http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...rpc=23&sp=true

What is it with people? Whenever alternative power solutions are
presented or tested, there is always a Chicken Little faction that has
to point out that it isn't perfect and we have to look elsewhere or
disaster looms. It seems that 'someone' thinks that there is a solution
out there that is universal, safe as apple pie, and could be implemented
perfectly on a week's notice. Until people change their perception of
what actually works, and how it should work, we're gonna be stuck with
what we have. Bio-fuels make good sense for certain sectors and
countries, but obviously not all. Wind power makes sense for on-the-spot
power generation, but not much as a central power source. Etc, etc.

Pete
--
Pete Snell
Department of Physics
Royal Military College

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
Richard Feynman.(1918-1988)
Personal Observations on the Reliability of the (Space) Shuttle.
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
Maxwell Lol wrote:

Gunner writes:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...ws&storyid=200
7-09-11T162914Z_01_L11879479_RTRUKOC_0_US-BIOFUELS-OECD-REPORT.xml&src=rss&r
pc=23&sp=true

I don't have the reference, but someone told me that if we switched to
biofuel, we would starve because we would need all of the land
available to make the fuel - and there would be nothing left for food.

Not if we grew hemp for fuel


Uh, is that because everybody would be parked alongside the road instead of
driving, stoned out of their minds? d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Pete Snell" wrote in message
...
What is it with people? Whenever alternative power solutions are
presented or tested, there is always a Chicken Little faction that has to
point out that it isn't perfect and we have to look elsewhere or disaster
looms. It seems that 'someone' thinks that there is a solution out there
that is universal, safe as apple pie, and could be implemented perfectly
on a week's notice. Until people change their perception of what actually
works, and how it should work, we're gonna be stuck with what we have.
Bio-fuels make good sense for certain sectors and countries, but obviously
not all. Wind power makes sense for on-the-spot power generation, but not
much as a central power source. Etc, etc.

I'll bet, though, that the OECD is probably right that biofuels, as they're
produced via the intensive farming we practice in the US and Europe, are a
net loser in environmental terms, and they're probably worse than the
government claims in terms of net energy production. A lot of energy goes
into making chemical fertilizers.

I did a calculation to satisfy a co-worker last year, based on Chevron's
claim that they had raised the production of soybean biodiesel to 60 gal.
per acre (it was in one of their print ads). I figured it would require 30%
of the arable land in the US to produce enough for our current consumption
of diesel -- just diesel, not including gasoline.

Of course, that's not the whole story. But it has to make you cautious.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
Maxwell Lol wrote:

Gunner writes:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...ws&storyid=200
7-09-11T162914Z_01_L11879479_RTRUKOC_0_US-BIOFUELS-OECD-REPORT.xml&src=rss&r
pc=23&sp=true

I don't have the reference, but someone told me that if we switched to
biofuel, we would starve because we would need all of the land
available to make the fuel - and there would be nothing left for food.

Not if we grew hemp for fuel

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete Snell" wrote in message
...
What is it with people? Whenever alternative power solutions are
presented or tested, there is always a Chicken Little faction that has to
point out that it isn't perfect and we have to look elsewhere or disaster
looms. It seems that 'someone' thinks that there is a solution out there
that is universal, safe as apple pie, and could be implemented perfectly
on a week's notice. Until people change their perception of what actually
works, and how it should work, we're gonna be stuck with what we have.
Bio-fuels make good sense for certain sectors and countries, but obviously
not all. Wind power makes sense for on-the-spot power generation, but not
much as a central power source. Etc, etc.

I'll bet, though, that the OECD is probably right that biofuels, as they're
produced via the intensive farming we practice in the US and Europe, are a
net loser in environmental terms, and they're probably worse than the
government claims in terms of net energy production. A lot of energy goes
into making chemical fertilizers.

I did a calculation to satisfy a co-worker last year, based on Chevron's
claim that they had raised the production of soybean biodiesel to 60 gal.
per acre (it was in one of their print ads). I figured it would require 30%
of the arable land in the US to produce enough for our current consumption
of diesel -- just diesel, not including gasoline.

Of course, that's not the whole story. But it has to make you cautious.

--
Ed Huntress

Did you include all the off road diesel and home heating oil diesel in
your calculation, or just transportation fuel diesel?

The bottom line is that in some 30 year or so, solar energy is just
barely getting to the point of being viable if not economical for mass
market distributed (individual, not utility scale) use. The new bio-fuel
stuff is just starting out and has a lot of maturing to go both in
technology and in determining what usage is actually appropriate.

Solar does poorly with attempts at utility scale use due to the large
areas of environmental impact necessary for utility scale use, while
individual use on existing rooftops works well without the environmental
impact. I expect bio-fuels to ultimately be found to be viable mostly
for farms where they can be produced from waste to provide fuel for use
on those farms and not to be sold elsewhere.

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete Snell" wrote in message
...
What is it with people? Whenever alternative power solutions are
presented or tested, there is always a Chicken Little faction that has
to
point out that it isn't perfect and we have to look elsewhere or
disaster
looms. It seems that 'someone' thinks that there is a solution out
there
that is universal, safe as apple pie, and could be implemented
perfectly
on a week's notice. Until people change their perception of what
actually
works, and how it should work, we're gonna be stuck with what we have.
Bio-fuels make good sense for certain sectors and countries, but
obviously
not all. Wind power makes sense for on-the-spot power generation, but
not
much as a central power source. Etc, etc.

I'll bet, though, that the OECD is probably right that biofuels, as
they're
produced via the intensive farming we practice in the US and Europe, are
a
net loser in environmental terms, and they're probably worse than the
government claims in terms of net energy production. A lot of energy goes
into making chemical fertilizers.

I did a calculation to satisfy a co-worker last year, based on Chevron's
claim that they had raised the production of soybean biodiesel to 60 gal.
per acre (it was in one of their print ads). I figured it would require
30%
of the arable land in the US to produce enough for our current
consumption
of diesel -- just diesel, not including gasoline.

Of course, that's not the whole story. But it has to make you cautious.

--
Ed Huntress

Did you include all the off road diesel and home heating oil diesel in
your calculation, or just transportation fuel diesel?

I don't know, I just had some DOE figures on total diesel consumption to
work with.


The bottom line is that in some 30 year or so, solar energy is just
barely getting to the point of being viable if not economical for mass
market distributed (individual, not utility scale) use. The new bio-fuel
stuff is just starting out and has a lot of maturing to go both in
technology and in determining what usage is actually appropriate.

It's questionable if, or when, solar is going to be economical. It's pretty
well acknowledged that it's a big loser if you don't have substantial
government subsidies.

There are conflicting stories about whether an honest energy audit would
show any net *energy* gain for PV, even now. The US government has been
saying we passed break-even over a decade ago and I have seen some figures
that suggest a 20% - 25% net energy gain. But _The Economist_ hedged its
conclusion on that as recently as six months ago. They say it's still
questionable whether there's *any* net energy gain with PV, in the real
world and in typical installations. It just consumes too much energy to make
crystalline silicon. And other sources have said that the lifespan used for
the optimistic energy audits (25 years' life for PVs) are 'way too
optimistic on the average.

