A few weeks ago, there was a professor talking on a UK radio show, about the
eco-credentials of the windmills that are springing up all over the UK in an
effort to satisfy the goals for renewable power, that have been foisted on
us by Brussels. He enthused like an evangelical preacher about the brilliant
efficiency of these machines which, he said, was due in no small part to the
use of neodymium magnets in the generators. I understand that high power
neodymium magnets are also used in the motors for electric eco-cars. Fair
enough all round. However, in last Sunday's newspaper supplement, I read a
rather disturbing story about this material. Apparently, almost all 'rare
earth' metals are mined and processed in China. Since the boom in wind
turbines and electric cars started, the demand for neodymium has gone sky
high. The only problem is that extracting it from the ground and other
metals that it co-exists with, involves the use of very concentrated acids
which are pumped into the ground, as well as being used in the refinement
process. There is also radioactivity involved somewhere in the process. Once
the neodymium has been extracted and processed, the highly acidic and
radioactive 'tailings' are dumped in a huge and highly toxic lake that is
now over 10 feet deep. Local people are getting sick and dying at an
alarming rate, and birth defects are common. The water supply and crops are
being poisoned, and the whole affair is being talked of in terms of an
"ecological disaster".

So here we have another bit of western eco- think of dubious practicality in
terms of the amount of power that can actually be realistically produced
this way, that's having a seriously negative ecological effect on the other
side of the world. But I suppose all the eco-warriors and euro pen-pushers
that support this 'non-polluting' power generation technology, would rather
that we didn't know about the wider implications ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...ous-scale.html

Arfa

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
A few weeks ago, there was a professor talking on a UK radio show, about
the eco-credentials of the windmills that are springing up all over the UK
in an effort to satisfy the goals for renewable power, that have been
foisted on us by Brussels. He enthused like an evangelical preacher about
the brilliant efficiency of these machines which, he said, was due in no
small part to the use of neodymium magnets in the generators. I understand
that high power neodymium magnets are also used in the motors for electric
eco-cars. Fair enough all round. However, in last Sunday's newspaper
supplement, I read a rather disturbing story about this material.
Apparently, almost all 'rare earth' metals are mined and processed in
China. Since the boom in wind turbines and electric cars started, the
demand for neodymium has gone sky high. The only problem is that extracting
it from the ground and other metals that it co-exists with, involves the
use of very concentrated acids which are pumped into the ground, as well as
being used in the refinement process. There is also radioactivity involved
somewhere in the process. Once the neodymium has been extracted and
processed, the highly acidic and radioactive 'tailings' are dumped in a
huge and highly toxic lake that is now over 10 feet deep. Local people are
getting sick and dying at an alarming rate, and birth defects are common.
The water supply and crops are being poisoned, and the whole affair is
being talked of in terms of an "ecological disaster".

So here we have another bit of western eco- think of dubious practicality
in terms of the amount of power that can actually be realistically
produced this way, that's having a seriously negative ecological effect on
the other side of the world. But I suppose all the eco-warriors and euro
pen-pushers that support this 'non-polluting' power generation technology,
would rather that we didn't know about the wider implications ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...ous-scale.html

Arfa

Whats that old saying.. Theres no such thing as a free lunch..I think this
applies to enery too.. Theres no such thing as (poloution) free energy.

I don't know what the answer is to the energy problmes we face, but wind
power isn't the answer. Solar isn't so promising either.

Mike

On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 02:20:13 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

Apparently, almost all 'rare
earth' metals are mined and processed in China. Since the boom in wind
turbines and electric cars started, the demand for neodymium has gone sky
high. The only problem is that extracting it from the ground and other
metals that it co-exists with, involves the use of very concentrated acids
which are pumped into the ground, as well as being used in the refinement
process.

China seems to be making its own problems:

"Concern as China clamps down on rare earth exports"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/concern-as-china-clamps-down-on-rare-earth-exports-1855387.html
The article is about a year old, but the situation hasn't changed
much. Allegedly, it's because China wants to control the mining
pollution:
http://resourceinvestingnews.com/11967-the-future-of-critical-metals.html

In the US, the congress critters are worried and are pushing for a
renewal of domestic production (which was curtailed due to
environmental concerns).
http://rareearthinvestingnews.com/934/neodymium%E2%80%99s-strategic-importance-gets-traction-with-us-congress/

Incidentally, the radioactivity is from the other minerals mixed in
with the Neodymium, and not in anything used during processing.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Arfa Daily wrote in message
...
A few weeks ago, there was a professor talking on a UK radio show, about
the
eco-credentials of the windmills that are springing up all over the UK in
an
effort to satisfy the goals for renewable power, that have been foisted on
us by Brussels. He enthused like an evangelical preacher about the
brilliant
efficiency of these machines which, he said, was due in no small part to
the
use of neodymium magnets in the generators. I understand that high power
neodymium magnets are also used in the motors for electric eco-cars. Fair
enough all round. However, in last Sunday's newspaper supplement, I read a
rather disturbing story about this material. Apparently, almost all 'rare
earth' metals are mined and processed in China. Since the boom in wind
turbines and electric cars started, the demand for neodymium has gone sky
high. The only problem is that extracting it from the ground and other
metals that it co-exists with, involves the use of very concentrated acids
which are pumped into the ground, as well as being used in the refinement
process. There is also radioactivity involved somewhere in the process.
Once
the neodymium has been extracted and processed, the highly acidic and
radioactive 'tailings' are dumped in a huge and highly toxic lake that is
now over 10 feet deep. Local people are getting sick and dying at an
alarming rate, and birth defects are common. The water supply and crops
are
being poisoned, and the whole affair is being talked of in terms of an
"ecological disaster".

So here we have another bit of western eco- think of dubious practicality
in
terms of the amount of power that can actually be realistically produced
this way, that's having a seriously negative ecological effect on the
other
side of the world. But I suppose all the eco-warriors and euro pen-pushers
that support this 'non-polluting' power generation technology, would
rather
that we didn't know about the wider implications ...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...na-true-cost-B
ritains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

Arfa


The central African tantalum mines pay for the local wars.

I've never understood why there is not a prop shaft the length of those
towers and then any old (heavy) generator at ground/sea level.

The talk, next week, for the sci caf I run
http://www.divdev.fsnet.co.uk/scicaf.htm
is on nuclear fusion , with someone from the Culham labs, I wonder how
eco-unfriendly that would be if it ever gets going - I doubt it would be
"too cheap to meter"

I could point out that it's China's problem, not ours. Which happens to be
true.

I find it hard to believe that "radioactivity [is] involved somewhere in the
process" of extracting neodymium -- unless neodymium is commonly mixed with
ores of radioactive material -- which it apparently isn't. According to
Wikipedia...

"Neodymium is not found naturally in metallic form or unaccompanied by other
lanthanides, and it is usually refined for general use. Although classed as
a "rare earth" it is no more rare than cobalt, nickel or copper, and is
widely distributed in the Earth's crust. The bulk of the world's neodymium
is presently [sic -- currently] mined in China."

If it isn't particularly rare, then one might assume other countries will
begin or increase their mining of it, now that China has put export controls
on it.

