I just saw all the posts on the early sun rise and it seems pretty straightforward to me. If the sun is rising over land, and the height of that land is going down, then the sunrise would appear sooner. I'm guessing that the point was that the sun is rising over a distant glacier and if the height of that glacier is being reduced due to melting, then the sun would appear earlier.
I think the confusion was that people were thinking that the part of the land that was going down was the part they're standing on, versus the part in the distance where the sun was rising up from. Or maybe I'm confused on that part
I've said before that if we all start using more solar, wind and other renewable energy sources, conserve more energy and start using less fossil fuels the world will be better off--even if there is no global warming.
For example safety. Coal mining is one of the most dangerous jobs out there. So less coal being produced would reduce deaths, even if the damage to the environment caused by mining doesn't bother anyone. Or oil drilling. Another dangerous occupation to both people and the environement. I'm just suggesting that the solutions to the global warming theory (whether you believe the theory or not) have lots of benefits. Increased national security is another benefit (eg...becoming less dependent on foreign oil and using more renewable sources within the USA).
But right now most people just want cheap energy, and coal and oil are the cheap ways to get energy. And I think the main reason people don't agree with the view on global warming is because it directs attention to the fact that most people want things cheap and aren't too concerned with the cost...whether that's cheap goods from 3rd world countries, cheap oil from the gulf, or cheap coal from our mountain regions. People want things cheap but they feel uncomfortable when they're reminded of the other costs and consequesces. They're rather not know the dirty details. But that's human nature.
People eating in restaurants don't want to watch a video of the detailed process of how the food got to their table with all the effects. Neither do people want to know all the details about where energy comes from and the effects of getting that energy. They just want to turn up the heat on their hottub and start up their SUV.
Yes they could go to work for the solar panel manufacturing plant (near here) and literally work for ZERO wages as the plant has laid off hundreds of people and is in the process of laying off more people. The US gov has "stimulused" $535 million dollars (that is over a half a billion for the math challenged) The other tax write offs and credits have never even seen the tally in the light of day. 1.3 B or more has been raised privately from VC and the plant has literally no light at the end of the tunnel for seeing even remote profitably.
Profitable is even a LOOSELY goosey target. I mean they can not even shoot an arrow and draw a bulls eye around the arrow!!!?? Profitability can be ONE CENT OVER the total expenses (could be considered a PROFIT )!!! WAKE UP GUYS !! While there are kernels of truth to what you say, the real world explodes and or pops those notions !!!
Back at the turn of the century (ok, two turns), there were literally dozens, if not 100's of car manufacturers. Most of them went belly up. Mainstream alternative energy has been trying to gain traction for 30 odd years now. One of these days someone will get it figured out and it'll hit critical mass.
Until then, be careful that you don't put all your chips in with Reo or Packard.
There are many ways that one can view what you have just said. (in the context of this thread) But as you have noted the gov had a hand in "Reo/Packard" the solar oem plant in Fremont, CA. :sick: I think even the "challenged" among us know not to be early adopters.
It is even becoming apparent to most folks (actually I have known it from the start) that governments (yes plural and @ the various levels and multiple agencies, inter/intra, committees, sub commitees, blue ribbon committees, pink committees, all the various permutations, etc, etc etc.) are both full on for it and against it. All at the same time, in varying degrees and various outcomes and permutations.
In automotive lingo, it is a bit like trying to get up to go 150 mph with the brakes fully engaged not shifting gears, while noting the struggle of the high hp engine while trying to reach 150 mph if it can at all (with the brakes so engaged). In the process the critics are wondering why the power convertible top doesnt seem to work well at 100 mph.
In the mean time the goal of hitting 30 years operating on an 18 year old SUV is more than half way there (60% complete) . ZERO harmful emissions at 18 year old market as TESTED and verified (smog only station, if one really knows the significance here) and reported to higher emissions, .... HQ.
Ask the coal miners if they'd rather do coal mining or work in a solar panel factory or install solar panels on roofs.
That is such a naive thought. Most of the USA is not suitable for Solar. We will be getting electricity from coal long after you and I are gone. My buddy that no longer installs solar was only making $18 an hour climbing on roofs all day. Not my idea of a safe great job. And government regulations slowed the process to where there was not enough work to keep them busy. You can bet if we get any solar manufacturing in this country it will not pay much over minimum wage. China will supply our alternative energy for the most part. Now they want to do our hi speed rail. A much bigger drain on our economy with a very small gain in energy independence.