I don't claim expertise on any of this, just that I've been interested
enough to follow along casually and I'm hesitant to get excited about all of
it. On the other hand, it appears to me that it's almost inevitable that a
very large portion of our energy over the latter part of this century will
come from nuclear fission. When you see the numbers on breeder reactors, it
looks like no contest anywhere.


Solar does poorly with attempts at utility scale use due to the large
areas of environmental impact necessary for utility scale use, while
individual use on existing rooftops works well without the environmental
impact. I expect bio-fuels to ultimately be found to be viable mostly
for farms where they can be produced from waste to provide fuel for use
on those farms and not to be sold elsewhere.

Maybe. The big wild card in the longer term is cellulosic ethanol. Will it,
or won't it?

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 12, 6:17 am, Maxwell Lol wrote:
Gunner writes:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...inessNews&stor...

I don't have the reference, but someone told me that if we switched to
biofuel, we would starve because we would need all of the land
available to make the fuel - and there would be nothing left for food.

That is only true for SOME biofuels. It depends on the crop and the
type of land it needs to grow on. I agree the use of corn to produce
biofuels is maybe not such a good idea. But there are biofuels from
plants that can be grown on land that cannot be used, or is marginal,
for farm products.

There was a thing about a decade ago about a cactus that grows in
desert areas that can produce a fairly good synthetic gasoline. Those
are the kinds of crops that should be pursued.

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete Snell" wrote in message
...
What is it with people? Whenever alternative power solutions are
presented or tested, there is always a Chicken Little faction that has
to
point out that it isn't perfect and we have to look elsewhere or
disaster
looms. It seems that 'someone' thinks that there is a solution out
there
that is universal, safe as apple pie, and could be implemented
perfectly
on a week's notice. Until people change their perception of what
actually
works, and how it should work, we're gonna be stuck with what we have.
Bio-fuels make good sense for certain sectors and countries, but
obviously
not all. Wind power makes sense for on-the-spot power generation, but
not
much as a central power source. Etc, etc.

I'll bet, though, that the OECD is probably right that biofuels, as
they're
produced via the intensive farming we practice in the US and Europe, are
a
net loser in environmental terms, and they're probably worse than the
government claims in terms of net energy production. A lot of energy goes
into making chemical fertilizers.

I did a calculation to satisfy a co-worker last year, based on Chevron's
claim that they had raised the production of soybean biodiesel to 60 gal.
per acre (it was in one of their print ads). I figured it would require
30%
of the arable land in the US to produce enough for our current
consumption
of diesel -- just diesel, not including gasoline.

Of course, that's not the whole story. But it has to make you cautious.

--
Ed Huntress

Did you include all the off road diesel and home heating oil diesel in
your calculation, or just transportation fuel diesel?

I don't know, I just had some DOE figures on total diesel consumption to
work with.


The bottom line is that in some 30 year or so, solar energy is just
barely getting to the point of being viable if not economical for mass
market distributed (individual, not utility scale) use. The new bio-fuel
stuff is just starting out and has a lot of maturing to go both in
technology and in determining what usage is actually appropriate.

It's questionable if, or when, solar is going to be economical. It's pretty
well acknowledged that it's a big loser if you don't have substantial
government subsidies.

There are conflicting stories about whether an honest energy audit would
show any net *energy* gain for PV, even now. The US government has been
saying we passed break-even over a decade ago and I have seen some figures
that suggest a 20% - 25% net energy gain. But _The Economist_ hedged its
conclusion on that as recently as six months ago. They say it's still
questionable whether there's *any* net energy gain with PV, in the real
world and in typical installations. It just consumes too much energy to make
crystalline silicon. And other sources have said that the lifespan used for
the optimistic energy audits (25 years' life for PVs) are 'way too
optimistic on the average.

I don't claim expertise on any of this, just that I've been interested
enough to follow along casually and I'm hesitant to get excited about all of
it. On the other hand, it appears to me that it's almost inevitable that a
very large portion of our energy over the latter part of this century will
come from nuclear fission. When you see the numbers on breeder reactors, it
looks like no contest anywhere.


Solar does poorly with attempts at utility scale use due to the large
areas of environmental impact necessary for utility scale use, while
individual use on existing rooftops works well without the environmental
impact. I expect bio-fuels to ultimately be found to be viable mostly
for farms where they can be produced from waste to provide fuel for use
on those farms and not to be sold elsewhere.

Maybe. The big wild card in the longer term is cellulosic ethanol. Will it,
or won't it?

IMNSHO,

The only viable short term ~20yr alternative to oil and coal is nuclear
as it is a "green" energy source, if not renewable. Longer term, after
we use nuclear to fill the gap and give us time to ramp up less mature
technologies, I see the most viable source to be tidal generation.

Unlike wind and solar, tidal generation has very minimal environmental
impact for large scale production. Unlike wind tidal is a very
consistent regular source. Tidal generation requires vastly less area of
impact than solar for a given level of generation due to the tremendous
available energy density. Tidal generation efficiency is better than
solar an the technology is simpler, requiring less maintenance.

Unlike on/offshore wind farms which give NIMBYs fodder due to their
visibility, tidal generation has a low profile and minimal visibility.
Unlike Wind witch gives NIMBYs fodder with potential bird strikes and
background noise, Tidal generation has no appreciable impact on sea life
and produces no noise. The energy required to build a tidal generation
plant should be vastly less than it's service lifetime generation
potential.

Unfortunately, there seems to be little focus on tidal generation at the
moment since it's a less visible type of project and therefore has less
PR value.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:28:50 -0700, Gunner
wrote:



http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...rpc=23&sp=true
============

This ppears to be yet another case of getting 9 women pregnant so
you can get a baby in one month.

It appears to be correct that if no additional crops are grown,
then hunger will result from the diversion of food stuffs to fuel
production, given that there was no great surplus, and indeed
chronic malnutrition/famine in many areas. However, note that
one of the steepest run-ups has been wheat, which is not used to
any extent in bio-fuels, to the extend of a pasta strike in
Italy. click on
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...03/2022981.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../wpasta131.xml

No solution is ever so good that the fast buck scam artists can't
screw it up.

The whole idea was to use alternative, non-food plants on
marginal and/or unutilized land, not divert food crops/production
to fuel use. And what happened to all the crop surpluses that
the governments pay billions for????

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

Ed Huntress wrote:

It's questionable if, or when, solar is going to be economical. It's pretty
well acknowledged that it's a big loser if you don't have substantial
government subsidies.

There are steady advances however. One outfit has produced
very small but very efficient PV cells, where light from a
fairly large area is focused onto the silicon. It produces
power roughly equivalent to the surface area of the lenses,
but requires vastly less silicon.

Then there are the companies that are working to produce PV
sheets of plastic that would reduce the cost by a large
factor. They are less efficient, but if cheap enough, could
be available to many. Imagine if were cheap enough that
nearly every home could afford it, and installed it?

Bottom line though, given what we know today, there is no
one solution. It will take a combination of whatever is
appropriate for a particular region, COMBINED with a
reduction in power consumption. That would be a combined
reduction, more efficient motors, electronics, lighter
vehicles, and even getting over the notion that it's normal
to have virtually the full range of veggies and fruits in
the supermarket year round. How many jets enter the US every
day just so we can have fresh grapes, bananas, etc, not to
mention the trucks running the roads to deliver them?