Wind power has the potential (sorry) for relatively cheap electricity, using
hardware that is easily replaced as it wears out.

A long-term solution to food and environmental problems would require a
"population implosion" -- an across-the-board reduction in population to
1/10 or even 1/20 the current level.

"There's... antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium
And hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and rhenium
And nickel, neodymium, neptunium, germanium
And iron, americium, ruthenium, uranium..."


"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
A few weeks ago, there was a professor talking on a UK radio show, about
the
eco-credentials of the windmills that are springing up all over the UK in
an
effort to satisfy the goals for renewable power, that have been foisted on
us by Brussels. He enthused like an evangelical preacher about the
brilliant
efficiency of these machines which, he said, was due in no small part to
the
use of neodymium magnets in the generators. I understand that high power
neodymium magnets are also used in the motors for electric eco-cars. Fair
enough all round. However, in last Sunday's newspaper supplement, I read a
rather disturbing story about this material. Apparently, almost all 'rare
earth' metals are mined and processed in China. Since the boom in wind
turbines and electric cars started, the demand for neodymium has gone sky
high. The only problem is that extracting it from the ground and other
metals that it co-exists with, involves the use of very concentrated acids
which are pumped into the ground, as well as being used in the refinement
process. There is also radioactivity involved somewhere in the process.
Once
the neodymium has been extracted and processed, the highly acidic and
radioactive 'tailings' are dumped in a huge and highly toxic lake that is
now over 10 feet deep. Local people are getting sick and dying at an
alarming rate, and birth defects are common. The water supply and crops
are
being poisoned, and the whole affair is being talked of in terms of an
"ecological disaster".

So here we have another bit of western eco- think of dubious practicality
in
terms of the amount of power that can actually be realistically produced
this way, that's having a seriously negative ecological effect on the
other
side of the world. But I suppose all the eco-warriors and euro pen-pushers
that support this 'non-polluting' power generation technology, would
rather
that we didn't know about the wider implications ...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...ous-scale.html

Arfa

"N_Cook" wrote in
:


I've never understood why there is not a prop shaft the length of
those towers and then any old (heavy) generator at ground/sea level.


Think about it for a while.
Hints;a 160 ft long shaft,torquing in the wind,and needing bearing support.
then there's the mass of the shaft that has to be started and stopped with
shifts in wind velocity. Cost of the shaft,too. I'm sure there's more.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
I could point out that it's China's problem, not ours. Which happens to be
true.

I find it hard to believe that "radioactivity [is] involved somewhere in
the
process" of extracting neodymium -- unless neodymium is commonly mixed
with
ores of radioactive material -- which it apparently isn't. According to
Wikipedia...

"Neodymium is not found naturally in metallic form or unaccompanied by
other
lanthanides, and it is usually refined for general use. Although classed
as
a "rare earth" it is no more rare than cobalt, nickel or copper, and is
widely distributed in the Earth's crust. The bulk of the world's neodymium
is presently [sic -- currently] mined in China."

If it isn't particularly rare, then one might assume other countries will
begin or increase their mining of it, now that China has put export
controls
on it.

Wind power has the potential (sorry) for relatively cheap electricity,
using
hardware that is easily replaced as it wears out.

A long-term solution to food and environmental problems would require a
"population implosion" -- an across-the-board reduction in population to
1/10 or even 1/20 the current level.

"There's... antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium
And hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and rhenium
And nickel, neodymium, neptunium, germanium
And iron, americium, ruthenium, uranium..."



Well, I'm not sure that wind power actually has anything like the potential
to be worth all of its downsides, if you look at the figures for what it's
actually doing in terms of filling any 'holes' in the grid. The latest
figures are for what was actually produced, against what could have
potentially been produced at full capacity, during the last cold spell that
we had here a few weeks ago, and it doesn't make very inspiring reading.
There are two types of weather systems that we get here in the winter in the
UK. The first is, as my dear old high school geography teacher used to tell
us, "All the Ws", which is Warm Wet Westerly Winds in Winter. This is
typified by rather dull overcast weather rolling in on fronts from low
pressure systems that form out in the Atlantic. They tend to be fairly quick
moving, and have warm and moist light winds. Not too bad for wind
generation, but by the same token, because of the temperatures, not really
demanding in terms of energy requirements on the generating authorities,
because there is not a great need for people to heat their homes too much.
Right now, for instance, it's the depths of the UK winter, its 5 o'clock in
the afternoon and well past sunset, and its 50 deg F outside.

The other type of weather that we get involves huge blocking high pressure
systems that sit over northern Europe, and prevent any weather at all from
coming in. These systems are typified by clear blue skies and totally clear
nights. Daytime temperatures are lucky to make it to 30 deg F, and night
time temperatures plummet into the 20s or lower, with sharp frosts. Winds
are light to zero. This is very bad for wind generation. The situation can
last for several weeks at a time, as these high pressure weather systems are
huge and static. This is exactly what we had here a couple of weeks back,
and the energy demand for heating was huge compared to normal. Wind power
contributed almost nothing to the demand, because there simply wasn't any
wind. Realistically, what use is a generating technology which produces
power when you don't need it, and next to none when you do ...

You also need to understand the commercial aspects of wind power here. I
don't know what the situation is west-pond, but here, there are all manner
of financial incentives for organisations to set up and run these windfarms
so, far from the belief by the eco-warriors that they are making a
difference by getting take-up on this technology, it's actually a cynical
exercise in taking piles of money from the government, by companies that
don't actually give a toss whether it's worth it in the long run, or not.

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:


"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
I could point out that it's China's problem, not ours. Which happens
to be
true.

I find it hard to believe that "radioactivity [is] involved somewhere
in the
process" of extracting neodymium -- unless neodymium is commonly mixed
with
ores of radioactive material -- which it apparently isn't. According to
Wikipedia...

"Neodymium is not found naturally in metallic form or unaccompanied by
other
lanthanides, and it is usually refined for general use. Although
classed as
a "rare earth" it is no more rare than cobalt, nickel or copper, and is
widely distributed in the Earth's crust. The bulk of the world's
neodymium
is presently [sic -- currently] mined in China."

If it isn't particularly rare, then one might assume other countries will
begin or increase their mining of it, now that China has put export
controls
on it.

Wind power has the potential (sorry) for relatively cheap electricity,
using
hardware that is easily replaced as it wears out.

A long-term solution to food and environmental problems would require a
"population implosion" -- an across-the-board reduction in population to
1/10 or even 1/20 the current level.

"There's... antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium
And hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and rhenium
And nickel, neodymium, neptunium, germanium
And iron, americium, ruthenium, uranium..."



Well, I'm not sure that wind power actually has anything like the
potential to be worth all of its downsides, if you look at the figures
for what it's actually doing in terms of filling any 'holes' in the
grid. The latest figures are for what was actually produced, against
what could have potentially been produced at full capacity, during the
last cold spell that we had here a few weeks ago, and it doesn't make
very inspiring reading. There are two types of weather systems that we
get here in the winter in the UK. The first is, as my dear old high
school geography teacher used to tell us, "All the Ws", which is Warm
Wet Westerly Winds in Winter. This is typified by rather dull overcast
weather rolling in on fronts from low pressure systems that form out in
the Atlantic. They tend to be fairly quick moving, and have warm and
moist light winds. Not too bad for wind generation, but by the same
token, because of the temperatures, not really demanding in terms of
energy requirements on the generating authorities, because there is not
a great need for people to heat their homes too much. Right now, for
instance, it's the depths of the UK winter, its 5 o'clock in the
afternoon and well past sunset, and its 50 deg F outside.