The tech seems to be getting there, if not the prices. My friends down in Taos are using their wood stove a bit more this winter last I heard, but they still won't use a cord all winter for their off-grid house. They have no backup for the solar other than the batteries and they make a living out of their house, so they kind of need their computers and wifi. :shades:
As I said in my post, coal and oil are today's cheap source of energy. Until they become more expenive due to the market and/or government, alternative energy solutions won't "take off." We are Americans...we like it easy and cheap until there's a crisis
I did not say "coal mining shall end today" which WOULD have been naive.
I merely agreed that coal mining is dangerous and solar panel manufacturing and installation is far less dangerous.
You use your "one buddy" story to say how crappy you think solar install jobs are - that's kind of a small group to base an opinion on. A recent white paper published by SunRun discusses residential solar industry growth and includes projections for the future of solar energy.
Over the past year, the number of people with jobs in the solar industry doubled to over 100,000 in 2010. Further increase in solar jobs will continue into 2011, with a projected rise of an additional 26%. In short, the solar industry is creating employment opportunities faster than the overall economy in the United States. Residential solar demand is responsible in large part for the increase in the number of solar jobs.
With more homeowners installing solar panels, demand rises for both solar products and qualified installers. In turn, the more solar industry jobs there are, the more people are available to serve the very consumers that are wishing to go solar. Its a positive “vicious circle.” As described in the SunRun white paper on residential solar industry growth:
“SunRun not only directly employs workers, but also partners with 25 installation companies across the country, that in turn employ 3,000 green collar workers. The more homes that install solar, the more installation crews are needed, and the more tools and inventory are required. One local job is created for every six homes that go solar. The impact of residential solar extends from the panel manufacturer to the auto repair shop that services the installation trucks, to the local coffee house that keeps the installers on their toes.
I'm not saying solar will replace coal.
I'm saying that solar will keep growing to the point (at some distant point in the future) where coal will become less of a factor.
Actually free of governmental encumberances, solar adoption is VERY cheap and of course getting cheaper and better and every year. Normally the folks who can adapt/adopt implement it live in the middle of nowhere close to somewhere (regionally) important. I am a former planning commission member and chair, so this stuff is like riding a bicycle to me.
Indeed 7 years ago I sat down with a collegue who was planning a N/C (new construct) "coincidently" in the middle of no where close to somewhere (regionally) important. It was a pad solar ( sun tracking) installation. @ that time, total installation with HUGE covered battery storage.... $6k. Imagine what $6k can buy today ???????
We were talking 4 seaons, 4 car garage, shop, 4,500 sq ft house. NO electrical utility tap off. 400 to 500 amps. Normally an install like that would bring 400 to 1000 per month to the servicing utilities.
We are Americans...we like it easy and cheap until there's a crisis
That is exactly correct. I think alternatives are great when they are able to stand on their own merits. I have seen too many alternative energy scams over the last 40+ years to be excited about wasting more tax dollars on these forms of corporate welfare. Ethanol, wind and solar have all cost US Billions. Much of it with nothing to show for it. Most of the civilized world use nuclear. We have all but abandoned that wonderful form of clean energy. We should buy some nuclear technology from the Japanese or French if our scientific community is unable to produce.
So did the railroads, and interstates. That worked out ok.
They seem to be going into decay. We have had subsidies for a long time. Nothing on the scale of more recent scams. The current ethanol scam being one of the worst I can think of in my lifetime.
Funny how Americans love to fund capital projects but won't fund maintenance and staffing. And it's always this huge shock when a road or a dam lasts beyond it's 50 or 100 year life expectancy and then needs to be replaced.
Let a football stadium get 30 years old though, and out comes the dynamite. :P
Funny how Americans love to fund capital projects but won't fund maintenance and staffing.
Generally speaking capital projects should reduce operation and maintenance expenses...budgeted o&m funding should dwindle down if the project benefits are truly greater than it's costs.
I don't quite know what this has to do with the automobile being a major source of global worming...unless you are referring to total electric rapid rail systems new construction. Which'll cost us trillions to construct and many billions in O&M expenses.