I've started buying veggies from a local organic farm. No
fuel burned for transport, and they are fresh and taste
better than what's in the market. Tomatoes that taste like,
well, tomatoes, and strawberries that are naturally sweet
and really have some taste. Costs a bit more, but we can't
have our cake and eat it too. Not for long anyway.

Sadly, I think many of these lessons will not be learned
until things have gotten much much worse.

Jon

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete Snell" wrote in message
...
What is it with people? Whenever alternative power solutions are
presented or tested, there is always a Chicken Little faction that
has
to
point out that it isn't perfect and we have to look elsewhere or
disaster
looms. It seems that 'someone' thinks that there is a solution out
there
that is universal, safe as apple pie, and could be implemented
perfectly
on a week's notice. Until people change their perception of what
actually
works, and how it should work, we're gonna be stuck with what we
have.
Bio-fuels make good sense for certain sectors and countries, but
obviously
not all. Wind power makes sense for on-the-spot power generation,
but
not
much as a central power source. Etc, etc.

I'll bet, though, that the OECD is probably right that biofuels, as
they're
produced via the intensive farming we practice in the US and Europe,
are
a
net loser in environmental terms, and they're probably worse than the
government claims in terms of net energy production. A lot of energy
goes
into making chemical fertilizers.

I did a calculation to satisfy a co-worker last year, based on
Chevron's
claim that they had raised the production of soybean biodiesel to 60
gal.
per acre (it was in one of their print ads). I figured it would
require
30%
of the arable land in the US to produce enough for our current
consumption
of diesel -- just diesel, not including gasoline.

Of course, that's not the whole story. But it has to make you
cautious.

--
Ed Huntress

Did you include all the off road diesel and home heating oil diesel in
your calculation, or just transportation fuel diesel?

I don't know, I just had some DOE figures on total diesel consumption to
work with.


The bottom line is that in some 30 year or so, solar energy is just
barely getting to the point of being viable if not economical for mass
market distributed (individual, not utility scale) use. The new
bio-fuel
stuff is just starting out and has a lot of maturing to go both in
technology and in determining what usage is actually appropriate.

It's questionable if, or when, solar is going to be economical. It's
pretty
well acknowledged that it's a big loser if you don't have substantial
government subsidies.

There are conflicting stories about whether an honest energy audit would
show any net *energy* gain for PV, even now. The US government has been
saying we passed break-even over a decade ago and I have seen some
figures
that suggest a 20% - 25% net energy gain. But _The Economist_ hedged its
conclusion on that as recently as six months ago. They say it's still
questionable whether there's *any* net energy gain with PV, in the real
world and in typical installations. It just consumes too much energy to
make
crystalline silicon. And other sources have said that the lifespan used
for
the optimistic energy audits (25 years' life for PVs) are 'way too
optimistic on the average.

I don't claim expertise on any of this, just that I've been interested
enough to follow along casually and I'm hesitant to get excited about all
of
it. On the other hand, it appears to me that it's almost inevitable that
a
very large portion of our energy over the latter part of this century
will
come from nuclear fission. When you see the numbers on breeder reactors,
it
looks like no contest anywhere.


Solar does poorly with attempts at utility scale use due to the large
areas of environmental impact necessary for utility scale use, while
individual use on existing rooftops works well without the
environmental
impact. I expect bio-fuels to ultimately be found to be viable mostly
for farms where they can be produced from waste to provide fuel for use
on those farms and not to be sold elsewhere.

Maybe. The big wild card in the longer term is cellulosic ethanol. Will
it,
or won't it?

IMNSHO,

The only viable short term ~20yr alternative to oil and coal is nuclear
as it is a "green" energy source, if not renewable. Longer term, after
we use nuclear to fill the gap and give us time to ramp up less mature
technologies, I see the most viable source to be tidal generation.

Unlike wind and solar, tidal generation has very minimal environmental
impact for large scale production. Unlike wind tidal is a very
consistent regular source. Tidal generation requires vastly less area of
impact than solar for a given level of generation due to the tremendous
available energy density. Tidal generation efficiency is better than
solar an the technology is simpler, requiring less maintenance.

Unlike on/offshore wind farms which give NIMBYs fodder due to their
visibility, tidal generation has a low profile and minimal visibility.
Unlike Wind witch gives NIMBYs fodder with potential bird strikes and
background noise, Tidal generation has no appreciable impact on sea life
and produces no noise. The energy required to build a tidal generation
plant should be vastly less than it's service lifetime generation
potential.

Unfortunately, there seems to be little focus on tidal generation at the
moment since it's a less visible type of project and therefore has less
PR value.

Unless you're talking about wave generation, my impression of tidal is that
it's hellishly intrusive on the coastal environment. You have to dam
something up to make it work.

Am I wrong about this?

--
Ed Huntress

Jon Anderson wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

It's questionable if, or when, solar is going to be economical. It's pretty
well acknowledged that it's a big loser if you don't have substantial
government subsidies.

There are steady advances however. One outfit has produced
very small but very efficient PV cells, where light from a
fairly large area is focused onto the silicon. It produces
power roughly equivalent to the surface area of the lenses,
but requires vastly less silicon.

Then there are the companies that are working to produce PV
sheets of plastic that would reduce the cost by a large
factor. They are less efficient, but if cheap enough, could
be available to many. Imagine if were cheap enough that
nearly every home could afford it, and installed it?

Exactly my point about solar not being viable for utility scale
application. If however you get a cheap PV material that can be applied
to every single roof in the country in low maintenance batteryless
grid-tie configurations then you could have a huge impact on RE
production without much of any new environmental impact, unlike attempts
at utility scale production covering square miles with collectors.
Distributed generation is the only way solar will likely be viable in
our lifetimes.


Bottom line though, given what we know today, there is no
one solution.

Distributed PV generation on everyone's roof and utility scale tidal
generation. Free electricity for anyone who is able to use an electric
or plug-in hybrid vehicle. Improved public transit systems. Greatly
reduced demand for liquid transportation fuels i.e. gas and diesel,
making bio-fuel replacements for those more viable.

It will take a combination of whatever is
appropriate for a particular region, COMBINED with a
reduction in power consumption. That would be a combined
reduction, more efficient motors, electronics,

Certainly increased conservation and more efficient usage. Something
that has been steadily occurring, though not at a pace that satisfies
the eco-loons who want an instant return to stone age energy
consumption. I note that the use of more energy efficient lighting, HID
and fluorescent, has made huge gains and in any commercial environment
these days you are unlikely to see any other sources in use, save for
some halogen in jewelry display cases. A great many homes are now using
mostly CF lighting (I use mostly CF) as well.

lighter
vehicles,

Only where legitimately viable. Mindlessly insisting that everybody
should be driving tiny little econoboxes only serves to turn the public
off to the idea of smaller vehicles as a whole. A great many people have
regular need for a larger vehicle and they aren't going to give them up,
period.

What can be done is to may it economical for those people to have a
second small high efficiency vehicle for tasks that do not require the
cargo capacity of the larger vehicle. At present, increased property
taxes and insurance costs make such a second vehicle uneconomical.