The other type of weather that we get involves huge blocking high
pressure systems that sit over northern Europe, and prevent any weather
at all from coming in. These systems are typified by clear blue skies
and totally clear nights. Daytime temperatures are lucky to make it to
30 deg F, and night time temperatures plummet into the 20s or lower,
with sharp frosts. Winds are light to zero. This is very bad for wind
generation. The situation can last for several weeks at a time, as these
high pressure weather systems are huge and static. This is exactly what
we had here a couple of weeks back, and the energy demand for heating
was huge compared to normal. Wind power contributed almost nothing to
the demand, because there simply wasn't any wind. Realistically, what
use is a generating technology which produces power when you don't need
it, and next to none when you do ...

You also need to understand the commercial aspects of wind power here. I
don't know what the situation is west-pond, but here, there are all
manner of financial incentives for organisations to set up and run these
windfarms so, far from the belief by the eco-warriors that they are
making a difference by getting take-up on this technology, it's actually
a cynical exercise in taking piles of money from the government, by
companies that don't actually give a toss whether it's worth it in the
long run, or not.

Arfa

Similar reports from Texas - supposedly the largest wind power state.
Rolling blackouts during cold snaps due to lack of wind generation...

in 2008:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/...49522920080228

in 2011:

http://ktwop.wordpress.com/2011/02/0...-some-back-up/

So the choice the warmests offer is freeze in the dark.

That is assuming that CO2 actually is the cause of the latest warming
since the 1700s (really - it started back then with the end of the mini
ice age) and that humans are contributing to this CO2 increase by more
than a couple of percent.

Or be warm and well lit by fossil fuels/nuclear/Hydro...

If increasing CO2 actually is a problem - a premise of which I am
skeptical - I know what my choice would be: outlaw air conditioning and
keep folks warm in the winter.

John :-#(#

--
(Please post followups or tech enquiries to the newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
Call (604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

That is assuming that CO2 actually is the cause of the latest
warming since the 1700s (really - it started back then with the
end of the mini ice age) and that humans are contributing to
this CO2 increase by more than a couple of percent.

This is one of the confusing points. The "Little Ice Age" (which was not
universal) ended roughly at the time industrialization began. Cause and
effect are not clear. However...

I'll keep saying this until someone listens. It doesn't matter whether or
not the rise in CO2 is the cause of warming. We need sources of renewable
energy that are either carbon-neutral, or emit zero carbon. If we focus on
this, the warming problem will probably take care of itself.

Michael Kennedy wrote:
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
A few weeks ago, there was a professor talking on a UK radio show,
about the eco-credentials of the windmills that are springing up all
over the UK in an effort to satisfy the goals for renewable power,
that have been foisted on us by Brussels. He enthused like an
evangelical preacher about the brilliant efficiency of these
machines which, he said, was due in no small part to the use of
neodymium magnets in the generators. I understand that high power
neodymium magnets are also used in the motors for electric eco-cars.
Fair enough all round. However, in last Sunday's newspaper
supplement, I read a rather disturbing story about this material.
Apparently, almost all 'rare earth' metals are mined and processed
in China. Since the boom in wind turbines and electric cars started,
the demand for neodymium has gone sky high. The only problem is that
extracting it from the ground and other metals that it co-exists
with, involves the use of very concentrated acids which are pumped
into the ground, as well as being used in the refinement process.
There is also radioactivity involved somewhere in the process. Once
the neodymium has been extracted and processed, the highly acidic
and radioactive 'tailings' are dumped in a huge and highly toxic
lake that is now over 10 feet deep. Local people are getting sick
and dying at an alarming rate, and birth defects are common. The
water supply and crops are being poisoned, and the whole affair is
being talked of in terms of an "ecological disaster". So here we have
another bit of western eco- think of dubious
practicality in terms of the amount of power that can actually be
realistically produced this way, that's having a seriously negative
ecological effect on the other side of the world. But I suppose all
the eco-warriors and euro pen-pushers that support this
'non-polluting' power generation technology, would rather that we
didn't know about the wider implications ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...ous-scale.html

Arfa

Whats that old saying.. Theres no such thing as a free lunch..I think
this applies to enery too.. Theres no such thing as (poloution) free
energy.
I don't know what the answer is to the energy problmes we face, but
wind power isn't the answer. Solar isn't so promising either.

**That depends on where you live. Here in Australia, an area the size of
Victoria (3% of our land area) could be dedicated to PV cells. This would be
anough (at present consumption and cell efficiency) to supply the entire
planet's electricity requirements. There are areas of Australia that receive
a considerable amount of yearly Sunshine. Of course, this is a bit of a
distraction, as there are other, far superior methods of achieving base-load
power. Again, here in Australia, we have access to enough geo-thermal energy
to satisfy the entire planet's demands (for base-load power) for the next
several thousand years. Sadly, our coal reserves are so massive and so cheap
to obtain, that none of the above is of any consequence.

Back to Arfa's point: China has recently announced that it is dramatically
curtailing the export of rare Earth materials. It is (wisely) retaining the
stuff for internal use only.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
That is assuming that CO2 actually is the cause of the latest
warming since the 1700s (really - it started back then with the
end of the mini ice age) and that humans are contributing to
this CO2 increase by more than a couple of percent.

This is one of the confusing points. The "Little Ice Age" (which was not
universal) ended roughly at the time industrialization began. Cause and
effect are not clear. However...

I'll keep saying this until someone listens. It doesn't matter whether or
not the rise in CO2 is the cause of warming. We need sources of renewable
energy that are either carbon-neutral, or emit zero carbon. If we focus on
this, the warming problem will probably take care of itself.


That point is not really in dispute for most serious-thinking people. The
problem is that this whole thing has taken on an almost religious life of
its own, and anyone not swept along with it all, is denounced as a
'denier' - the equivalent of a heretic in real terms. There is a well
respected and long-running TV programme here called "Horizon". It examines
all manner of scientific issues in readily understandable terms, and is
highly watchable from an entertainment point of view, even though it is a
properly 'serious' show. A couple of weeks back, the incoming president of
the Royal Society (the oldest and most revered seat of science in the world)
presented the programme, and it was entitled 'Science Under Threat' I think.
He was basically looking into why the tide of public opinion seems to have
started to turn against the scientists, particularly on the global warming
issue, and more and more people feel that they are being lied to. This anti
GW movement gained a lot of momentum with the very bad publicity that
surrounded the 'Climategate' affair, where the head honcho at the the
University of East Anglia Climate Research Faculty, which advises
governments world wide on climate change, was found, through leaked emails,
to have been apparently 'massaging' and even suppressing data, to fit the
wanted conclusions about man being responsible for GW. The conclusion that
the guy came to was that scientists were being too insular, and not talking
to the general public, and explaining themselves enough. This, he decided,
was making the public unjustly suspicious of everything that was being said,
fuelled by revelations like Climategate.