"Generally speaking capital projects should reduce operation and maintenance expenses"
No, capital spending on new things, like road expansions or rail systems, automatically creates O&M expenses. You can't build a new bridge and spend less than before.
Generally speaking capital projects should reduce operation and maintenance expenses
I think it's often the opposite. Building a nice new road is great, but you better plan on keeping up with the potholes or it'll wind up needing to be replaced before its time instead of lasting its projected lifetime.
This thread is all over the map. I'm thinking it's ok to fund solar since a panel could run your car. Which should lower overall emissions.
Funny how Americans love to fund capital projects but won't fund maintenance and staffing.
It is a very serious problem that is catching up with US. So many of those projects earmarked for Alaska by Uncle Ted would get built especially in the villages and abandoned as soon as the white guys left and they would quit working. Sewer, water treatment, power, TV etc.
When the newness wears off the Wind generators and they start to fall in disrepair as they did in the 1970s-80s, they will be laying on their sides waiting for the salvage crews.
Yeah the Pacific Northwest is a favorite of the disaster-shows on earthquakes, explosive volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis, that Discovery Channel runs.
Nature is not the peaceful, weak and meek, friend that many green-groups make it out to be. That sort of mind-set of what nature is, is about as realistic as the animals' behavior in the Lion King.
It is funny how the people that live in the PNW are so "CAR emissions" conscious, when they live in a place that literally pours out unmitigated emissions exponentially and points literally unimaginable ....beyond, ...NATURALLY !!! Ah, same with Hawaii. For sure, if the Jelly Stone National Park volcano ever goes off (you know, boo boo and yogi) you can kiss large portions of the US as we know it; Good bye !!??
Actually, if what is below Yellowstone ever decided to really blow (as in the really big one)...that one right there has the potential to be an earth ender according to a very interesting documentary I watched recently. Apparently the crust is super thin there compared to almost anywhere else on earth that they know of.
Look at it this way. You are doing your part to keep the trees green and healthy, while the Prius drivers are killing our major source of Oxygen. :shades:
I was over the GM News forum a few minutes, and read of someone who's experienced 3/8" of ice, with the main storm coming later. So who's getting hit with all this GW? I really want to write a prayer, that the Arctic air warms up another 30F! not just 2 or 3F, so that when this air comes back each and every year we don't freeze to death!
Well I'll be out my lawn tractor with snow-blower attachment burning a few gallons of gasolin the next couple of days. And with the nice frosty temperature I figure 5 gal of heating oil / day. Because there is no warming of any significance that I can see, and the weather is downright wintry, I'll have to continue to burn thru fossil fuels. Despite having 2 vehicles, most of my fossil fuel usage is not auto related.
No one responded to my post the other day from the anti-AGW guy who posted the math proving that higher CO2 levels will indeed mean increased global temps.
Neither do pictures. From your link it is quite clear that high temperature preceded high levels of CO2. Which is the contention of most credible scientists. Which goes in the face of man made CO2 is causing a rise in temperatures.
The hockey stick was fabricated on false data to promote an agenda. This is from your link so I assumed you would agree with it. You did want a response. What more can I do?
Looks like Global Warming is going to freeze us to death! Over seven gigawatts of power knocked offline due to cold weather and the output of the wind turbines in west Texas dropped dramatically.
They don't say this in the article but sources say that is what happened.
Idle gas generators failed to come on line. Probably sitting too long without maintenance. What good is alternatives such as solar and wind if you have to have an equal amount of backup when the sun don't shine or the wind don't blow? Why is it so hard for the main stream media to tell the truth. People depend on their utilities to be there when they turn on the switch. This should be a good wakeup call for the Eco nuts in Austin. Texas having 7113 wind generators would be dandy if you could depend on them.
No real surprises on the wind turbines front. Figures just published here in U.K. show that for 2010 our wind turbines actually generated just 25% of their rated potential output. But............the really bad figure is for December 2010 when we suffered the from temperatures that would have kept Polar Bears happy, so needed lots of available power. The generating watchdog authority put the wind turbine out put at "Effectively 0%" as the extreme cold was accompanied by calm air. The wind turbine Industry body says - apparently with some pride - that the December figure was "nearer 5.8%". Oh, that makes soooo much difference - not.
