| Author | Message | ||
     Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5273 Registered: 10-1999  |
I'm working on a "mouse click" generator. Preliminary data indicate that MOL alone could power a city block. | ||
| kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 765 Registered: 11-2003 |
i think masurbation in the sun will be the answer. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1881 Registered: 3-2004 |
Kenney: If you're going to talk about it, at least spell it right so we'll believe you know what you're talking about. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1067 Registered: 9-2004 |
"Free hydrogen does not exist on this planet, so to derive free hydrogen we must break the hydrogen bond in molecules. Basic chemistry tells us that it requires more energy to break a hydrogen bond than to form one. This is due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and there is no getting around it." H2 is a sham, so is ethanol. You would have to grow corn, to make ethanol, to run the tractor on the farm that grows corn. Exploding H2 cars would be fun, in the movies. If your are an oil company, selling H2 or ethanol is an attractive option. Though solar panels would wipe out the H2 & ethanol distrubutation systems evisioned by studies funded by foundations connected to oil companies. Solar & wind, period. Every house in America should be a net producer of electricty. Currently large scale vat type batteries are used to smooth over peak demand not met by production. We dont need new tech developed, we need to use wghat we have now, and we need to do so wisely. Which I think is a conservative principle. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4665 Registered: 5-2001 |
everything you say about generating hydrogen is true, however hydrogen fuel cells don't run off of a big tank of H2 that gets burned. The construction and function of them is very different. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3136 Registered: 5-2001  |
We dont need new tech developed, we need to use what we have now, and we need to do so wisely. Which I think is a conservative principle. Yep. Now we just need more self-identified conservatives to get on board. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3137 Registered: 5-2001 |
Regarding hydrogen... this is on the front page of h2nation.com: We have tested technologies that convert more than 20% of direct solar energy into hydrogen fuel value delivered into pressurized storage in depleted natural gas and oil formations and/or into your hydrogen fueled vehicle. Compare 20% efficiency to 0.1% efficiency. It is 200 times more efficient to make hydrogen than gasoline and far less expensive because it takes 200 times less area and far less expensive equipment. | ||
| Glock 17 Citizen Username: Glock17 Post Number: 482 Registered: 7-2005  |
Global warming is just nature's way of telling the human race, "Your time is up." | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1038 Registered: 6-2001 |
Just out of curiousity? For everyone who thinks that global warming is a problem, how many miles did you drive last year? TomR | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3139 Registered: 5-2001 |
And in what kind of car? Also... how much energy do you use in your home? I drove about 12K-14K miles last year, but my Prius is a SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle). It's one of the very cleanest mass-produced cars you can buy. And we've made a lot of other common-sense adjustments in our house to keep our energy consumption low without cramping our lifestyle. Nice to have lower bills, too. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13443 Registered: 1-2003  |
TomR, do I understand you to imply that if you are part of the problem, you can't complain? | ||
| Glock 17 Citizen Username: Glock17 Post Number: 492 Registered: 7-2005 |
The human race...comparitively...has only been on this planet for the blink of an eye...we know nothing about how the overall ecosystem works over long periods of time...hell the earth could be wiping us out in order to replenish itself. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1039 Registered: 6-2001 |
Noglider, Not at all. Anyone can complain. A lot of posters have written about what somebody else, i.e., the government, oil companies, auto manufacturers, should do. I was wondering what they were doing as individuals. As I wrote, I was just curious. TomR | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13457 Registered: 1-2003 |
OK then, because I don't think we have to be perfect role models in order to talk about what we as individuals and we as a society can and should try to do. Increased consciousness is worth at least something. I drive 19,000 miles a year, which seems pretty bad. I'd love to drive less, and I'm always thinking about how I can manage that. I might ask for a reassignment to do that. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/airmon/airtoxics/youcan.htm has tips on what we can do to reduce emissions from our driving. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4691 Registered: 5-2001 |
the government isn't "somebody else," at least it shouldn't be. It should be us. If "we the people" could muster up some group action to push forward alternate energy sources, raise CAFE standards, really enforce the regulations on power plants, it would go farther than anything we as individuals could do. Unfortunately "we the people" is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of big oil. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3143 Registered: 5-2001 |