But I think that he was missing the point completely. He failed to
understand that it has become a religion, with its own mantras, and its high
priests are in fact very vocal at every opportunity, appearing on TV, radio
and in newspapers just about every day. They have this attitude of 'we're
right so you must be wrong', which is forced down the public's throat
continuously, through the media, and all this legislation which is depriving
us of 'comfort' items like incandescent light bulbs, and stopping our waste
bins from being emptied every week, and stopping the local tips from taking
any rubbish that they don't consider to be recyclable and so on. I think
what we are actually starting to see is a backlash from the public at having
their lives interfered with continuously, and they see this as a result of
the preachings of the scientists.

Alternative power is fine, as long as it is worth the effort and energy
budget used to produce it. The figures for wind power - at least in this
part of the world - don't bear out the claims which are made for it. Wind
turbines take a lot of manufacturing, shipping, installing and maintenance,
all of which uses very substantial amounts of energy, and the returns from
them are very small at best. Make no mistake, the erection of windfarms is
about corporate business, as is an awful lot of green technology. Problem is
that it's gone so far now, that even if it was all proved to be wrong
tomorrow, we wouldn't be able to stop without causing a world-wide financial
meltdown in the multi-billion dollar industry sector that has grown up
around this dubious 'science' ...

Arfa

On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:45:42 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

It doesn't matter whether or
not the rise in CO2 is the cause of warming.

Sure it does. No problem can be solved without first finding at least
one culprit to blame. Once the causes/culprits/conspirators/etc are
identified, we can then move forward towards a solution.
Unfortunately, most of the energy "solutions" offered are variations
on either austerity programs, genocide, redistribution of wealth, or
indirect self-enrichment. All have some unintended consequences and
inefficiencies, such as original comments on neodymium mining and
productions. Other solutions seem to be from the same groups that
profit from the energy shortages, which suggests a hidden agenda. With
wind power, there's also the noise, the aesthetics, the copper
consumption, interference to radio from reflections, hazards to air
navigation, migratory bird kills, and the ocassional out of control
turbine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOfHxINzGeo&feature=related
(etc.... note the "suggested" list on the right for more disasters).

Nobody has an easy answer to the energy problem that will scale well
and satisfy everyone's requirements. That means that the status quo
will remain until the day we run out of oil.

We've also been here before. During the 17th century, England had an
energy crisis of sorts when it ran out of wood, which was needed for
ship construction and heating. That's when the 14th century ban on
coal burning was magically lifted and England switched to coal.
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/offbeat-news/environmentalism-in-1306/725
I suspect something similar will happen with nuclear power. When the
demand appears, the "problems" with nuclear will magically disappear.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:58:54 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

"N_Cook" wrote in
:
I've never understood why there is not a prop shaft the length of
those towers and then any old (heavy) generator at ground/sea level.

Think about it for a while.
Hints;a 160 ft long shaft,torquing in the wind,and needing bearing support.
then there's the mass of the shaft that has to be started and stopped with
shifts in wind velocity. Cost of the shaft,too. I'm sure there's more.

Fast fix... no tower:
http://www.interactivearchitecture.org/flying-wind-turbines.html
(Sorry, I couldn't resist).

Going from a horizontal turbine to a vertical generator is a gearing
problem. Vertical turbines are possible. A Slavonius rotor or
Darrieus turbine might qualify as a vertical prop (turbine) shaft, but
nobody has built one 300ft high.
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=savonius+wind+turbine
http://www.google.com/images?hl=et&q=darrieus+turbine

This page gives a good comparison of the common types of wind
turbines:
http://www.thegreentechnologyblog.com/2009/technology-solutions-for-wind-power-generated-electricity/
Note the graph labeled "Wind Turbine Peak Efficiency" which
underscores the basic problem with vertical rotors. They're not very
efficient when compared to air screws (propellers).


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

"Arfa Daily" wrote in
:



"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
That is assuming that CO2 actually is the cause of the latest
warming since the 1700s (really - it started back then with the
end of the mini ice age) and that humans are contributing to
this CO2 increase by more than a couple of percent.

This is one of the confusing points. The "Little Ice Age" (which was
not universal) ended roughly at the time industrialization began.
Cause and effect are not clear. However...

I'll keep saying this until someone listens. It doesn't matter
whether or not the rise in CO2 is the cause of warming. We need
sources of renewable energy that are either carbon-neutral, or emit
zero carbon. If we focus on this, the warming problem will probably
take care of itself.


That point is not really in dispute for most serious-thinking people.
The problem is that this whole thing has taken on an almost religious
life of its own, and anyone not swept along with it all, is denounced
as a 'denier' - the equivalent of a heretic in real terms. There is a
well respected and long-running TV programme here called "Horizon". It
examines all manner of scientific issues in readily understandable
terms, and is highly watchable from an entertainment point of view,
even though it is a properly 'serious' show. A couple of weeks back,
the incoming president of the Royal Society (the oldest and most
revered seat of science in the world) presented the programme, and it
was entitled 'Science Under Threat' I think. He was basically looking
into why the tide of public opinion seems to have started to turn
against the scientists, particularly on the global warming issue, and
more and more people feel that they are being lied to. This anti GW
movement gained a lot of momentum with the very bad publicity that
surrounded the 'Climategate' affair, where the head honcho at the the
University of East Anglia Climate Research Faculty, which advises
governments world wide on climate change, was found, through leaked
emails, to have been apparently 'massaging' and even suppressing data,
to fit the wanted conclusions about man being responsible for GW. The
conclusion that the guy came to was that scientists were being too
insular, and not talking to the general public, and explaining
themselves enough. This, he decided, was making the public unjustly
suspicious of everything that was being said, fuelled by revelations
like Climategate.

But I think that he was missing the point completely. He failed to
understand that it has become a religion, with its own mantras, and
its high priests are in fact very vocal at every opportunity,
appearing on TV, radio and in newspapers just about every day. They
have this attitude of 'we're right so you must be wrong', which is
forced down the public's throat continuously, through the media, and
all this legislation which is depriving us of 'comfort' items like
incandescent light bulbs, and stopping our waste bins from being
emptied every week, and stopping the local tips from taking any
rubbish that they don't consider to be recyclable and so on. I think
what we are actually starting to see is a backlash from the public at
having their lives interfered with continuously, and they see this as
a result of the preachings of the scientists.

Alternative power is fine, as long as it is worth the effort and
energy budget used to produce it. The figures for wind power - at
least in this part of the world - don't bear out the claims which are
made for it. Wind turbines take a lot of manufacturing, shipping,
installing and maintenance, all of which uses very substantial amounts
of energy, and the returns from them are very small at best. Make no
mistake, the erection of windfarms is about corporate business, as is
an awful lot of green technology. Problem is that it's gone so far
now, that even if it was all proved to be wrong tomorrow, we wouldn't
be able to stop without causing a world-wide financial meltdown in the
multi-billion dollar industry sector that has grown up around this
dubious 'science' ...

