| Author | Message | ||
     Elgato Citizen Username: Elgato Post Number: 9 Registered: 2-2004 |
Here's one from the UK about using solar panels during the day to produce hydrogen gas to make electricity at night. From what I read on the BBC towns and counties around the country are already taking the initiative and starting their own projects. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4627522.stm And another town where solar panels are being installed on public buildings and subsidized housing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/4661448.stm and another: http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/news/062001/25/energy.shtml There are many such links from the bbc about different projects. The UK expects to produce 10% of it's energy from renewable sources including solar, wind and wave power by 2010. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 575 Registered: 10-2005 |
waders for sale...food stamps are accepted for payment... Start a Revolution or shut the hell up... | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 414 Registered: 2-2003 |
Scotis, I believe this was your post. "Notehead, Tom, Hoops, Tulips and the rest of the pro-GW crew-what do each and every one of YOU plan on doing to alleviate GW?" I gave several examples of what the town could do. I will tell what I've done, doing and plan to do. 1)Already have solar panels on my roof. (Can be seen at corner of Jefferson and Walton Rd) 2)Have had an aerometer on my roof to assess feasibility of wind generator. 3)Have been trying to start a biodiesel Co-op in MW/SO for 2 years. I have placed multiple posts on MOL (would do it my self but need to build a garage first) 4) Building vertical cage windmill to put on land in Catskills and Cottage on Montauk Point 5)Use only filtered watered in reusable plastic bottles (Nalgene type) So, what are you doing to help the environment? | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 3997 Registered: 12-2001  |
Andrew, What is the total cost of small-scale power generation including the cost to the utilities of feeding extra power back into the grid? My larger point really is that I think the utilities will resist this because it increases their complexity. That is why an initiative backed at higher levels of government strikes me as being more effective. | ||
| Elgato Citizen Username: Elgato Post Number: 10 Registered: 2-2004 |
If we all become self-sufficient we won't need the utilities. They should get with the program now! | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 3998 Registered: 12-2001 |
Very few of us are going to become self-sufficient. The change would be to have a utility that can manage thousands of small-scale generation sources. The only people who can be self-sufficient are those fortunate enough to have a vigorous stream running through their property. | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 415 Registered: 2-2003 |
Tjohn, Such programs already exist at multiple levels. For example, MW could install a microhydro generator across the street from the Firestation, Such a generator could be conected to an inverter and into the grid. According to Federal and State law, PSE&G must reimburse MW's Fire Department for energy produced. Additionally, clean energy credits can be accumulated and cashed in yearly. There is currently a system. They energy companies obviously don't want people to know it exists, but it does. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 595 Registered: 10-2005 |
Andrew- I will recycle, not litter, walk instead of drive whenever possible and use common sense with my AC (ceiling fans)... that's it.... Start a Revolution or shut the hell up... | ||
| Elgato Citizen Username: Elgato Post Number: 11 Registered: 2-2004 |
tjohn, I was joking (kind of). (It would be good to be self-sufficent and have no bills). I'm not sure about the vigorous stream but judging by the amount of water I get in my basement, sometimes think my house is on top of a water table that sits about a foot below my basement floor! I saw one of those mini well drilling machines in a gardening magazine once and it did cross my mind to build my own well...for about 5 seconds. Why don't we have a utility company that can handle this if other countries do? SLK - that's a great start. It's only a short step from recycling to composting!  | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3018 Registered: 5-2001  |
waders for sale...food stamps are accepted for payment... Yeah, that's great. I'm sure the people in Bangladesh, Kiribati, and other countries where rising ocean levels are already ruining lives would appreciate your humor. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 606 Registered: 10-2005 |
I will also look into hybrid cars one of these days... Notehead-I didn't realize you were a member of the PC cops...if you are that concerned about GW then all the power to you...see my signature... It is funny, you guys discuss solar panels and other equipment like it is AFFORDABLE to everyone... Start a Revolution or shut the hell up... | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 416 Registered: 2-2003 |
Scrotis, From my point of view Everyone should do what they can, if they can. Those who have more should try to do more. But don't criticize me for doing what I can, if I can. | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 701 Registered: 3-2005 |
Andrew it appears to me you are not netting a positive return on the money you are investing. Can you help me understand by answering the following: 1)Already have solar panels on my roof. (Can be seen at corner of Jefferson and Walton Rd) What was your total cost and what have you saved and over what period of time? 2)Have had an aerometer on my roof to assess feasibility of wind generator. What did this cost? There is no benefit yet, right? 3)Have been trying to start a biodiesel Co-op in MW/SO for 2 years. I have placed multiple posts on MOL (would do it my self but need to build a garage first) Any sunk cost here? 4) Building vertical cage windmill to put on land in Catskills and Cottage on Montauk Point Do you have the projected cost and the annual savings? | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 417 Registered: 2-2003 |