I have a large pickup truck, which I regularly use to transport large
loads, and under such use it is a pretty efficient vehicle. Recall that
MPG is not a measure of efficiency, it is a measure of economy. A
measure of efficiency has to also factor in the work done, i.e. cargo
moved, which is something that MPG does not account for.

For the tasks where I do not need the big truck capacity, chiefly
grocery shopping, there is essentially no savings to be had from using a
little hybrid vehicle as the grocery trip is 6 miles round trip and at 6
miles once a week, the difference between 10MPG and 50MPG is negligible.

The additional taxes and insurance on a second vehicle, not to mention
the vehicle cost itself would make such a second vehicle a money pit, so
until something is done to reform taxes and insurance, expect to see me
grocery shopping in a 7,000# truck.

and even getting over the notion that it's normal
to have virtually the full range of veggies and fruits in
the supermarket year round. How many jets enter the US every
day just so we can have fresh grapes, bananas, etc, not to
mention the trucks running the roads to deliver them?

Some things can be done to improve efficiencies in that process, but as
a percentage of our total energy usage, it is insignificant. We should
however, *not* be importing produce from other countries while the same
items are in season in this country.


I've started buying veggies from a local organic farm. No
fuel burned for transport, and they are fresh and taste
better than what's in the market. Tomatoes that taste like,
well, tomatoes, and strawberries that are naturally sweet
and really have some taste. Costs a bit more, but we can't
have our cake and eat it too. Not for long anyway.

I like to buy local as well, however I look for a non-organic farm as I
do not wish to support the false notion that organic is better than non
organic. Organic produce has lower yields and in many cases uses more
energy to produce than a non organic equivalent. This is particularly
the case when you compare conventionally organic farmed items like
tomatoes and lettuce with industrial scale non organic hydroponically
grown equivalents.


Sadly, I think many of these lessons will not be learned
until things have gotten much much worse.

Do you think lessons will ever be learned? Look at thousands of years of
history and the same problems occurring over and over and over again.
Lessons are never learned for any appreciable length of time, they may
be learned in the short term but are rapidly lost on successive
generations.

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete Snell" wrote in message
...
What is it with people? Whenever alternative power solutions are
presented or tested, there is always a Chicken Little faction that
has
to
point out that it isn't perfect and we have to look elsewhere or
disaster
looms. It seems that 'someone' thinks that there is a solution out
there
that is universal, safe as apple pie, and could be implemented
perfectly
on a week's notice. Until people change their perception of what
actually
works, and how it should work, we're gonna be stuck with what we
have.
Bio-fuels make good sense for certain sectors and countries, but
obviously
not all. Wind power makes sense for on-the-spot power generation,
but
not
much as a central power source. Etc, etc.

I'll bet, though, that the OECD is probably right that biofuels, as
they're
produced via the intensive farming we practice in the US and Europe,
are
a
net loser in environmental terms, and they're probably worse than the
government claims in terms of net energy production. A lot of energy
goes
into making chemical fertilizers.

I did a calculation to satisfy a co-worker last year, based on
Chevron's
claim that they had raised the production of soybean biodiesel to 60
gal.
per acre (it was in one of their print ads). I figured it would
require
30%
of the arable land in the US to produce enough for our current
consumption
of diesel -- just diesel, not including gasoline.

Of course, that's not the whole story. But it has to make you
cautious.

--
Ed Huntress

Did you include all the off road diesel and home heating oil diesel in
your calculation, or just transportation fuel diesel?

I don't know, I just had some DOE figures on total diesel consumption to
work with.


The bottom line is that in some 30 year or so, solar energy is just
barely getting to the point of being viable if not economical for mass
market distributed (individual, not utility scale) use. The new
bio-fuel
stuff is just starting out and has a lot of maturing to go both in
technology and in determining what usage is actually appropriate.

It's questionable if, or when, solar is going to be economical. It's
pretty
well acknowledged that it's a big loser if you don't have substantial
government subsidies.

There are conflicting stories about whether an honest energy audit would
show any net *energy* gain for PV, even now. The US government has been
saying we passed break-even over a decade ago and I have seen some
figures
that suggest a 20% - 25% net energy gain. But _The Economist_ hedged its
conclusion on that as recently as six months ago. They say it's still
questionable whether there's *any* net energy gain with PV, in the real
world and in typical installations. It just consumes too much energy to
make
crystalline silicon. And other sources have said that the lifespan used
for
the optimistic energy audits (25 years' life for PVs) are 'way too
optimistic on the average.

I don't claim expertise on any of this, just that I've been interested
enough to follow along casually and I'm hesitant to get excited about all
of
it. On the other hand, it appears to me that it's almost inevitable that
a
very large portion of our energy over the latter part of this century
will
come from nuclear fission. When you see the numbers on breeder reactors,
it
looks like no contest anywhere.


Solar does poorly with attempts at utility scale use due to the large
areas of environmental impact necessary for utility scale use, while
individual use on existing rooftops works well without the
environmental
impact. I expect bio-fuels to ultimately be found to be viable mostly
for farms where they can be produced from waste to provide fuel for use
on those farms and not to be sold elsewhere.

Maybe. The big wild card in the longer term is cellulosic ethanol. Will
it,
or won't it?

IMNSHO,

The only viable short term ~20yr alternative to oil and coal is nuclear
as it is a "green" energy source, if not renewable. Longer term, after
we use nuclear to fill the gap and give us time to ramp up less mature
technologies, I see the most viable source to be tidal generation.

Unlike wind and solar, tidal generation has very minimal environmental
impact for large scale production. Unlike wind tidal is a very
consistent regular source. Tidal generation requires vastly less area of
impact than solar for a given level of generation due to the tremendous
available energy density. Tidal generation efficiency is better than
solar an the technology is simpler, requiring less maintenance.

Unlike on/offshore wind farms which give NIMBYs fodder due to their
visibility, tidal generation has a low profile and minimal visibility.
Unlike Wind witch gives NIMBYs fodder with potential bird strikes and
background noise, Tidal generation has no appreciable impact on sea life
and produces no noise. The energy required to build a tidal generation
plant should be vastly less than it's service lifetime generation
potential.

Unfortunately, there seems to be little focus on tidal generation at the
moment since it's a less visible type of project and therefore has less
PR value.

Unless you're talking about wave generation, my impression of tidal is that
it's hellishly intrusive on the coastal environment. You have to dam
something up to make it work.

Am I wrong about this?

The tidal generation I'm referring to involves no dams and no waves, it
is based on solidly anchored buoys. When the tidal level lowers the buoy
anchor cable retracts into the buoy to remain tight to the ocean floor.
When the tide comes in the buoyancy of the buoy produces tremendous
tension on the anchor cable which is used to spin the generator as the
buoy slowly rises (and the anchor cable extends) until the tide maxes
out. There were some recent innovations in this design that simplified
it and improved efficiency.

At any rate, a low profile buoy bobbing up and down with the tide has
extremely low environmental impact and there is a massive amount of
available energy at high densities waiting to be captured.

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
snip

Unless you're talking about wave generation, my impression of tidal is
that
it's hellishly intrusive on the coastal environment. You have to dam
something up to make it work.