Arfa



I'm not buying the idea that humans can have an effect on global climate.
(aside from a major nuclear war...)

not compared to solar output changes,volcanoes,major forest fires,and other
natural causes.
Also,I doubt that "developing nations" are going to change their practices.

then I REALLY get creeped out when people start talking about lowering the
world population. For that,They Go First;they can set us an example,show us
how truly caring they are about it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:58:54 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

"N_Cook" wrote in
:
I've never understood why there is not a prop shaft the length of
those towers and then any old (heavy) generator at ground/sea level.

Think about it for a while.
Hints;a 160 ft long shaft,torquing in the wind,and needing bearing
support. then there's the mass of the shaft that has to be started and
stopped with shifts in wind velocity. Cost of the shaft,too. I'm sure
there's more.

Fast fix... no tower:
http://www.interactivearchitecture.org/flying-wind-turbines.html
(Sorry, I couldn't resist).

Going from a horizontal turbine to a vertical generator is a gearing
problem. Vertical turbines are possible. A Slavonius rotor or
Darrieus turbine might qualify as a vertical prop (turbine) shaft, but
nobody has built one 300ft high.
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=savonius+wind+turbine
http://www.google.com/images?hl=et&q=darrieus+turbine

This page gives a good comparison of the common types of wind
turbines:
http://www.thegreentechnologyblog.co...utions-for-win
d-power-generated-electricity/
Note the graph labeled "Wind Turbine Peak Efficiency" which
underscores the basic problem with vertical rotors. They're not very
efficient when compared to air screws (propellers).



wind power itself is not very efficient.....and certainly not reliable.
best left for special applications,just like solar.

for electric power,build nuclear plants. clean,reliable,constant output,and
it can be done right now.
of course,electric isn't going to substitute for petroleum,not for a long
time.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

I'm not buying the idea that humans can have an effect
on global climate. (aside from a major nuclear war...)

Small changes over a long period of time can have a big effect.


then I REALLY get creeped out when people start talking
about lowering the world population. For that, They Go First;
they can set us an example, show us how truly caring they
are about it.

Fact: There are too many people. If population continues to grow unchecked,
"something" will eventually happen to reduce it -- global war, starvation,
economic collapse, perhaps things we haven't anticipated. THE EARTH DOES NOT
HAVE AN UNLIMITED CARRYING CAPACITY. We can choose to do something rational
about it -- or ignore it.

One way to have fewer people is to give birth to fewer people. This is
generally happening in developed countries -- which is fortunate, because
people with high standards of living tend to use too much energy and consume
too many natural resources.

Something needs to be done about developing countries. You've seen the ads
asking you to send money to help starving children who have only feces-laden
water to drink. I'm certain most of the agencies trying to help the poor are
sincere and doing the best job they can.

These ads are about "death control" -- keeping people healthy and alive,
when they otherwise might have died. But you never see anything about "birth
control". If poor people want medical assistance, they should have to pay
for it -- by practicing birth control. If they refuse to, then they don't
get help -- and they and their children die. You can consciously practice
birth control with contraception -- or you can let nature do it, with
disease and death. Make your choice.

The thing that makes human beings distinct from other animals is that we can
drastically manipulate our environment to provide enough nutrition to
produce a seemingly unlimited number of additional people -- which is
largely what we've done since the invention of agriculture and animal
husbandry. * We KNOW we will eventually reach the point where there will be
too many people to feed. At some point, human beings -- in all countries, at
all economic levels -- need to be FORCED to have fewer children. Enough
fewer, so that global population begins to decline.

You don't want me to take away people's freedom to destroy themselves? Fine.
On a certain level, I really don't care. The world doesn't need "the damned
human race".


* Aboriginal Americans are a good example of people who /did not/ live this
way.

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:45:42 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

It doesn't matter whether or
not the rise in CO2 is the cause of warming.

Sure it does. No problem can be solved without first finding at least
one culprit to blame. Once the causes/culprits/conspirators/etc are
identified, we can then move forward towards a solution.
Unfortunately, most of the energy "solutions" offered are variations
on either austerity programs, genocide, redistribution of wealth, or
indirect self-enrichment.

I hope that's a joke.

You expect "the market" -- which is driven more by profit than altruism --
to provide a useful solution?

Where do you come off claiming most of the solutions involve "austerity
programs, genocide, [or] redistribution of wealth". (I'm not sure what you
mean by "indirect self-enrichment". Dale Gribble selling carbon offsets?)
How does the gradual replacement of carbon-producing energy sources with
carbon-neutral or low-carbon sources induce "austerity" or "genocide"?


Nobody has an easy answer to the energy problem that will scale well
and satisfy everyone's requirements. That means that the status quo
will remain until the day we run out of oil.

Which is what the oil companies want. Why should we give into them, when
there /are/ solutions?


We've also been here before. During the 17th century, England had an
energy crisis of sorts when it ran out of wood, which was needed for
ship construction and heating. That's when the 14th century ban on
coal burning was magically lifted and England switched to coal.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...alism-in-1306/
725
I suspect something similar will happen with nuclear power. When the
demand appears, the "problems" with nuclear will magically disappear.

They apparently already have. See...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Of course, very little is being done about it.

But I think that he was missing the point completely. He failed to
understand that it has become a religion, with its own mantras, and its
high
priests are in fact very vocal at every opportunity, appearing on TV,
radio
and in newspapers just about every day. They have this attitude of 'we're
right so you must be wrong', which is forced down the public's throat
continuously, through the media, and all this legislation which is
depriving
us of 'comfort' items like incandescent light bulbs, and stopping our
waste
bins from being emptied every week, and stopping the local tips from
taking
any rubbish that they don't consider to be recyclable and so on. I think
what we are actually starting to see is a backlash from the public at
having
their lives interfered with continuously, and they see this as a result of
the preachings of the scientists.

But what does that have to do with whether the scientists are right? Science
is not "supposed" to be about what people -- especially the public --
thinks, or would like to think.

It's true that scientists are only slightly less irrational than your
average idiot. That doesn't mean they're wrong, or that it's a bad idea to
use less energy or recycle waste.


Alternative power is fine, as long as it is worth the effort and energy
budget used to produce it. The figures for wind power - at least in this
part of the world - don't bear out the claims which are made for it. Wind
turbines take a lot of manufacturing, shipping, installing and
maintenance,
all of which uses very substantial amounts of energy, and the returns from
them are very small at best. Make no mistake, the erection of windfarms is
about corporate business, as is an awful lot of green technology. Problem
is
that it's gone so far now, that even if it was all proved to be wrong
tomorrow, we wouldn't be able to stop without causing a world-wide
financial
meltdown in the multi-billion dollar industry sector that has grown up
around this dubious 'science' ...

Do you have any hard data on the payback time for wind power that account
for "everything"?

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
I'm not buying the idea that humans can have an effect
on global climate. (aside from a major nuclear war...)

Small changes over a long period of time can have a big effect.


Maybe, but the climate change scientists would have us believe that we are
causing all this in but a few years ...




then I REALLY get creeped out when people start talking
about lowering the world population. For that, They Go First;
they can set us an example, show us how truly caring they
are about it.