Why oh why can we not spend this money on wave and tide power generation ? We're an island and the tides are reliable whilst wind, demonstrably, is not. :mad:
The long term results indicate an almost overwhelming failure (75% to 100%) of the projections and the global warming model !!
To wit a real bellweather measure are regulatory authorities want to ban to CAP so called solar/wind farms in places where the sun shines most days of the year and the winds do blow @ night, aka the majority of the time: DESERTS, such as: Mohave, Sahara, etc etc. This is so logical (as far as their logic's) as to defy ... LOGIC.
Yes it reminds me of that old saying why wish for 100% when 5.8% will do ?????????
The wind turbine Industry body says - apparently with some pride - that the December figure was "nearer 5.8%". Oh, that makes soooo much difference - not.
Of Course, they have to justify their huge windfall of subsidies from the tax payers. I think the US has followed the EU on wind as misery loves company. We just do it up bigger and more wasteful than any other country.
"Chinese" Wind Farm in Texas: Green Jobs FAIL?
The buzz around the green blogosphere today is another record-setting Chinese wind farm, with 240 turbines producing 648 megawatts. But this one isn't in Inner Mongolia -- it's in Texas.
This $1.5 billion wind farm -- a US-China joint venture paid for in part by Chinese banks -- will be built not with turbines from usual suspects GE or Vestas, but with Chinese-made machines from a year-old company called A-Power.
Needless to say, most of the project's green jobs will be created in China. And don't shoot the messenger, but it's hoping to secure 30 percent, or $450 million, of its financing from, yes, U.S. stimulus funds.
Someone better turn on those spin machines right about now.
Obama issues global warming rules in January, gives GE an exemption in February
Last month, the Obama EPA began enforcing new rules regulating the greenhouse gas emissions from any new or expanded power plants.
This week, the EPA issued its first exemption, Environment & Energy News reports:
The Obama administration will spare a stalled power plant project in California from the newest federal limits on greenhouse gases and conventional air pollution, U.S. EPA says in a new court filing that marks a policy shift in the face of industry groups and Republicans accusing the agency of holding up construction of large industrial facilities.
According to a declaration by air chief Gina McCarthy, officials reviewed EPA policies and decided it was appropriate to "grandfather" projects such as the Avenal Power Center, a proposed 600-megawatt power plant in the San Joaquin Valley, so they are exempted from rules such as new air quality standards for smog-forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
There's something interesting about the Avenal Power Center:
The proposed Avenal Energy project will be a combined-cycle generating plant consisting of two natural gas-fired General Electric 7FA Gas Turbines with Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG) and one General Electric Steam Turbine.
Maybe GE CEO Jeff Immelt's closeness to President Obama, and his broad support for Obama's agenda, had nothing to do with this exemption. But we have no way of knowing that, and given the administration's record of regularly misleading Americans regarding lobbyists, frankly, I wouldn't trust the White House if they told me there was no connection.
On the upside, at least Job Czar Immelt is creating jobs!
That is an interesting technology. But is it in use in the world somewhere now?
Over here we have a show on TV called Dragon's Den. (I think you guys have a version over there also) It has a panel of 5 investors that decide to support, or not, entrepreneurs and their ideas. All five are super wealthy, Kevin O'Leary being worth billions, Jim Treliving (an ex RCMP, now Boston Pizza and Mr Lube), Arlene Dickinson (queen of marketing), Brett Wilson, and Robert Herjavec (who came to Canada from Croatia with supposedly only 20 bucks.
A couple years ago an engineer type did a pitch on this very technology that the Dragon's ended up turning down. (they can be extremely arrogant and narrow-sighted at times) Anyway, the only thing I question really about it, is the relatively limited time frame involved during a tide movement. That and of course the cost to have them located throughout the seas so that they can always be grabbin' a tide.
I'm going to try to attach a pic of one here. First time trying, it might not work.
Ok, anyone know how to do it? I have a small .jpg pic on my desktop ready to go..
You have to have a photo server like PhotoBucket etc where the pictures have a URL attached. They are not saved on the Edmunds website.