Am I wrong about this?

The tidal generation I'm referring to involves no dams and no waves, it
is based on solidly anchored buoys. When the tidal level lowers the buoy
anchor cable retracts into the buoy to remain tight to the ocean floor.
When the tide comes in the buoyancy of the buoy produces tremendous
tension on the anchor cable which is used to spin the generator as the
buoy slowly rises (and the anchor cable extends) until the tide maxes
out. There were some recent innovations in this design that simplified
it and improved efficiency.

At any rate, a low profile buoy bobbing up and down with the tide has
extremely low environmental impact and there is a massive amount of
available energy at high densities waiting to be captured.

That certainly sounds interesting, and it sounds extremely simple. Why don't
we have them now?

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
snip

Unless you're talking about wave generation, my impression of tidal is
that
it's hellishly intrusive on the coastal environment. You have to dam
something up to make it work.

Am I wrong about this?

The tidal generation I'm referring to involves no dams and no waves, it
is based on solidly anchored buoys. When the tidal level lowers the buoy
anchor cable retracts into the buoy to remain tight to the ocean floor.
When the tide comes in the buoyancy of the buoy produces tremendous
tension on the anchor cable which is used to spin the generator as the
buoy slowly rises (and the anchor cable extends) until the tide maxes
out. There were some recent innovations in this design that simplified
it and improved efficiency.

At any rate, a low profile buoy bobbing up and down with the tide has
extremely low environmental impact and there is a massive amount of
available energy at high densities waiting to be captured.

That certainly sounds interesting, and it sounds extremely simple. Why don't
we have them now?

'Cause we're stupid???

Also, they aren't flashy, easy to show off PR items like wind turbines
and solar panels.

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
Maxwell Lol wrote:

Gunner writes:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...sNews&storyid=
200
7-09-11T162914Z_01_L11879479_RTRUKOC_0_US-BIOFUELS-OECD-REPORT.xml&src=rs
s&r
pc=23&sp=true

I don't have the reference, but someone told me that if we switched to
biofuel, we would starve because we would need all of the land
available to make the fuel - and there would be nothing left for food.

Not if we grew hemp for fuel


Uh, is that because everybody would be parked alongside the road instead
of
driving, stoned out of their minds? d8-)

Hemp is one of the most efficient plants and grows in poor soil unsuited
for food. The Constitution is written on hemp paper and the founding
fathers wore hemp clothing

I don't know if we really want that to get around, Nick...

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
Maxwell Lol wrote:

Gunner writes:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...sNews&storyid=
200
7-09-11T162914Z_01_L11879479_RTRUKOC_0_US-BIOFUELS-OECD-REPORT.xml&src=rs
s&r
pc=23&sp=true

I don't have the reference, but someone told me that if we switched to
biofuel, we would starve because we would need all of the land
available to make the fuel - and there would be nothing left for food.

Not if we grew hemp for fuel


Uh, is that because everybody would be parked alongside the road instead of
driving, stoned out of their minds? d8-)

Hemp is one of the most efficient plants and grows in poor soil unsuited
for food. The Constitution is written on hemp paper and the founding
fathers wore hemp clothing

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

"Pete C." wrote in message
...

I expect bio-fuels to ultimately be found to be viable mostly
for farms where they can be produced from waste to provide fuel for use
on those farms ...

I agree.

... and not to be sold elsewhere.

Why not? Like the dairy truck that makes the rounds a bio-fuel truck could
go from farm to farm.

-- Mark

Mark Jerde wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...

I expect bio-fuels to ultimately be found to be viable mostly
for farms where they can be produced from waste to provide fuel for use
on those farms ...

I agree.

... and not to be sold elsewhere.

Why not? Like the dairy truck that makes the rounds a bio-fuel truck could
go from farm to farm.

-- Mark

I don't expect farm waste would produce sufficient bio-fuel to cover the
farms full fuel needs, much less excess to sell.

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Mark Jerde wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...

I expect bio-fuels to ultimately be found to be viable mostly
for farms where they can be produced from waste to provide fuel for use
on those farms ...

I agree.

... and not to be sold elsewhere.

Why not? Like the dairy truck that makes the rounds a bio-fuel truck
could
go from farm to farm.

-- Mark

I don't expect farm waste would produce sufficient bio-fuel to cover the
farms full fuel needs, much less excess to sell.

I dunno. I come from at least 4 generations of farmers/ranchers and
considered doing that myself. Rural folk working for themselves are
generally really good "Save a buck / Make a buck" people. I wouldn't count
them out.

-- Mark

you know there is a surplus of sugar in cuba that is ideal for bio fuels?

nick hull wrote:

Hemp is one of the most efficient plants and grows in poor soil unsuited
for food. The Constitution is written on hemp paper and the founding
fathers wore hemp clothing

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

...and if they smoked enough of it, eventually, their heads would
start to spin from breathing in all that carbon monoxide from the
burning, while the smoke would probably start clogging up their lungs.

The stuff that is grown for fiber and oil these days, is selected for
production of "other" than THC content.

Cheers
Trevor Jones

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:35:15 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Pete C." quickly quoth:

IMNSHO,

The only viable short term ~20yr alternative to oil and coal is nuclear
as it is a "green" energy source, if not renewable. Longer term, after
we use nuclear to fill the gap and give us time to ramp up less mature
technologies, I see the most viable source to be tidal generation.

Agreed, x3.


Unlike wind and solar, tidal generation has very minimal environmental
impact for large scale production. Unlike wind tidal is a very
consistent regular source. Tidal generation requires vastly less area of
impact than solar for a given level of generation due to the tremendous
available energy density. Tidal generation efficiency is better than
solar an the technology is simpler, requiring less maintenance.


Unlike on/offshore wind farms which give NIMBYs fodder due to their
visibility, tidal generation has a low profile and minimal visibility.
Unlike Wind witch gives NIMBYs fodder with potential bird strikes and
background noise, Tidal generation has no appreciable impact on sea life
and produces no noise. The energy required to build a tidal generation
plant should be vastly less than it's service lifetime generation
potential.

Bird kills are minimal with taller towers, but your regular everyday
buildings with regular everyday windows kill more birds than wind
farms by about a 10:1 (or was it 100:1?) margin.


Unfortunately, there seems to be little focus on tidal generation at the
moment since it's a less visible type of project and therefore has less
PR value.

Blame the power-hungry media for that. (no, headline-power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power Interesting articles.

IMHO, more cost effective lighting needs to be installed wherever
possible first (or too?) We see all these high-power sodium and
halogen lights, etc., burning -all- the time -everywhere-.

Lower power requirements for everything electrical should be addressed
as well. More efficient, full-room low-voltage power supplies would
replace the ten warts in each room we have now. g

Hybrid vehicles are making a nice surge, as well they should.

I see Soccer Moms everywhere, by themselves, in SUBURBANS (8mpg?) etc.
when they could be using electric vehicles for town driving 4x a day.
I hope more convert.

--
If you turn the United States on its side,
everything loose will fall to California.
--Frank Lloyd Wright

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:11:25 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

Unless you're talking about wave generation, my impression of tidal is that
it's hellishly intrusive on the coastal environment. You have to dam
something up to make it work.