Fact: There are too many people. If population continues to grow
unchecked,
"something" will eventually happen to reduce it -- global war, starvation,
economic collapse, perhaps things we haven't anticipated. THE EARTH DOES
NOT
HAVE AN UNLIMITED CARRYING CAPACITY. We can choose to do something
rational
about it -- or ignore it.


snip

At some point, human beings -- in all countries, at
all economic levels -- need to be FORCED to have fewer children. Enough
fewer, so that global population begins to decline.


Well, I seem to recall that the Chinese have a birth restriction policy in
place, and it has been a disaster in terms of unwanted and abandoned
daughters, because the don't fulfill the cultural need for sons ...


Arfa

Small changes over a long period of time can have a big effect.

Maybe, but the climate change scientists would have us believe
that we are causing all this in but a few years ...

There has been a gradual warming since the Industrial Age. The apparently
"sudden" change is supposedly due to a "tip over" effect.


At some point, human beings -- in all countries, at all
economic levels -- need to be FORCED to have fewer children.
Enough fewer, so that global population begins to decline.

Well, I seem to recall that the Chinese have a birth restriction policy in
place, and it has been a disaster in terms of unwanted and abandoned
daughters, because the don't fulfill the cultural need for sons ...

It's certainly true that insistance on one child per family -- which, if
nothing else, is a psychologically bad idea -- didn't have much effect on
population growth.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

I'm not buying the idea that humans can have an effect
on global climate. (aside from a major nuclear war...)

Small changes over a long period of time can have a big effect.


then I REALLY get creeped out when people start talking
about lowering the world population. For that, They Go First;
they can set us an example, show us how truly caring they
are about it.

Fact: There are too many people. If population continues to grow
unchecked, "something" will eventually happen to reduce it -- global
war, starvation, economic collapse, perhaps things we haven't
anticipated. THE EARTH DOES NOT HAVE AN UNLIMITED CARRYING CAPACITY.
We can choose to do something rational about it -- or ignore it.

our "carrying capacity" would be better if many countries didn't have bad
governments and waste their nation's wealth and resources.


One way to have fewer people is to give birth to fewer people. This is
generally happening in developed countries -- which is fortunate,
because people with high standards of living tend to use too much
energy and consume too many natural resources.

So what? those people also PRODUCE more.
If you want to lower YOUR standard of living,go right ahead.
Don't expect me to lower mine over your ridiculous assumptions.

Something needs to be done about developing countries. You've seen the
ads asking you to send money to help starving children who have only
feces-laden water to drink. I'm certain most of the agencies trying to
help the poor are sincere and doing the best job they can.

These ads are about "death control" -- keeping people healthy and
alive, when they otherwise might have died. But you never see anything
about "birth control". If poor people want medical assistance, they
should have to pay for it -- by practicing birth control. If they
refuse to, then they don't get help -- and they and their children
die. You can consciously practice birth control with contraception --
or you can let nature do it, with disease and death. Make your choice.

The thing that makes human beings distinct from other animals is that
we can drastically manipulate our environment to provide enough
nutrition to produce a seemingly unlimited number of additional people
-- which is largely what we've done since the invention of agriculture
and animal husbandry. * We KNOW we will eventually reach the point
where there will be too many people to feed. At some point, human
beings -- in all countries, at all economic levels -- need to be
FORCED to have fewer children. Enough fewer, so that global population
begins to decline.

You don't want me to take away people's freedom to destroy themselves?
Fine. On a certain level, I really don't care. The world doesn't need
"the damned human race".

it doesn't need your wacky beliefs either.


* Aboriginal Americans are a good example of people who /did not/ live
this way.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:45:42 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

It doesn't matter whether or
not the rise in CO2 is the cause of warming.

Sure it does. No problem can be solved without first finding at least
one culprit to blame. Once the causes/culprits/conspirators/etc are
identified, we can then move forward towards a solution.
Unfortunately, most of the energy "solutions" offered are variations
on either austerity programs, genocide, redistribution of wealth, or
indirect self-enrichment.

I hope that's a joke.

You expect "the market" -- which is driven more by profit than
altruism -- to provide a useful solution?

Yes,as it usually DOES provide solutions.
It's certain austerity programs and "redistribution" schemes don't.
They just make things worse.

Where do you come off claiming most of the solutions involve
"austerity programs, genocide, [or] redistribution of wealth". (I'm
not sure what you mean by "indirect self-enrichment". Dale Gribble
selling carbon offsets?) How does the gradual replacement of
carbon-producing energy sources with carbon-neutral or low-carbon
sources induce "austerity" or "genocide"?


Nobody has an easy answer to the energy problem that will scale well
and satisfy everyone's requirements. That means that the status quo
will remain until the day we run out of oil.

Which is what the oil companies want. Why should we give into them,
when there /are/ solutions?

What's this "we" nonsense? "We" use what resources we have until better
ones prove practical and are accepted by the free market,not by forcing
"solutions" on people,that turn out to be regressive and counterproductive.
(like MBTE,ethanol)

you must be a socialist/communist.
there's always some folks who think they know better how everybody else
should live.


We've also been here before. During the 17th century, England had an
energy crisis of sorts when it ran out of wood, which was needed for
ship construction and heating. That's when the 14th century ban on
coal burning was magically lifted and England switched to coal.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...mentalism-in-1
306/
725
I suspect something similar will happen with nuclear power. When the
demand appears, the "problems" with nuclear will magically disappear.

They apparently already have. See...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Of course, very little is being done about it.

BECAUSE of gov't restictions,manipulation of the free market forces.

But it remains that nuclear,solar,wind,geothermal electric sources are
STILL no practical replacement for petroleum powered autos and small
trucks.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

One way to have fewer people is to give birth to fewer people.
This is generally happening in developed countries -- which is
fortunate, because people with high standards of living tend
to use too much energy and consume too many natural resources.

So what? those people also PRODUCE more.
If you want to lower YOUR standard of living,go right ahead.
Don't expect me to lower mine over your ridiculous assumptions.

Ridiculous? Fewer people -- less demand for everything -- less need to
produce things


You don't want me to take away people's freedom to destroy themselves?
Fine. On a certain level, I really don't care. The world doesn't need
"the damned human race".

it doesn't need your wacky beliefs either.

Wacky? There's nothing wacky about common sense. You need to do some
thinking...

Of course, very little is being done about it.

BECAUSE of gov't restictions,manipulation of the free market forces.

Uh, huh. The free-market forces you praise -- which work very well in the
short term -- will almost always produce long-term results that benefit only
business.

On 2/5/2011 12:56 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
Uh, huh. The free-market forces you praise -- which work very
well in the short term -- will almost always produce long-term
results that benefit only business.

Uh, William, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work.

Jeff

Uh, huh. The free-market forces you praise -- which work very
well in the short term -- will almost always produce long-term
results that benefit only business.

Uh, William, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work.

Where does that leave the consumer?

I'm not in this world to make someone else rich.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

One way to have fewer people is to give birth to fewer people.
This is generally happening in developed countries -- which is
fortunate, because people with high standards of living tend
to use too much energy and consume too many natural resources.

So what? those people also PRODUCE more.
If you want to lower YOUR standard of living,go right ahead.
Don't expect me to lower mine over your ridiculous assumptions.