dougw 1) electricty cost down 80%, get yearly rebate (energy credits) of about $700-800. System should be paid off in 7-10 years 2) aerometer $90. It's a feasibility study. 3) No cost yet, have to build a garage anyway. 4) Using it as a science project for myself and the kids. Beats watching the crap on TV. Materials for actual windmill $50-100, cost for generator $50-170 based on features. How much are tickets to a football game these days? | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3020 Registered: 5-2001 |
Economic factors are hardly the only compelling reasons to invest in renewable energy systems, and yet few investments are more certain to yield a positive return. Most pay for themselves within 10 years, with equipment that is carries 20-year or longer warranties. And being snarky doesn't change that. SLK - since when did you care about something being affordable to everyone? | ||
| evm Citizen Username: Evm Post Number: 319 Registered: 5-2001 |
Notehead- what kind of car do you drive? | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 418 Registered: 2-2003 |
I would like to reiterate Notehead's point. It's not only about money. It's about helping to sustain this earth, and maybe, just maybe, when we're ashes or memories, our children and their children will breath cleaner air, drink cleaner water and have a chance to appreciate ecosystems and species of animals as they were ment to be. Everything is not measured as a monetary return on investment. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3136 Registered: 3-2004 |
Our 2000 VW Jetta has 152,000 miles on it. Our new Hyundai Accent gets great mileage. We traded in a huge, miserable Jeep Cherokee that kept breaking down and guzzling gas. We have auto-longevity. Our sons have driver's licenses but don't drive. At college, they take a bus, or walk to classes. We raised our sons on bottled water. We have a well, and will be sharing a new well about to be built with our neighbors. We have a small house, old, small rooms that retain heat well. Our old house has large windows, letting sun in to warm the place in winter. We planted lots of trees to maintain shade in summer, and protection from noise and pollution in winter. Also, my husband and I both changed jobs to work closer to home, and drive less. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 611 Registered: 10-2005 |
Andrew- I am not criticizing anyone for doing what they can, but you guys act as if the middle class and lower classes are just going to start investing in such like it is no big deal...ummm yeah, right....pay the mortgage or put solar panels on my house...ummmmm Start a Revolution or shut the hell up... | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 419 Registered: 2-2003 |
Scrotis, Having grown up in the Bronx during the late sixties, a block outside section8 projects, essentially all my conservation habits I learned from my grandfather and mother; both who bearly qualified as even middle income. (class implies something a bit different) They both were recycling (or back then re-using) before recycling was mainstream. There are many things middle and low income (not class) families can do, which in the long term save them money and help our environment. For example, use filtered water in re-usable (Nalgene type/ made in USA) bottles. Water filters can be placed on the spout or under the sink ($20-150) Only 10-20% of plastic bottles are recycled. Re-usable water bottles with filtered water are even less environmetally intrusive. “Had the 3.2 billion pounds of PET bottles wasted in 2002 been recycled,” she said, “an estimated 6.2 million barrels of crude oil equivalent could have been saved, and over a million tons of greenhouse gas emissions could have been avoided.” http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Polyethylene/PET-Bottle-Waste15sep03.htm | ||
| Elgato Citizen Username: Elgato Post Number: 12 Registered: 2-2004 |
Tulip, I was joking back there about the well but you have one? In Maplewood/S. Orange? I didn't know it could be done. How can I find out more about this? Thanks. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3021 Registered: 5-2001 |
Evm - I drive a Prius. Most of the year I get about 43 mpg. Why do you ask? | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 702 Registered: 3-2005 |
If it is not about money how do you expect the Township of Maplewood to administer it? How will they know when they have been sucessful? Or will there be ever more and more money spent on programs? | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 703 Registered: 3-2005 |
BUSINESS WORLD By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR. A Global Warming Worksheet February 1, 2006; WSJ Page A15 By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR As used by the media, "global warming" refers to the theory not only that the earth is warming, but doing so because of human industrial activity. How can a reasonably diligent citizen assess this claim? Measuring average global temperature is not an easy matter. It's a big planet, with lots of ways and places to take its temperature. Scientists, naturally, have to rely on record keepers in decades past, using different instruments, to produce what has become the conventionally accepted estimate of a one-degree rise over the past century. But even if a change is measured, how do we know it's manmade? Giant, mile-thick sheaths of ice have come and gone from North America in recent millennia. In our unstable and evolving planet, temperature is often either rising or falling. Who knows