Am I wrong about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power See the section on "tidal
stream power".

--
If you turn the United States on its side,
everything loose will fall to California.
--Frank Lloyd Wright

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:31:59 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Pete C." quickly quoth:

about 140 lines snipped, ya turkeys.

Unless you're talking about wave generation, my impression of tidal is that
it's hellishly intrusive on the coastal environment. You have to dam
something up to make it work.

Am I wrong about this?

The tidal generation I'm referring to involves no dams and no waves, it
is based on solidly anchored buoys. When the tidal level lowers the buoy
anchor cable retracts into the buoy to remain tight to the ocean floor.
When the tide comes in the buoyancy of the buoy produces tremendous
tension on the anchor cable which is used to spin the generator as the
buoy slowly rises (and the anchor cable extends) until the tide maxes
out. There were some recent innovations in this design that simplified
it and improved efficiency.

At any rate, a low profile buoy bobbing up and down with the tide has
extremely low environmental impact and there is a massive amount of
available energy at high densities waiting to be captured.

Replacing the flexible power transmission cabling for these bouncy
things gets expensive.

--
If you turn the United States on its side,
everything loose will fall to California.
--Frank Lloyd Wright

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:24:41 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Pete C." quickly quoth:

Jon Anderson wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

It's questionable if, or when, solar is going to be economical. It's pretty
well acknowledged that it's a big loser if you don't have substantial
government subsidies.

There are steady advances however. One outfit has produced
very small but very efficient PV cells, where light from a
fairly large area is focused onto the silicon. It produces
power roughly equivalent to the surface area of the lenses,
but requires vastly less silicon.

Then there are the companies that are working to produce PV
sheets of plastic that would reduce the cost by a large
factor. They are less efficient, but if cheap enough, could
be available to many. Imagine if were cheap enough that
nearly every home could afford it, and installed it?

Exactly my point about solar not being viable for utility scale
application. If however you get a cheap PV material that can be applied
to every single roof in the country in low maintenance batteryless
grid-tie configurations then you could have a huge impact on RE
production without much of any new environmental impact, unlike attempts
at utility scale production covering square miles with collectors.
Distributed generation is the only way solar will likely be viable in
our lifetimes.

I'm curious to see the outcome of the FedEX solar experiment in
Oakland. 904kW of solar covering 81k feet of roof.



tributed PV generation on everyone's roof and utility scale tidal

generation. Free electricity for anyone who is able to use an electric
or plug-in hybrid vehicle. Improved public transit systems. Greatly
reduced demand for liquid transportation fuels i.e. gas and diesel,
making bio-fuel replacements for those more viable.

Good idea.


I have a large pickup truck, which I regularly use to transport large
loads, and under such use it is a pretty efficient vehicle. Recall that
MPG is not a measure of efficiency, it is a measure of economy. A
measure of efficiency has to also factor in the work done, i.e. cargo
moved, which is something that MPG does not account for.

Yeah, I carry all my tools daily and need a truck for that and the
materials I work with. (handyman)


For the tasks where I do not need the big truck capacity, chiefly
grocery shopping, there is essentially no savings to be had from using a
little hybrid vehicle as the grocery trip is 6 miles round trip and at 6
miles once a week, the difference between 10MPG and 50MPG is negligible.

I've always tried to double/tripletask my trips. Whenever I'm in town,
I shop on the way to or from home, saving at least one trip if not
more each time. Keeping a running list of items I need with me in the
truck helps. I add to and scratch off items each time.


The additional taxes and insurance on a second vehicle, not to mention
the vehicle cost itself would make such a second vehicle a money pit, so
until something is done to reform taxes and insurance, expect to see me
grocery shopping in a 7,000# truck.

I'm pleasantly surprised that my new truck will cost only $250 more in
insurance per year than my old '90 F-150. The value difference is
about $25k.


I like to buy local as well, however I look for a non-organic farm as I
do not wish to support the false notion that organic is better than non
organic. Organic produce has lower yields and in many cases uses more
energy to produce than a non organic equivalent. This is particularly
the case when you compare conventionally organic farmed items like
tomatoes and lettuce with industrial scale non organic hydroponically
grown equivalents.

I'm not sold on organics just yet. I prefer ingesting fewer chemicals,
but as someone on a newsgroup pointed out, organics are self-policed
in most cases. Too much of a "safe" organic pesticide can be as bad or
worse than a smaller amount of a less safe chemical one.


Sadly, I think many of these lessons will not be learned
until things have gotten much much worse.

Do you think lessons will ever be learned? Look at thousands of years of
history and the same problems occurring over and over and over again.
Lessons are never learned for any appreciable length of time, they may
be learned in the short term but are rapidly lost on successive
generations.

Good question. Look at the "leadership" we have and the corruption of
our gov't., yet people still vote for the same thugs every year. deep
sigh

--
If you turn the United States on its side,
everything loose will fall to California.
--Frank Lloyd Wright

On Sep 12, 8:59 am, Pete Snell wrote:
What is it with people? Whenever alternative power solutions are
presented or tested, there is always a Chicken Little faction that has
to point out that it isn't perfect and we have to look elsewhere or
disaster looms. It seems that 'someone' thinks that there is a solution
out there that is universal, safe as apple pie, and could be implemented
perfectly on a week's notice. Until people change their perception of
what actually works, and how it should work, we're gonna be stuck with
what we have. Bio-fuels make good sense for certain sectors and
countries, but obviously not all. Wind power makes sense for on-the-spot
power generation, but not much as a central power source. Etc, etc.

Pete
--
Pete Snell
Department of Physics
Royal Military College

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
Richard Feynman.(1918-1988)
Personal Observations on the Reliability of the (Space) Shuttle.
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
-- Seehttp://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----


It bothers me that some people are not looking at the overall picture.
I thin every landfill in canada should be tapped for methane
generation and there should be at least a SMALL methane powerplant in
every landfill.

I'd like to see there be large incentives for diesel powerplants over
gas, they do burn stuff the gas cant touch and do so with more thermal
efficiency. I'd like to see stuff like mandatory recyclin of oil
products since once again rather than being wasted then can be burned.

If its wasted anyhow at this point and it can be converted to do
something useful before it would become a greenhouse gas then thats a
step forward there too. if you can make combustible plant oil out of
compost and reuse or sell it then that is a "free gain" it would have
become greenhouse gases anyhow but instead we reclaimed it and got a
fuel cycle out of it before it become greenhouse gas. to me that a
positive step.

I'd love to see a LOT of money donated to projects fitting under the
category of "we would have wasted it anyway so how can we use the
waste before it becomes greenhouse gas" I'd love to see a bunch of
small powerplants running on "waste" material or industrial plants
adjusting to use waste form other industries instead of "new" oil
reserves. I saw a concrete plant that was powered by old tires instead
of coal. Its still polluting as much as ever but its reusing other
pollutats that are going to landfills or to tire dumps to sit there
that to me is STILL an overall saving, the tire would have rotted out
instead of being used for fuel or blasting mats

Is Biodiesel perfect, not even close. But can it amke better use of
energy that is otherwise Wasted, absolutely especially when the
tolerance of lower fuel qualities is taken into account

I'd take biodiesel over any E85 solution that way

Brent
Ottawa Canada

On Sep 12, 8:59 am, Pete Snell wrote:
What is it with people? Whenever alternative power solutions are
presented or tested, there is always a Chicken Little faction that has
to point out that it isn't perfect and we have to look elsewhere or
disaster looms. It seems that 'someone' thinks that there is a solution
out there that is universal, safe as apple pie, and could be implemented
perfectly on a week's notice. Until people change their perception of
what actually works, and how it should work, we're gonna be stuck with
what we have. Bio-fuels make good sense for certain sectors and
countries, but obviously not all. Wind power makes sense for on-the-spot
power generation, but not much as a central power source. Etc, etc.