On the subject of tide power. Alaska did several studies on putting tidal generators in the Cook Inlet. They have a 39 foot tide. One of the highest in the World. Last I read silt was an issue they could not overcome. I think there have been some in clear water places tested. Maybe someone has a link. Most hydro plants have been less than desirable overall. At least from an environmental impact position. I know Bonneville has supplied cheap electricity to the NW for a long time.
thanks, so what is the process? c/p the url into that box then hit IMG/URL? Or what is difference between IMG and URL? FTM I don't know what the asterisk does either..(don't know what bulleted text means)
Since this is off-topic, maybe someone can direct me to the right place to find out some of these things?
Indeed the San Francisco Bay has known tidal action (HUGE sources of energy if it can indeed be harnessed. ) This is backed up by easily what 200 years of documentation. Yet with the so called "scientific" subject in need of an experiment, the SF enviro cons are literally LOATHED to get together a plan to harness the (obviously) natural tidal flows and action. Indeed if a viable one were crafted they will more likely than not come out AGAINST it. They have come out numerous times against wind farms and solar farms and other so called environmentally sensitive projects. Indeed in most places you can not freely go TO solar.
It does beg the question though..why the majority caters to the minorities?
I believe I am a somewhat (or even quite reasonably FTM)aware, environmentalist. I prefer to use the common-sense description. I recycle my used motor oil and coolant. I get on top of leaks under the car. If I get unlucky and a cracked or broken ring is allowing oil to get by and burn in the CC, then I don't ignore it. I recycle my garbage disposables and in fact rarely put out much actual garbage.
Balance. Why do we cater to people who complain about solar or wind energy (for example) when they are placed in the middle of nowhere? It's craziness. Tell 'em to blow I say..
So as for the wave energy electricity creation, I think that we shouldn't necessarily and mindlessly start sprouting them just anywhere. With a bit of luck we could compromise maybe the ideal location for energy output vs maybe one that is a sensitive spawning area for some species of known endangered fish...for example. i.e. Use our heads. Make some concessions if need be in order to be a responsible planet sharer.
I dunno..perhaps I live in a too idealistic world..
Comments
But if you can't do that for whatever reason, then you are forced to deal with the long-distance transmission line delivery issue.
I think the confusion was that people were thinking that the part of the land that was going down was the part they're standing on, versus the part in the distance where the sun was rising up from. Or maybe I'm confused on that part
I've said before that if we all start using more solar, wind and other renewable energy sources, conserve more energy and start using less fossil fuels the world will be better off--even if there is no global warming.
For example safety. Coal mining is one of the most dangerous jobs out there. So less coal being produced would reduce deaths, even if the damage to the environment caused by mining doesn't bother anyone. Or oil drilling. Another dangerous occupation to both people and the environement. I'm just suggesting that the solutions to the global warming theory (whether you believe the theory or not) have lots of benefits. Increased national security is another benefit (eg...becoming less dependent on foreign oil and using more renewable sources within the USA).
But right now most people just want cheap energy, and coal and oil are the cheap ways to get energy. And I think the main reason people don't agree with the view on global warming is because it directs attention to the fact that most people want things cheap and aren't too concerned with the cost...whether that's cheap goods from 3rd world countries, cheap oil from the gulf, or cheap coal from our mountain regions. People want things cheap but they feel uncomfortable when they're reminded of the other costs and consequesces. They're rather not know the dirty details. But that's human nature.
People eating in restaurants don't want to watch a video of the detailed process of how the food got to their table with all the effects. Neither do people want to know all the details about where energy comes from and the effects of getting that energy. They just want to turn up the heat on their hottub and start up their SUV.
Ask the coal miners if they'd rather do coal mining or work in a solar panel factory or install solar panels on roofs.
My guess is about 90% would choose to leave the mine.
Profitable is even a LOOSELY goosey target. I mean they can not even shoot an arrow and draw a bulls eye around the arrow!!!?? Profitability can be ONE CENT OVER the total expenses (could be considered a PROFIT )!!! WAKE UP GUYS !! While there are kernels of truth to what you say, the real world explodes and or pops those notions !!!
Until then, be careful that you don't put all your chips in with Reo or Packard.
It is even becoming apparent to most folks (actually I have known it from the start) that governments (yes plural and @ the various levels and multiple agencies, inter/intra, committees, sub commitees, blue ribbon committees, pink committees, all the various permutations, etc, etc etc.) are both full on for it and against it. All at the same time, in varying degrees and various outcomes and permutations.