whether a trend is the product of human activity or natural? The answer is nobody. All we have is hypothesis. Let's be honest: A diligent and engaged citizen judges these matters based on the perceived credibility of public figures who affiliate themselves with one view or another. Less engaged citizens, whose views are reflected in polls showing a growing public concern about global warming, are simply registering the prevalence of media mentions of global warming. In both cases, it may be rational to assume there wouldn't be so much noise about global warming unless responsible individuals had validated the scientific claims. This is a rational assumption, but not necessarily a reliable one. Politicians adopt views that are popular in order to be popular. Scientists subscribe to theories that later are proved to be wrong. There are "belief" processes at work even in the community of climate researchers. So how else might an intelligent layperson judge the matter? Well, he could begin by evaluating the claim that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from 0.028% to 0.036% without necessarily taking the measurements himself. This finding is so straightforward, it's reasonable to assume it would have been widely debunked if unreliable. Next, the claim that this should lead to higher temperatures because of the heat-absorbing qualities of the CO2 molecule. A reasonable person might be tempted to take this finding on faith too, for a different reason: because even ardent believers in global warming accept that this fact alone wouldn't justify belief in manmade global warming. That's because all things are not equal: The climate is a vast, complex and poorly understood system. Scientists must resort to elaborate computer models to address a multiplicity of variables and feedbacks before they can plausibly suggest (choice of verb is deliberate here) that the net effect of increased carbon dioxide is the observed increase in temperature. By now, a diligent layperson is equipped to doubt any confident assertion that manmade warming is taking place. Models are not the climate, and may not accurately reflect the workings of the climate, especially when claiming to detect changes that are small and hard to differentiate from natural changes. Note this doesn't make our conscientious citizen a global warming "denier." It makes him a person who recognizes that the case isn't proved and probably can't be proved with current knowledge. He's also entitled to turn his attention now to the nonscientific factors affecting public professions of certainty about manmade global warming. Nobody doubts, for instance, that when Bill Clinton asserts global warming is the greatest threat to mankind, he's consulting not the science but a purported "consensus" of scientists. A layman asks himself: What can "consensus" mean if it asserts a judgment nobody is equipped to confidently make? Likewise, a study that made news worldwide last month purported to show the death of frogs from warming. It did not show the death of frogs from manmade warming -- the study contributed zero evidence one way or another on a human role in climate change. You would have thought otherwise from the media reports. Ditto Al Gore, who offers a traveling slide show (now a movie) in which he catalogs possible dire consequences of global warming in non sequitur fashion to persuade audiences that climate change is caused by human activity and would yield to human action. Myanna Lahsen, an anthropologist who spent several years observing and interviewing staff at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, shows in a new paper that even climate modelers themselves, who appreciate better than anyone the limits of their work, nonetheless slip into unwarranted certainty in public. She quotes one: "It is easy to get caught up in it; you start to believe that what happens in your model must be what happens in the real world. And often that is not true." All this explains why, inevitably and unfortunately, today's debate over global warming revolves almost exclusively around the status and motives of spokesmen for opposing viewpoints, rather than the science and its limits. Yet this is a story of progress. Tony Blair, whose government has been a steady sounder of climate warnings, now says he recognizes the improbability of nations sacrificing their economic growth based on uncertain climate science. He and many others also recognize that the problems associated with climate change (whether manmade or natural) are the same old problems of poverty, disease, and natural hazards like floods, storms and droughts. Money spent directly on these problems is a much surer bet than money spent trying to control a climate change process that we don't understand. A final thought that probably won't please the environmentalists: Whatever the truth of climate change turns out to be, today's vast investment in climate research will likely lead someday to technologies that really will allow us to alter local and global weather. | ||
| Meandtheboys Citizen Username: Meandtheboys Post Number: 2868 Registered: 12-2004  |
Exactly dougw. Thanks. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4011 Registered: 12-2001 |
We do have a Faustian dependence upon technology to solve all of our problems. Once has to wonder if the Devil is going to collect at some point. | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 420 Registered: 2-2003 |