Pete
--
Pete Snell
Department of Physics
Royal Military College

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
Richard Feynman.(1918-1988)
Personal Observations on the Reliability of the (Space) Shuttle.
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
-- Seehttp://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----


It bothers me that some people are not looking at the overall picture.
I thin every landfill in canada should be tapped for methane
generation and there should be at least a SMALL methane powerplant in
every landfill.

I'd like to see there be large incentives for diesel powerplants over
gas, they do burn stuff the gas cant touch and do so with more thermal
efficiency. I'd like to see stuff like mandatory recyclin of oil
products since once again rather than being wasted then can be burned.

If its wasted anyhow at this point and it can be converted to do
something useful before it would become a greenhouse gas then thats a
step forward there too. if you can make combustible plant oil out of
compost and reuse or sell it then that is a "free gain" it would have
become greenhouse gases anyhow but instead we reclaimed it and got a
fuel cycle out of it before it become greenhouse gas. to me that a
positive step.

I'd love to see a LOT of money donated to projects fitting under the
category of "we would have wasted it anyway so how can we use the
waste before it becomes greenhouse gas" I'd love to see a bunch of
small powerplants running on "waste" material or industrial plants
adjusting to use waste form other industries instead of "new" oil
reserves. I saw a concrete plant that was powered by old tires instead
of coal. Its still polluting as much as ever but its reusing other
pollutats that are going to landfills or to tire dumps to sit there
that to me is STILL an overall saving, the tire would have rotted out
instead of being used for fuel or blasting mats

Is Biodiesel perfect, not even close. But can it amke better use of
energy that is otherwise Wasted, absolutely especially when the
tolerance of lower fuel qualities is taken into account

I'd take biodiesel over any E85 solution that way

Brent
Ottawa Canada

Pete C. wrote:

Exactly my point about solar not being viable for utility scale
application. If however you get a cheap PV material that can be applied
to every single roof in the country in low maintenance batteryless
grid-tie configurations then you could have a huge impact on RE
production without much of any new environmental impact, unlike attempts
at utility scale production covering square miles with collectors.
Distributed generation is the only way solar will likely be viable in
our lifetimes.

Yes, agreed. Didn't mean to come across like these new
developments are the answer for utility scale projects.
However, in some areas those large scale facilities make sense.

Distributed PV generation on everyone's roof and utility scale tidal
generation. Free electricity for anyone who is able to use an electric
or plug-in hybrid vehicle. Improved public transit systems. Greatly
reduced demand for liquid transportation fuels i.e. gas and diesel,
making bio-fuel replacements for those more viable.

I'm looking into an electric truck and solar panels for
charging. I work from home, generally make a max of 2 trips
to town a day, for maybe 25-30 miles. At least during spring
and summer, I can drive nearly for free. And in winter, just
plug into the wall.

A great many homes are now using
mostly CF lighting (I use mostly CF) as well.

Me too, but I'm really waiting for prices to come down on
white LED's, that will really start to make a difference.

Side note, I live in Grass Valley, up in the foothills, and
used to work for a guy that flew to the SF bay area
frequently for business. I got to go along several times,
and twice we flew back at night. I was amazed seeing from
the air, all the huge but empty parking lots in the
industrial area, fully lit.... whata waste.



lighter
vehicles,


Only where legitimately viable. Mindlessly insisting that everybody
should be driving tiny little econoboxes only serves to turn the public
off to the idea of smaller vehicles as a whole. A great many people have
regular need for a larger vehicle and they aren't going to give them up,
period.

I'm not in the category that says EVERYONE must have a
lighter vehicle. I'd love to have a Dodge diesel and a
companion heavy duty trailer, but as you note, the costs of
the second vehicle are significant.

Some things can be done to improve efficiencies in that process, but as
a percentage of our total energy usage, it is insignificant. We should
however, *not* be importing produce from other countries while the same
items are in season in this country.

Maybe in the overall scheme of things it's a small factor,
but all these small factors add up...


Do you think lessons will ever be learned? Look at thousands of years of
history and the same problems occurring over and over and over again.
Lessons are never learned for any appreciable length of time, they may
be learned in the short term but are rapidly lost on successive
generations.

I have hope. In the past, few people really had any
education or access to records. Today, nearly anyone can
access an avalanche of data.

But then, I lose hope when I see people driving around town
constantly in huge massive 4x4 trucks that are obviously
just a testament to someone's ego and pocketbook. The bling
on most of these trucks would easily pay for a small
economical vehicle. Still, despite the overall lack of long
term learning from our mistakes, it would be a big mistake
to say "we're all gonna be screwed by our inability to learn
from the past, so fuggit, I'm going to grab every luxury I can"

For myself, I drive at the bottom end. Half of my vehicles
go to the scrapyard when I've used them up. Nicest car I've
ever owned in my current '94 Ford Escort which returns a
respectable 32mpg up in the foothills, an '84 Toyota truck
for those tasks I can't do with the wagon, and an '81 Honda
XL185 trail bike which gets me around 70mpg given I like to
wind it out. It'll do close to 90mpg if I want to just putt...

Overall, nobody gives a **** what I think or do, all I can
do is try to minimize my consumption of resources, and
quietly laugh to myself when I hear monster SUV owners
crying about what it just cost them to fill their tank.

Jon

Larry Jaques wrote:

whole lot more snipped
At any rate, a low profile buoy bobbing up and down with the tide has
extremely low environmental impact and there is a massive amount of
available energy at high densities waiting to be captured.

Replacing the flexible power transmission cabling for these bouncy
things gets expensive.

So build it upside down with the generator end on the bottom and
stationary.

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:11:25 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

Unless you're talking about wave generation, my impression of tidal is that
it's hellishly intrusive on the coastal environment. You have to dam
something up to make it work.

Am I wrong about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power See the section on "tidal
stream power".

--
If you turn the United States on its side,
everything loose will fall to California.
--Frank Lloyd Wright

Interesting, but it doesn't have anything on the type of tidal generator
I noted. I believe I've seen a piece on the buoy type on the science
channel, including a couple prototypes in testing.

Larry Jaques wrote:

more snippage for the scroll wheel impaired

Unlike on/offshore wind farms which give NIMBYs fodder due to their
visibility, tidal generation has a low profile and minimal visibility.
Unlike Wind witch gives NIMBYs fodder with potential bird strikes and
background noise, Tidal generation has no appreciable impact on sea life
and produces no noise. The energy required to build a tidal generation
plant should be vastly less than it's service lifetime generation
potential.