Ridiculous? Fewer people -- less demand for everything -- less need to
produce things


You don't want me to take away people's freedom to destroy themselves?
Fine. On a certain level, I really don't care. The world doesn't need
"the damned human race".

it doesn't need your wacky beliefs either.

Wacky? There's nothing wacky about common sense. You need to do some
thinking...



US GNP is higher than other nations because we produce so much,which is why
we use so much energy.

YOU need to do some learning.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

Uh, huh. The free-market forces you praise -- which work very
well in the short term -- will almost always produce long-term
results that benefit only business.

As if "business" is some enemy of the people.. they provide goods and
services that the people want and consume.
Businesses are owned either by private citizens or
stockholders(IOW,citizens)Businesses are -US-,not some enemy.That's your
socialism poking it's ugly head again.
Otherwise,they'd be OUT of business. (unless propped up by socialism;then
they become antiquated and wasteful)


Uh, William, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work.

Where does that leave the consumer?

I'm not in this world to make someone else rich.

I doubt YOU are making anyone "rich".


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

Of course, very little is being done about it.

BECAUSE of gov't restictions,manipulation of the free market forces.

Uh, huh. The free-market forces you praise -- which work very well in
the short term -- will almost always produce long-term results that
benefit only business.



Which benefits everybody;jobs,higher standard of living,higher tax revenues
for gov't to spend/waste. When business suffers,people suffer.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Uh, huh. The free-market forces you praise -- which work very
well in the short term -- will almost always produce long-term
results that benefit only business.

As if "business" is some enemy of the people.

It often is. You know little about history.


They provide goods and
services that the people want and consume.
Businesses are owned either by private citizens or
stockholders(IOW,citizens)Businesses are -US-,not some enemy.That's your
socialism poking its ugly head again.
Otherwise,they'd be OUT of business. (unless propped up by socialism;then
they become antiquated and wasteful).

You just don't understand, do you?

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Small changes over a long period of time can have a big effect.

Maybe, but the climate change scientists would have us believe
that we are causing all this in but a few years ...

There has been a gradual warming since the Industrial Age. The apparently
"sudden" change is supposedly due to a "tip over" effect.


That sounds like a high priest of MMGW's invention to make the facts fit the
model ... :-)

Arfa

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
But I think that he was missing the point completely. He failed to
understand that it has become a religion, with its own mantras, and its
high
priests are in fact very vocal at every opportunity, appearing on TV,
radio
and in newspapers just about every day. They have this attitude of 'we're
right so you must be wrong', which is forced down the public's throat
continuously, through the media, and all this legislation which is
depriving
us of 'comfort' items like incandescent light bulbs, and stopping our
waste
bins from being emptied every week, and stopping the local tips from
taking
any rubbish that they don't consider to be recyclable and so on. I think
what we are actually starting to see is a backlash from the public at
having
their lives interfered with continuously, and they see this as a result
of
the preachings of the scientists.

But what does that have to do with whether the scientists are right?
Science
is not "supposed" to be about what people -- especially the public --
thinks, or would like to think.

It's true that scientists are only slightly less irrational than your
average idiot. That doesn't mean they're wrong, or that it's a bad idea to
use less energy or recycle waste.

You too, appear to miss the point of what I was saying ...

Arfa

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 01:42:53 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

Wind
turbines take a lot of manufacturing, shipping, installing and maintenance,
all of which uses very substantial amounts of energy, and the returns from
them are very small at best.

Well, when there's no wind, other uses for the device can be found;
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/01/base-jumping-off-wind-turbines-is-insane-video.php


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:45:42 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

It doesn't matter whether or
not the rise in CO2 is the cause of warming.

Sure it does. No problem can be solved without first finding at least
one culprit to blame. Once the causes/culprits/conspirators/etc are
identified, we can then move forward towards a solution.
Unfortunately, most of the energy "solutions" offered are variations
on either austerity programs, genocide, redistribution of wealth, or
indirect self-enrichment.

....


Nobody has an easy answer to the energy problem that will scale well
and satisfy everyone's requirements. That means that the status quo
will remain until the day we run out of oil.

Which is what the oil companies want. Why should we give into them, when
there /are/ solutions?
...

You know, all oil companies are publicly owned, which means if you want
to be heard by them you need to only buy stock in the company. All
companies are required to make a profit - but oil (or any company) can
be directed by the shareholders on how that profit is generated.

Note that I do not hold any shares in any oil companies that I am aware
of - no prospectus is mailed to me each year from my mutual fund
management company - but I am thinking of buying a few shares so I have
a voice there...you only need one share after all!

John :-#)#

--
(Please post followups or tech enquiries to the newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
Call (604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 05:40:56 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:45:42 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

It doesn't matter whether or
not the rise in CO2 is the cause of warming.

Sure it does. No problem can be solved without first finding at least
one culprit to blame. Once the causes/culprits/conspirators/etc are
identified, we can then move forward towards a solution.
Unfortunately, most of the energy "solutions" offered are variations
on either austerity programs, genocide, redistribution of wealth, or
indirect self-enrichment.

I hope that's a joke.

I wish it were a joke. I've seen assignment of the blame take
precedence over a suitable solution enough times to make me suspect
that it's some component of human nature or element of bureaucracy.
Global warming is one of the best examples. The ratio of publications
dedicated to assigning the blame, versus investigating a solution, is
rather high. I recall watching a panel on TV, that was allegedly
looking into solutions for global warming. A few minutes were devoted
to several grandiose schemes, but the majority of the show was again
an attempt to fix the blame on everything from bovine flatulence to
industrialization. This was packaged as an attempt to "explain" how
global warming works, but was really a poorly disguised blame game.

You expect "the market" -- which is driven more by profit than altruism --
to provide a useful solution?

You expect the government, which is driven more by establishing and
growing a power base, than doing anything useful for its constituents,
to provide a useful solution?

Ok, answering a question with a question is not really an answer, but
I couldn't resist. Lacking any better alternatives, I do think the
market will save our collective posteriors once again as it has
countless times in the past. I'll spare you the standard lecture on
greed and need. Suffice to say that if we run out of fossil fuels,
numerous enterprising entrepreneurs will provide a variety of
alternatives. The winners will be what the consumer buys, not what
the government mandates. I have a wild enough imagination to suggest
many alternatives, none of them ideal, but all of them better than not
having any sources of usable energy. And yes, they will be dirty,
have numerous side effects, probably pollute the hell out of some
corner of the planet, and possibly even kill a few early adopters, but
it will work and sell.

Where do you come off claiming most of the solutions involve "austerity
programs, genocide, [or] redistribution of wealth". (I'm not sure what you
mean by "indirect self-enrichment". Dale Gribble selling carbon offsets?)

Austerity programs are those that offer either a penalty for over-use,
or an incentive or subsidy for switching to alternatives. Neither
method will survive for long. Subsidizing solar installations is fine
for the short term, but cannot be supported for maybe a few more years
as solar adoption grows. All incentives seem to do is accelerate the
process of adoption. If you want real accelerated conversion, just
watch what happens when you run out of oil or turn off the
electricity.

Genocide has been mentioned in this thread. It's more politically
correct packaged as "population reduction" or "birth control". Judging
by the increasing world population, neither is working. Eventually,
someone is going to implement a short cut, and that's genocide.