In automotive lingo, it is a bit like trying to get up to go 150 mph with the brakes fully engaged not shifting gears, while noting the struggle of the high hp engine while trying to reach 150 mph if it can at all (with the brakes so engaged). In the process the critics are wondering why the power convertible top doesnt seem to work well at 100 mph.
In the mean time the goal of hitting 30 years operating on an 18 year old SUV is more than half way there (60% complete) . ZERO harmful emissions at 18 year old market as TESTED and verified (smog only station, if one really knows the significance here) and reported to higher emissions, .... HQ.
That is such a naive thought. Most of the USA is not suitable for Solar. We will be getting electricity from coal long after you and I are gone. My buddy that no longer installs solar was only making $18 an hour climbing on roofs all day. Not my idea of a safe great job. And government regulations slowed the process to where there was not enough work to keep them busy. You can bet if we get any solar manufacturing in this country it will not pay much over minimum wage. China will supply our alternative energy for the most part. Now they want to do our hi speed rail. A much bigger drain on our economy with a very small gain in energy independence.
The tech seems to be getting there, if not the prices. My friends down in Taos are using their wood stove a bit more this winter last I heard, but they still won't use a cord all winter for their off-grid house. They have no backup for the solar other than the batteries and they make a living out of their house, so they kind of need their computers and wifi. :shades:
I did not say "coal mining shall end today" which WOULD have been naive.
I merely agreed that coal mining is dangerous and solar panel manufacturing and installation is far less dangerous.
You use your "one buddy" story to say how crappy you think solar install jobs are - that's kind of a small group to base an opinion on.
A recent white paper published by SunRun discusses residential solar industry growth and includes projections for the future of solar energy.
Over the past year, the number of people with jobs in the solar industry doubled to over 100,000 in 2010. Further increase in solar jobs will continue into 2011, with a projected rise of an additional 26%. In short, the solar industry is creating employment opportunities faster than the overall economy in the United States. Residential solar demand is responsible in large part for the increase in the number of solar jobs.
With more homeowners installing solar panels, demand rises for both solar products and qualified installers. In turn, the more solar industry jobs there are, the more people are available to serve the very consumers that are wishing to go solar. Its a positive “vicious circle.” As described in the SunRun white paper on residential solar industry growth:
“SunRun not only directly employs workers, but also partners with 25 installation companies across the country, that in turn employ 3,000 green collar workers. The more homes that install solar, the more installation crews are needed, and the more tools and inventory are required. One local job is created for every six homes that go solar. The impact of residential solar extends from the panel manufacturer to the auto repair shop that services the installation trucks, to the local coffee house that keeps the installers on their toes.
I'm not saying solar will replace coal.
I'm saying that solar will keep growing to the point (at some distant point in the future) where coal will become less of a factor.
That might be 50 years - but it's coming.
Indeed 7 years ago I sat down with a collegue who was planning a N/C (new construct) "coincidently" in the middle of no where close to somewhere (regionally) important. It was a pad solar ( sun tracking) installation. @ that time, total installation with HUGE covered battery storage.... $6k. Imagine what $6k can buy today ???????
We were talking 4 seaons, 4 car garage, shop, 4,500 sq ft house. NO electrical utility tap off. 400 to 500 amps. Normally an install like that would bring 400 to 1000 per month to the servicing utilities.
That is exactly correct. I think alternatives are great when they are able to stand on their own merits. I have seen too many alternative energy scams over the last 40+ years to be excited about wasting more tax dollars on these forms of corporate welfare. Ethanol, wind and solar have all cost US Billions. Much of it with nothing to show for it. Most of the civilized world use nuclear. We have all but abandoned that wonderful form of clean energy. We should buy some nuclear technology from the Japanese or French if our scientific community is unable to produce.
Ethanol, wind and solar have all cost US Billions
So did the railroads, and interstates. That worked out ok.
Summary Renewable Electric Power Industry Statistics (United States)
That chart shows Wind being 1/3 as much production as hydro electric. And that was as of 2008. You can bet it's a tad higher now.
Total production of all alternative energy sources in USA for 2008 was over a million megawatts. That's fairly substantial.
So is it a HUGE chunk? No, but getting larger by the day.
