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

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

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"

"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

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

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 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

"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.

"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