Redistribution of wealth is simply taxes. At this time, taxes are a
big chunk of the cost of gasoline. In California, it's about
$0.40/gallon, which sells for about $3.20/gallon. There are
"conservation" solutions advocated that would provide a counter
incentive to consumption by taxing the hell out of gasoline, while
using the revenue to fund "research" into alternatives. This might
actually work, if the "research" offered any worthwhile solutions to
investigate.

I don't really know much about selling carbon credits. My premature
conclusion is that it's a great way for high consumption countries and
industries to continue belching greenhouse gasses.

How does the gradual replacement of carbon-producing energy sources with
carbon-neutral or low-carbon sources induce "austerity" or "genocide"?

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/post-hoc/
There's no connection. I've already covered austerity and genocide.
Which low carbon sources are you suggesting? None of the major
alternatives offered (except nuclear) will scale to the current
consumption levels. Hydrogen is a bad joke. Compare costs. If we
don't change consumption, and simply replace coal fired generation
with solar, the resultant electricity will optimistically cost 5 times
as much. Can you say "redistribution of wealth"?

Some relative costs of generation:
http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/

Nobody has an easy answer to the energy problem that will scale well
and satisfy everyone's requirements. That means that the status quo
will remain until the day we run out of oil.

Which is what the oil companies want. Why should we give into them, when
there /are/ solutions?

That is what the people (consumers) also want. Nobody is going to
adopt a more expensive or inconvenient solution until they're force to
do so. Price and profit drives the market, not a fiat decision by the
oil cartels. To be fair, they're trying to stretch the supply as long
as possible, and delay the inevitable oil wars, where the consuming
countries do battle over what's left. Need a really great incentive?
Just start another war over oil.

We've also been here before. During the 17th century, England had an
energy crisis of sorts when it ran out of wood, which was needed for
ship construction and heating. That's when the 14th century ban on
coal burning was magically lifted and England switched to coal.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/offbeat-news/environmentalism-in-1306/725\

Comments? It's a perfect example of running out of an energy
producing resource and substituting a not so convenient and more dirty
alternative. We've done it once before and will do it again.

Incidentally, the English crown did a land grab of most of the forests
in England in order to insure that there would be enough big trees
needed for ship building. Meanwhile, the peasants froze during the
worst part of the little ice age. We're going to have more of the
same when we run out of oil.

I suspect something similar will happen with nuclear power. When the
demand appears, the "problems" with nuclear will magically disappear.

They apparently already have. See...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Yep. I like pebble bed reactors. Obviously, I have had no experience
with one, but from what I read, they seem a good solution. The rest
is politics and perception. Perception is the big problem. Like
dirty coal in 17th century England, nuclear is perceived as being
inherently dangerous and polluting. The perception will need to
change before there's going to be any wide spread conversion. My
guess is that the 3rd world countries will lead the conversion,
leaving the major powers behind.

Of course, very little is being done about it.

Yep, because there's little (financial) incentive to do anything
different at this time. I got a good hint in 1974, when I decided
that the energy crisis of 73-74 would produce a market for a better
electric vehicle. So, I designed and partially built what I
considered to be a better machine. There was considerable interest
until the day the Arabs turned the oil back on, when all interest
evaporated. Lesson learned... nobody wants a solution to a
non-existent problem.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 11:32:03 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Uh, huh. The free-market forces you praise -- which work very
well in the short term -- will almost always produce long-term
results that benefit only business.

Uh, William, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work.

Where does that leave the consumer?
I'm not in this world to make someone else rich.

Invest in business. Why remain a victim when you can join the
exploiters?

I got the clue in 73-74 when the Arabs turned off the oil and we had
an energy crisis. The press was full of conspiracy theories
suggesting that the evil oil companies were conspiring to raise prices
and soak the public. So, I investigated the owners of the major oil
companies and found (for example) that the largest stockholder in
Standard Oil was the Chicago school teachers retirement fund. Somehow,
I had a difficult time believing that they would force Standard Oil
management to precipitate an energy crisis in order to increase their
profits.

The problem was that the very consumers that were complaining about
the availability, and later the price, of gasoline would not allow
Standard Oil to sell gas for less than its cost. They were
stockholders and they needed to make a profit on the stock. So,
Standard Oil was effectively forced by its stockholders to soak the
public and make obscene profits. It doesn't matter as long as someone
else pays. The various oil companies had so much cash on hand after
the energy crisis that they went on a major buying spree of energy
related and mineral companies. Only threat of a government monopoly
investigation slowed them down.

No, you're not in this world to make someone else rich. But, in a
capitalist economy, some transactions are simply not going to be
equally beneficial to all concerned. Sometimes, radically unequal. In
the case of oil, the supply and demand price curve is extremely steep.
Very small changes in supply produce huge changes in price. This is
something that commodity market investors simply cannot resist. You
can make or lose a fortune overnight. If you think you have a handle
on the energy market, then try your luck. (I did and lost most of my
investment). It's like riding a bucking horse. One mistake and you
get trampled. Good luck.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 21:31:54 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
Redistribution of wealth is simply taxes. At this time, taxes are a
big chunk of the cost of gasoline. In California, it's about
$0.40/gallon, which sells for about $3.20/gallon.

I erred. Total gas taxes in Calif are about $0.60/gallon or about 19%
of the cost.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

There has been a gradual warming since the Industrial Age.
The apparently "sudden" change is supposedly due to a "tip
over" effect.

That sounds like a high priest of MMGW's invention to make
the facts fit the model ... :-)

You have that backwards -- make the model fit the facts.

The models we have are almost certainly not complete, nor fully understood.
So there's certainly a degree of "hand waving", and even giving in to making
tautological explanations.

The problem of renewable energy is one that government and industry should
have been working on since after WWII. They've made only fitful and
half-hearted efforts, most because the energy industry won't be interested
in renewable energy until the non-renewable sources become so horribly
expense it can gouge.

It's true that scientists are only slightly less irrational
than your average idiot. That doesn't mean they're wrong,
or that it's a bad idea to use less energy or recycle waste.

You too, appear to miss the point of what I was saying ...

Oh, I got your point... That people accept certain belief systems with a
near-religious fervor. But that has nothing to do with whether those beliefs
are true or not, or how we should live our lives.

You know, all oil companies are publicly owned, which means if you want
to be heard by them you need to only buy stock in the company. All
companies are required to make a profit - but oil (or any company) can
be directed by the shareholders on how that profit is generated.

Note that I do not hold any shares in any oil companies that I am aware
of - no prospectus is mailed to me each year from my mutual fund
management company - but I am thinking of buying a few shares so I have
a voice there...you only need one share after all!

Yes... and the effect of any vote will be drowned out by the majority that
only cares about the company's profits.

By the way... Businesses do not generally put their projects up to vote by
the stock holders. If you want to change the way a company does business,
you hve to get it on the agenda. It's not easy.

Long before I was a bleeding-heart liberal, I held stock in one of the
world's largest companies, given to me by my father. The company sometimes
asked its stockholders to vote on various issues. Even though I wasn't even
a teenager, I felt that most of them benefitted the company, not its
employees or the public, and I voted against them.