"we know nothing about how the overall ecosystem works over long periods of time..." Glock, I disagree. The mechanisms of ecology over both short and long time periods are well understood. Unless you take the Gaia hypothesis to its furthest conclusion and believe that Earth and all life on it comprises a single living entity, it is unhelpful to anthropomorphize the planet. I think of the consequences of global warming -- threatening to humanity and much other life -- as "results" rather than "responses." Natural systems in the world cause plenty of human suffering in the form of earthquakes, droughts, volcanic activity, tornados, etc. But none of these pose a threat as serious to humanity as the increased amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which are directly related to human activities. If you chuck a ball straight up into the air, you shouldn't be surprised when it comes back down. If you catch more than 90% of edible pelagic fish, as we have done, you shouldn't be surprised if there aren't enough left to eat. If you rely on a non-renewable source of energy, as we are doing, you shouldn't be surprised when that source becomes so expensive that it is out of reach to most people. If you increase the percentage of heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere surrounding this planet, as we are doing, you shouldn't be surprised if the planet's average surface temperature increases. | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 331 Registered: 11-2003 |
Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1045 Registered: 6-2001 |
tom, There are alternative energy sources, presently. We can burn coal or fuse atoms for electricity, although some people consider those alternatives dirty and/or dangerous. We could all drive electric cars, or hybrids, for transportation. But some people consider that alternative too expensive and/or impractical. Of course, as you suggest, WE could push for other alternate energy sources. WE could raise CAFE standards. WE could really enforce the regulations on power plants. But you know that there will be somebody out there (who is also part of WE) who will object that such measures are too dirty/dangerous/expensive and/or impractical. Penultimately you are correct. WE can do more collectively than you or I can do alone. The sad truth is, WE won't. Ultimately, you dodged the question. How many miles did you drive last year? TomR | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4693 Registered: 5-2001 |
I don't really know. 25-30,000 maybe? I commute by train, which keeps me below average. | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 332 Registered: 11-2003 |
tom - you commmute by train and still drive 25-30K miles/year??? TomR - I think as mentioned by notehead, what is more important is how much you CONSUME. Gas, oil, natural gas, and everything else you buy which takes energy to manufacture and deliver to market. This problem will never be solved "by the people" until fuel becomes much more expensive and it's no longer a choice. Tragedy of the commons and all. Anyone notice oil prices creeping up to $70/barrel? Maybe we'll get close to $100/barrel by year end. Yippee!  | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4698 Registered: 5-2001 |
you're right, it can't be anything near that since I've only put 20,000 on my car since I bought it over two years ago. I should keep better track, and not post after having a few beers. | ||
| kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 767 Registered: 11-2003 |
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/charts/InfAdjGas1918_2005.gif The problem with our policy for years has been to make friends and control tyrants in order to keep gas prices artificially cheap. Now that it has become profitable to create alternative energy sources, you will see a profound change. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13492 Registered: 1-2003 |
Excellent point, and fascinating graph. Note that gas in 1999 was the lowest on record, in real dollars. I remember this, yet people still carried on the tradition of complaining about prices. I don't believe alternative energy is cheaper yet, but I believe it might be one day. Still, I think that can't be the only answer. Another part of the solution has to be a reduction in consumption. I foresee more urban living, i.e. a reversal of sprawl. | ||
| kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 769 Registered: 11-2003 |
you cannot control behavior, but you can stop creating artilfial price controls. high gas prices is the best thing than can happen at this time because we have many years of proven reserves to help us make the transition. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3147 Registered: 5-2001 |
We are just at the point where wind and solar installations are starting to provide energy that is cheaper than most conventional grid power in the U.S. Usually, there is some kind of geographic or other advantage to the renewable systems in these cases, but the price of these new technologies continues to come down steadily even as their performance increases. During my recent trip throughout Austria and Germany, I was impressed with how much wind and solar power was visible in towns large and small. Huge wind turbines were scattered across the landscape, and there were houses, commercial buildings, and factories with PV arrays of every size in towns large and small. Very inspiring. On the automotive front, there are a LOT of bullsh*t products out there which are claimed by their vendors to improve mileage and reduce emissions. One product that has apparently passed a lot of tests and is starting to get an impressive track record of actually working is a product called EthosFR. Apparently, the Chinese government, which obviously has immense vehicle pollution problems to deal with, is buying 4000 barrels of the stuff each month. I have decided to give it a try in my own vehicles (even though they are both clean and hi-mileage to begin with) and I'll let you all know how it goes. The company's website is www.ethosnw.com. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1110 Registered: 9-2004 |
A profound change? When? If I became president next week, I would propose to Congress to spend at least 10 billion this year on incentives to promote Photovoltaic arrays on houses. Thats a corporate give away that makes at least some sense. The US could be a world leader in these newer technologies and production techniques. But currently most of the PV production gets shipped to Germany. Which should tell you Americans are not buying as many PV arrays as Germans. I would then increase CAFE standards, Drop the SUV tax break. Just a start. I would call it "The moral equivalent of war". These sorts of programs would have an immediate effect. There is no longer any reason to wait. | ||
| kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 771 Registered: 11-2003 |
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml &sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3153 Registered: 5-2001 |