They seem to be going into decay. We have had subsidies for a long time. Nothing on the scale of more recent scams. The current ethanol scam being one of the worst I can think of in my lifetime.
Let a football stadium get 30 years old though, and out comes the dynamite. :P
Generally speaking capital projects should reduce operation and maintenance expenses...budgeted o&m funding should dwindle down if the project benefits are truly greater than it's costs.
I don't quite know what this has to do with the automobile being a major source of global worming...unless you are referring to total electric rapid rail systems new construction. Which'll cost us trillions to construct and many billions in O&M expenses.
No, capital spending on new things, like road expansions or rail systems, automatically creates O&M expenses. You can't build a new bridge and spend less than before.
I think it's often the opposite. Building a nice new road is great, but you better plan on keeping up with the potholes or it'll wind up needing to be replaced before its time instead of lasting its projected lifetime.
This thread is all over the map. I'm thinking it's ok to fund solar since a panel could run your car. Which should lower overall emissions.
It is a very serious problem that is catching up with US. So many of those projects earmarked for Alaska by Uncle Ted would get built especially in the villages and abandoned as soon as the white guys left and they would quit working. Sewer, water treatment, power, TV etc.
When the newness wears off the Wind generators and they start to fall in disrepair as they did in the 1970s-80s, they will be laying on their sides waiting for the salvage crews.
If I drive an SUV 5 miles each day to work and somebody else drives their prius 25 miles each way to work, who uses more energy?
Your last line is not quite right - most people want to do want they want, and expect others to change....
Nature is not the peaceful, weak and meek, friend that many green-groups make it out to be. That sort of mind-set of what nature is, is about as realistic as the animals' behavior in the Lion King.
Makes me smile just a little when I know that simply starting my fintail cancels out about 40 of them :shades:
Well I'll be out my lawn tractor with snow-blower attachment burning a few gallons of gasolin the next couple of days. And with the nice frosty temperature I figure 5 gal of heating oil / day. Because there is no warming of any significance that I can see, and the weather is downright wintry, I'll have to continue to burn thru fossil fuels. Despite having 2 vehicles, most of my fossil fuel usage is not auto related.
Not enough snow, too much snow, blame it all on man. What egotistical idiocy.
My post #9063
Whatsup Amigos?
Math don't lie.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Neither do pictures. From your link it is quite clear that high temperature preceded high levels of CO2. Which is the contention of most credible scientists. Which goes in the face of man made CO2 is causing a rise in temperatures.
I'm not trying to disassemble your entire argument, just your "CO2 does not increase global temps" portion.
Because it clearly does.
They don't say this in the article but sources say that is what happened.
Idle gas generators failed to come on line. Probably sitting too long without maintenance. What good is alternatives such as solar and wind if you have to have an equal amount of backup when the sun don't shine or the wind don't blow? Why is it so hard for the main stream media to tell the truth. People depend on their utilities to be there when they turn on the switch. This should be a good wakeup call for the Eco nuts in Austin. Texas having 7113 wind generators would be dandy if you could depend on them.
The spin from the media
Why oh why can we not spend this money on wave and tide power generation ? We're an island and the tides are reliable whilst wind, demonstrably, is not. :mad:
To wit a real bellweather measure are regulatory authorities want to ban to CAP so called solar/wind farms in places where the sun shines most days of the year and the winds do blow @ night, aka the majority of the time: DESERTS, such as: Mohave, Sahara, etc etc. This is so logical (as far as their logic's) as to defy ... LOGIC.
Yes it reminds me of that old saying why wish for 100% when 5.8% will do ?????????
Of Course, they have to justify their huge windfall of subsidies from the tax payers. I think the US has followed the EU on wind as misery loves company. We just do it up bigger and more wasteful than any other country.
"Chinese" Wind Farm in Texas: Green Jobs FAIL?
The buzz around the green blogosphere today is another record-setting Chinese wind farm, with 240 turbines producing 648 megawatts. But this one isn't in Inner Mongolia -- it's in Texas.
This $1.5 billion wind farm -- a US-China joint venture paid for in part by Chinese banks -- will be built not with turbines from usual suspects GE or Vestas, but with Chinese-made machines from a year-old company called A-Power.