Having scanned HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR other opinions it's clear he's ultra-conservative and views are measured in terms of profits, markets, blah, blah, blah. The argument for global warming is based on historical data and predictive models based on trends of such data. The argument against it, is in my opinion, countinuously casting doubt on available data/models becuase "It will stagger our economy" as many of the market mentality conservative types argue; but they don't really explain how. Energy policies and initiatives to increase fuel efficiency and conserve energy may shift the economy into different markets,ie less oil dependent and more clean energy reliant, but it's not clear how they will stagger the overall economy. I thought efficient systems tend to increase productivity and profits. Why are energy and resources any different? That's unless you believe we should use and waste resources as long as there's a profit to be made. For all I care, you can stick your head in the sand and wallow in ignorance. For me, it just makes common to increase energy efficiency and conserve. A reduction in greenhouse gases is one of several positive outcomes. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4012 Registered: 12-2001 |
Global warming aside, it seems to me that the approaches Andrew advocates deserve serious consideration at the highest levels of government. Given very real issues of pollution an energy supplies that are increasingly expensive to extract, it is in our interest to develop these alternate energy sources. | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 704 Registered: 3-2005 |
I am all for tax credits that incent the private sector to be cleaner. I also support governement supported research into cleaner sources of energy. What scares me is the idea of the government building wind farms and such as Andrew suggests. This sounds like a money pit to me. | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 421 Registered: 2-2003 |
Windfarms obviously cannot be placed everywhere. Before MW/SO were to attempt such a project, atleast a one year feasibility study would need to be performed with continuos aerometer monitoring of potential sites. The US Geologic survey already has broad maps with trends but not data on specific locations. I guess if we build wind farms based on data the same way we collected and interpreted data to invade Iraq, it would be a flop. http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=40741 | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 705 Registered: 3-2005 |
Every topic always leads back to Iraq. MOL all Iraq all the time! | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 2301 Registered: 10-2001  |
Or if the same people who ran the School Construction Corporation are allowed to build the wind farms, then I could just use my own money to burn in the fireplace. Same result. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4014 Registered: 12-2001 |
Andrew, There is a windfarm outside of Livermore, CA. How is that working out? Are there any windfarms in Wyoming or the Dakotas? As all wind originates in those states, I would expect them to be economically viable in those states. | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 422 Registered: 2-2003 |
Sportsnut, that's a valid crititcism as well, but again it boils down to the 5 P's of life Poor Preparation = Piss Poor Performance So, if a wind survey reveals there's enough wind in the reservation to support a windfarm and generate an acceptable income for the town, what would you do? | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 706 Registered: 3-2005 |
Lease the wind farm land to a private entity to build the wind farm. | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 423 Registered: 2-2003 |
Tjohn, The Livermore project is an example of how NOT to start a wind farm. "It has been argued that the Altamont Pass is not so much a wind farm as it is a tax farm. That's because in 1983, fueled by large federal and state tax incentives, a number of reputable and not-so-reputable companies entered the wind turbine business. The result was the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (or Wind Farm), where a variety of early-generation windmills began sprouting across 50,000 acres in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa counties. "With little direction, organization or planning behind the development, it was a disaster in the making. And when the tax credits ended in 1985, the industry fell into the first of several recessions" http://www.darrylmueller.com/sfcronical99.html The question is was that particular project well planned? I don't think anything in MW/SO would approach that magnitude. Quite, honestly, I don't know if it's even feasible. I do think it's worth investigating with a feasibility study | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 614 Registered: 10-2005 |
dougw- Thanks for the Jenkin's post. I was looking to post it myself this morning. Andrew-Do yout think it is really fair to say those that don't agree with you "wallow in ignorance?" Anybody see the new South Park last night...if you did, I rest my case.... | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 707 Registered: 3-2005 |
This is one of the most PC issues. If you question that we are causing global warming you are called all kinds of names and dismissed by the Andrew's of the world. I am looking for a discourse with someone like Andrew (who obviously has a lot of information on the subject) Instead he calls me ignorant for questioning theories. When fascism comes to Amreica it will be dressed in a white lab coat and espouse political correctness. Dare not question what the climate models have told us!!! | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 424 Registered: 2-2003 |
Scotis, Yes, I do think it's ignorance because combating global warming will occur as a RESULT OF increasing energy efficiancy and conservation. I've not heard any convincing arguments of how exactly improving energy efficieny and conservation will stagger the economy, but it appears to me that you and dougw accept that argument almost blindly. So where's your data, not opinion or Op Ed, but data. It can be historical and/or modelled. | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 425 Registered: 2-2003 |
No dougw The fascists are already in the White House. |
