rats jumping off the AGW theory sinking ship.
Show me where the information in this article is wrong. Back it up with references.
This was the same Al Gore who couldn't get a conspiracy together to stop the presidency from being stolen from him? Yeah, that's a real radical leftist for you.
Now when the shit hits the fan, who will suffer according to you? I see, making rich people suffer from government spending for global warming mitigation is genocide, while suffering from vastly greater spending for a war of lies in Iraq that has led to a million excess deaths and a financially corrupt America bothers you not at all. Whereas the people who die if you're wrong will all be like the people who died the most in New Orleans - non-contributors to our glorious free enterprise system, too lazy to even own cars to flee, for Ayn's sake.
Putting words in my mouth now are we. I never said any of this, so please to not think you know my position unless I explicitly state so here.
My position on climate change is STRICTLY from the science side and has NOTHING to do with politics. Plain and simple. So do not think you know my political position (which is in the middle, not left nor right, where the vast majority of people are).
Deaths of millions due to AGW. Right and you know this for a FACT? Not a chance, as the vast majority of people are going to die off from peak oil long before any possible AGW affects.
Besides, which affacts are you attributing to these deaths? Sea level? Nope, not rising the rates the alarmists predict. What else? What PHYSICAL evidence do you have to back them up with, not speculation, not predictions, what evidence is there for things changing more than would normally change?
So do not think you know my political position (which is in the middle, not left nor right, where the vast majority of people are)
Based on other of your posts, you have elements of hard right in your positions. Not too far from Rush Limbaugh in some areas in my judgment.
Alan
Then your judgment is wrong. I have stated many times I have taken the test at www.politicalcompass.org, 3 times over the course of 6 years, and I have consistantly scorded slightly right of center economically, and dead on center socially.
So your're saying you are slightly less authoritarian than George W Bush. That really puts you in the leftist camp alright! LOL
Not sure if their tests are accurate-they have me in the identical spot they place Gandhi.
You blamed me for millions of deaths for criticizing no-restraints capitalism - which is all that most critics of capitalism are calling for. You've never once advocated any restraints on the power of private property owners except when Peak Oil was the issue.
Freudian slip?
"RC is owned and funded by a radical left wing political organization and run by a small group of NASA "scientists" who get their funding from Al Gore."
Man, you are really out there. Maybe you should take some medication or something...
SubKommander Dred
Rats know science. Rats know AGW. And rats know trolls. When will the sun come out and turn our troll to stone?
I think PG said it would be Friday-ish in another thread. The Sun comes out Friday. Or maybe this weekend.
Because the issue is saving capitalism, not lives. The corporate elite have handled the global warming story exactly the way they are handling Peak Oil and the ongoing financial crisis. The right-wingers, who have done nothing but advocate welfare for the rich, wars for the rich, and deregulation for the rich, claim that the eco-nazis have all the money and are flooding the world with lies intended to discredit the infallible glory of the marketplace. Yet Peak Oil and the mortgage meltdown are also stories that cast doubts on the free enterprise system, and little by little corporate media have had to change their tune on admitting that there's a "little oil problem", and a "little banking problem".
The intent of the elite strategy: to do as little as possible to protect you, and steal as much of your tax money as possible to protect themselves. As always. So when the media is allowed to admit the financial system is collapsing, the elites are suddenly quick to explain why your government must bail them out while you tighten your belt. If oil prices can no longer be ignored, it's tax credits for big oil exploration, while mass transit is defunded for you. You'll know when the end is coming when it is explained that coastal cities cannot be saved, but new, privatized colonies will be built inland to protect those worthies without whom prosperity would be impossible...
Saving capitialism **IS** saving lives. Do you really want to live in a society that is based on something else? Like what? You leftists are so keen to attack the "right wing elite" (BTW, most "elite" in Canada are card carrying members of the Liberal Party of Canada, hardly right wing) for the ills of capitalism. But what would you put in it's place? Dictatorship? Then kiss goodbye to human rights, kiss goodbye to individual freedom, kiss goodbye to any of the good parts of our way of life, including life itself. That is, you are advocating is the deaths of millions of people, advocating putting tens of millions more into poverty and destitute lives. Nice.
Stop conflating "capitalism" with democracy and individual and human rights. Persistent propaganda has apparently made you and a large number of the American public unable to discern between the two. Whatever capitalism is, it isn't about individual rights.
How do you have democracy without capitalism? Has it ever been tried before? The whole idea of human rights is the right to have a capitialist system. The two MUST go hand in hand or you do not have democracy.