The Telegraph editorial above is easily shown to be not worth the paper it was printed on. Carter tries to make the case that, because the year of highest temperature in recent history is 1998, global warming has "stopped". First of all, 2005 was warmer than 1998. Perhaps Carter didn't get the memo. Temperature data from NASA here. Also, consider this: - every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917 - every year since 1956 has been warmer than 1956 - every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976 - every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992 - the 20 hottest years on record occured in the last 25 - the ten hottest years on record occured in the last 15 People who read the Carter editorial and accept his nonsense as wisdom should leave such matters to those people who are willing to get the facts. Anyway, Bob Carter is one of the relatively few loud voices still denying anthropogenic global warming. Consider that he has also said in 2002, after huge amounts of coral bleaching across the South Pacific was discovered, that the Great Barrier Reef is "doing just fine". It's amazing the guy is still getting published anywhere. Here is one of many locations on the web you can find Carter's nonsense debunked. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13551 Registered: 1-2003 |
Kenney, talk about how global warming is happening but it's not our doing. Talk about how global warming is our doing but it's not our job to undo. Talk about how global warming is a problem but we're powerless to change it. Come to us with some wild ideas. But don't talk about how it's not happening. That's like saying the sky is green. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 892 Registered: 2-2004 |
Written like a true believer. I'm beginning to get my religious wackos and my environmental wackos confused. They all sound alike these days. The end is near so repent, or drive a hybrid. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14924 Registered: 10-2001  |
The earth is 4.5 billion years old. That's with a B. Billion. The "record" of recorded weather is less than 200 years. Please keep this rather humongous fact in mind before concluding that the sky isn't green. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9197 Registered: 4-1997  |
Except other data have been extracted from core samples of ice back to 420,000 years before present (BP). (show off scientists) | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14925 Registered: 10-2001 |
Inconclusive. At best. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9198 Registered: 4-1997 |
 Sure looks like temps rise with industrial revolution. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14926 Registered: 10-2001 |
And what explains the activity in around 700AD? Gladiators farting? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4712 Registered: 5-2001 |
half a million years aren't good enough for you, but Kenney posts something based on the last 6 and that's OK? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13555 Registered: 1-2003 |
sbenois, are you saying that all the scientists who are studying this are in some environmentalists' pockets? How else can you explain the fact that they have all come to agree that global warming exists and that it is most probably because of our energy consumption? I realize they could all be wrong simultaneously. That certainly has happened throughout history. But isn't it more hubris to assume they're wrong than to assume that they are right? If there are other (cyclical) factors causing global warming, it doesn't mean energy consumption is NOT one of them. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3154 Registered: 5-2001 |
S, do you suggest that we do nothing while world continues to heat up? Do you feel that all the very real, very serious impacts of global warming going on right now are actually no cause for alarm? | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3155 Registered: 5-2001 |
Taken from this fine website (with emphasis mine): _ _ _ _ In the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, it was concluded that based on the balance of all available evidence and even considering uncertainties and areas lacking adequate research, the earth is undergoing a rapid warming trend that is outside the likely bounds of natural variations and this climate change is primarily driven by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning. This statement has been explicitly endorsed by: - Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil) - Royal Society of Canada - Chinese Academy of Sciences - Academié des Sciences (France) - Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) - Indian National Science Academy - Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) - Science Council of Japan - Russian Academy of Sciences - Royal Society (United Kingdom) - National Academy of Sciences (United States of America) - Australian Academy of Sciences - Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts - Caribbean Academy of Sciences - Indonesian Academy of Sciences - Royal Irish Academy - Academy of Sciences Malaysia - Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand - Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in either one or both of these documents: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619 In addition, the following institutions specializing in Climate, Atmosphere, Ocean and/or Earth sciences have published the same conclusions: - NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS) - American Geophysical Union (AGU) - National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) - American Meteorological Society (AMS) - Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) _ _ _ _ If you saw twenty leading economics experts on the news on separate occasions saying that the value of the dollar was about to plummet, I'd bet that you would be willing to accept that and be appropriately concerned. Consider, then, that, just possibly, the hundreds of experts comprising these many large and prestigious organizations know what they're talking about. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14927 Registered: 10-2001 |
I would suggest that you look up a period called the Little Climatic Optimum and explain to me how it happened in the absense of automobiles. Thankey. |