Needless to say, most of the project's green jobs will be created in China. And don't shoot the messenger, but it's hoping to secure 30 percent, or $450 million, of its financing from, yes, U.S. stimulus funds.
Someone better turn on those spin machines right about now.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/chinese-wind-farm-texas-green-jobs-fail.- php
Even the Eco Nuts see the folly in wind generation Obama style.
This is almost like an old cartoon SPY vs SPY !!!
Eco freaks hate eco freaks !!!!!????
Last month, the Obama EPA began enforcing new rules regulating the greenhouse gas emissions from any new or expanded power plants.
This week, the EPA issued its first exemption, Environment & Energy News reports:
The Obama administration will spare a stalled power plant project in California from the newest federal limits on greenhouse gases and conventional air pollution, U.S. EPA says in a new court filing that marks a policy shift in the face of industry groups and Republicans accusing the agency of holding up construction of large industrial facilities.
According to a declaration by air chief Gina McCarthy, officials reviewed EPA policies and decided it was appropriate to "grandfather" projects such as the Avenal Power Center, a proposed 600-megawatt power plant in the San Joaquin Valley, so they are exempted from rules such as new air quality standards for smog-forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
There's something interesting about the Avenal Power Center:
The proposed Avenal Energy project will be a combined-cycle generating plant consisting of two natural gas-fired General Electric 7FA Gas Turbines with Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG) and one General Electric Steam Turbine.
Maybe GE CEO Jeff Immelt's closeness to President Obama, and his broad support for Obama's agenda, had nothing to do with this exemption. But we have no way of knowing that, and given the administration's record of regularly misleading Americans regarding lobbyists, frankly, I wouldn't trust the White House if they told me there was no connection.
On the upside, at least Job Czar Immelt is creating jobs!
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/02/obama-issues-gl- obal-warming-rules-january-gives-ge-exemption-febr
That is an interesting technology. But is it in use in the world somewhere now?
Over here we have a show on TV called Dragon's Den. (I think you guys have a version over there also) It has a panel of 5 investors that decide to support, or not, entrepreneurs and their ideas. All five are super wealthy, Kevin O'Leary being worth billions, Jim Treliving (an ex RCMP, now Boston Pizza and Mr Lube), Arlene Dickinson (queen of marketing), Brett Wilson, and Robert Herjavec (who came to Canada from Croatia with supposedly only 20 bucks.
A couple years ago an engineer type did a pitch on this very technology that the Dragon's ended up turning down. (they can be extremely arrogant and narrow-sighted at times) Anyway, the only thing I question really about it, is the relatively limited time frame involved during a tide movement. That and of course the cost to have them located throughout the seas so that they can always be grabbin' a tide.
I'm going to try to attach a pic of one here. First time trying, it might not work.
Ok, anyone know how to do it? I have a small .jpg pic on my desktop ready to go..
On the subject of tide power. Alaska did several studies on putting tidal generators in the Cook Inlet. They have a 39 foot tide. One of the highest in the World. Last I read silt was an issue they could not overcome. I think there have been some in clear water places tested. Maybe someone has a link. Most hydro plants have been less than desirable overall. At least from an environmental impact position. I know Bonneville has supplied cheap electricity to the NW for a long time.
FTM I don't know what the asterisk does either..(don't know what bulleted text means)
Since this is off-topic, maybe someone can direct me to the right place to find out some of these things?
It does beg the question though..why the majority caters to the minorities?
I believe I am a somewhat (or even quite reasonably FTM)aware, environmentalist. I prefer to use the common-sense description. I recycle my used motor oil and coolant. I get on top of leaks under the car. If I get unlucky and a cracked or broken ring is allowing oil to get by and burn in the CC, then I don't ignore it. I recycle my garbage disposables and in fact rarely put out much actual garbage.
Balance. Why do we cater to people who complain about solar or wind energy (for example) when they are placed in the middle of nowhere? It's craziness. Tell 'em to blow I say..
So as for the wave energy electricity creation, I think that we shouldn't necessarily and mindlessly start sprouting them just anywhere. With a bit of luck we could compromise maybe the ideal location for energy output vs maybe one that is a sensitive spawning area for some species of known endangered fish...for example. i.e. Use our heads. Make some concessions if need be in order to be a responsible planet sharer.
I dunno..perhaps I live in a too idealistic world..