I can't believe anyone could write that without being a troll.
Please, without being so insulting, can you explain how you can have democracy without capitalism. Guess I'm too dumb, so explain it carefully so I can understand.
Capitalism is an economic system, Democracy is a political system. The two are not linked. Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador are all Socialist and Democratic.
Hardley bastions of success. These backward countries are run by thugs supported by the military, where there is gross human rights violation and the drug trade buys politicians, judges and the police. If anything you have supported the very thing I said at the beginning, replacing capitalism here would turn the US into Bolivia where there is no middle class, the vast majority of the population have to etch their existance barely surviving while being ruled by a very elite bunch of thugs. Nice you wish this on your own people. (or are you hoping to be one of those elite thugs?)
The two are most definitely linked and I can prove it with a simple thought experiment. Try running a political party on a platform that would replace capitalism (with what no one here seems willing to say). Would you get elected? Not a chance. The vast majority of people WANT capitalism. If you were somehow to get in and clear out capitalism with what ever your system is, the next vote you would be tossed out as, again, any political party that ran on the platform of returning capitalism would be voted in.
So I maintain, that the ONLY way you would be able to replace capitalism is to invoke a communist dictatorship.
So what is your replacement to capitalism? Every "business" is state owned and state run? All farms are owned by the "people"? That's the only other alternative. An alternative that would get voted out at the first opportunity. An alternative that completely failed in the USSR where people starved by the thousands.
So I maintain, that the ONLY way you would be able to replace capitalism is to invoke a communist dictatorship.
Another breathtaking logical leap! Man, JR, you really are a piece of work. Best laugh I've had in days.
can you explain how you can have democracy without capitalism.
The US of A is a Constitutional Republic.
You have claimed that the US of A is a capitalist system.
So either your statement of "democracy without capitalism" is wrong or the US of A does not have a capitalist system.
So which are you wrong about?
Since you guys like to quote Wiki to suppoort your positions, then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Thus the US IS a capitalism system by this definition.
If it's not, then why do you attack the US because of its capitalist system?
So Germany under the Social Democratic Party (founded by Marxists) was not a democracy?
Or if it was a democracy, then it had to still be capitalist. Yet the Social Democrats were critics of capitalism! So that means that it is possible to be a critic of capitalism and still run a democracy!
Thats not the same thing, common on. Being CRITICAL of capitalism does not mean you can have democracy with out capitalism. Even during preNazi Germany allowed capitalism, and during the Nazi's capitalism worked.
Show me how you can have democracy and not have capitalism. If you deny people the right to own and run businesses, to make profits, to get rich in doing so, then you CANNOT have democracy.
If you allow the people to vote, then go ahead and steal the presidential election afterwards twice, you do not have a democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
If you allow TPTB to fleece the American people with fraudulent mortgage schemes and the rest of the world with derivitives of same, then bailout the perpetrators when they get caught in the collapse of their own ponzi schemes with taxpayer money so that you effectively fleece their children and grandchildren, you do not have Capitalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy
Unless the majority agree to not own the businesses.. or to own it collectively.
It is only a question of mindset.
The fact that no majority hasn't yet be willing to set up a communist economy does not prove it is impossible.
Capitalisim sprang from the Calvinist Movement, a religious belief based on 'those that do well materially are more likely to go to heaven.'
Calvinisim evolved from the protestant reformation that Martin Luther started with his challenge of the power of the Catholic Church and the first printing of the bible in a language other than Greek or Latin.
Brush up on your history.
How does that change that you can now have democracy without capitalism. Why can't you answer just that, please. Or can you?
Quite a few nations have had democracy without capitalism (except in a cage). India to Sweden.
It is quite questionable if capitalism was a proper description of the economic system of 1790 USA.
James Madison from Notes of the Constitutional Convention
Agrarian attempts mean, to my understanding, land reform.
Alan
And it is quite questionable if democracy is a proper description of the political system in 2008 USA. :-/
It is not. The United States would be best described as a Kleptocratic Plutocracy.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3769#comment-320950
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3769#comment-320945
I was thinking "corporate oligarchy", or "corporatocracy", but Kleptocratic Plutocracy works for me!
Sweden and India have free market, privately owned business, how is that not capitalism?
What is capitalism then?
What is capitalism then?
Considering that you have defined that here:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3769#comment-321270
That question is answered.
Thus Sweden and India have a capitalist system of economy.