Bird kills are minimal with taller towers, but your regular everyday
buildings with regular everyday windows kill more birds than wind
farms by about a 10:1 (or was it 100:1?) margin.

I didn't say they were valid issues, just something for NIMBYs to rant
about along with noise, views and lower property values.


Unfortunately, there seems to be little focus on tidal generation at the
moment since it's a less visible type of project and therefore has less
PR value.

Blame the power-hungry media for that. (no, headline-power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power Interesting articles.

Isn't the media at fault for anything the government isn't already at
fault for?


IMHO, more cost effective lighting needs to be installed wherever
possible first (or too?) We see all these high-power sodium and
halogen lights, etc., burning -all- the time -everywhere-.

Most any commercial building I've been in recently is pretty much all
fluorescent and / or metal halide type HID.


Lower power requirements for everything electrical should be addressed
as well. More efficient, full-room low-voltage power supplies would
replace the ten warts in each room we have now. g

Hybrid vehicles are making a nice surge, as well they should.

Which is why we need to upgrade the electrical grid so we are able to
move the electricity required to replace a decent amount of gasoline.


I see Soccer Moms everywhere, by themselves, in SUBURBANS (8mpg?) etc.
when they could be using electric vehicles for town driving 4x a day.
I hope more convert.

Some will eventually, when the economics become reasonable. As I noted
in another post, taxes and insurance currently make having a second high
MPG / electric vehicle a money pit, even with purchase subsidies.

Larry Jaques wrote:

still more snippage

I'm curious to see the outcome of the FedEX solar experiment in
Oakland. 904kW of solar covering 81k feet of roof.

Haven't seen anything about that. Sounds interesting. Key thing being
utilizing existing roof space to avoid the environmental impact of the
attempts at utility scale solar.


even more snippage

For the tasks where I do not need the big truck capacity, chiefly
grocery shopping, there is essentially no savings to be had from using a
little hybrid vehicle as the grocery trip is 6 miles round trip and at 6
miles once a week, the difference between 10MPG and 50MPG is negligible.

I've always tried to double/tripletask my trips. Whenever I'm in town,
I shop on the way to or from home, saving at least one trip if not
more each time. Keeping a running list of items I need with me in the
truck helps. I add to and scratch off items each time.

Same here for the longer trips. When I visit the office about about 60
miles away about once a month I schedule that to coincide with a number
of other activities in the area.


The additional taxes and insurance on a second vehicle, not to mention
the vehicle cost itself would make such a second vehicle a money pit, so
until something is done to reform taxes and insurance, expect to see me
grocery shopping in a 7,000# truck.

I'm pleasantly surprised that my new truck will cost only $250 more in
insurance per year than my old '90 F-150. The value difference is
about $25k.

My point was the additional cost for a second vehicle in taxes and
insurance, which in my case would substantially exceed the potential gas
savings.


more snippage

Do you think lessons will ever be learned? Look at thousands of years of
history and the same problems occurring over and over and over again.
Lessons are never learned for any appreciable length of time, they may
be learned in the short term but are rapidly lost on successive
generations.

Good question. Look at the "leadership" we have and the corruption of
our gov't., yet people still vote for the same thugs every year. deep
sigh

Yes, the same thugs of either party. They may be at opposite ends of the
spectrum, but they both still suck.

Jon Anderson wrote:

Pete C. wrote:

Exactly my point about solar not being viable for utility scale
application. If however you get a cheap PV material that can be applied
to every single roof in the country in low maintenance batteryless
grid-tie configurations then you could have a huge impact on RE
production without much of any new environmental impact, unlike attempts
at utility scale production covering square miles with collectors.
Distributed generation is the only way solar will likely be viable in
our lifetimes.

Yes, agreed. Didn't mean to come across like these new
developments are the answer for utility scale projects.

Nope, and utility scale isn't the whole answer anyway due to the
insufficient grid capacity. Distributed generation helps overcome the
grid deficiencies quite a bit.

However, in some areas those large scale facilities make sense.

Not the way they are built currently. Covering 50 acres of wild area, be
it desert or forest with a reflector array around a collector tower is a
big environmental impact. Build the same facility in an urban area on
the roof of a really big mall and you've solved the environmental
problem. The generator and control facilities can be underground under
the parking lot. Indeed many of the reflectors can be over the parking
lot as well providing nice shading for the cars.


Distributed PV generation on everyone's roof and utility scale tidal
generation. Free electricity for anyone who is able to use an electric
or plug-in hybrid vehicle. Improved public transit systems. Greatly
reduced demand for liquid transportation fuels i.e. gas and diesel,
making bio-fuel replacements for those more viable.

I'm looking into an electric truck and solar panels for
charging. I work from home, generally make a max of 2 trips
to town a day, for maybe 25-30 miles. At least during spring
and summer, I can drive nearly for free. And in winter, just
plug into the wall.

I work from home as well, and part of our energy policy needs to be
encouraging that since it will put a huge dent in gasoline demand and
road congestion and wear.

My typical trip into town is a 6 mile RT to the grocery store once a
week, and perhaps one 20 mile RT per week to a larger shopping area.


A great many homes are now using
mostly CF lighting (I use mostly CF) as well.

Me too, but I'm really waiting for prices to come down on
white LED's, that will really start to make a difference.

I'm not convinced LEDs will really be viable for residential lighting
any time soon. Poor light distribution, heat dissipation issues, color
temperature issues and of course the cost issue. I have a 6W LED dive
light which is bright as hell, but I'd never consider it acceptable for
home lighting. I expect the CFs to remain the best option for quite a
while.


Side note, I live in Grass Valley, up in the foothills, and
used to work for a guy that flew to the SF bay area
frequently for business. I got to go along several times,
and twice we flew back at night. I was amazed seeing from
the air, all the huge but empty parking lots in the
industrial area, fully lit.... whata waste.

Yep, wasted night lighting and light pollution is a big issue. Big malls
have their parking too free form at present to be able to shut down
sections at night when unoccupied. Go with gated, monitored parking
areas and you can gradually shutdown sections at night.


lighter
vehicles,


Only where legitimately viable. Mindlessly insisting that everybody
should be driving tiny little econoboxes only serves to turn the public
off to the idea of smaller vehicles as a whole. A great many people have
regular need for a larger vehicle and they aren't going to give them up,
period.

I'm not in the category that says EVERYONE must have a
lighter vehicle. I'd love to have a Dodge diesel and a
companion heavy duty trailer, but as you note, the costs of
the second vehicle are significant.

Right, but much of that cost is due to tax and insurance issues that
could be resolved. If I could get a hybrid without any additional
property tax or insurance cost (I'm the only driver and household member
anyway), I'd get one. There wouldn't be much in the way of gas savings
most of the time, but occasionally there would be, and it would also
reduce wear on the truck.


Some things can be done to improve efficiencies in that process, but as
a percentage of our total energy usage, it is insignificant. We should
however, *not* be importing produce from other countries while the same
items are in season in this country.

Maybe in the overall scheme of things it's a small factor,
but all these small factors add up...

Start manufacturing stuff in the US again and you can eliminate a whole
lot of container ship trips from China... Still need to bring in those
cheap fireworks though


Do you think lessons will ever be learned? Look at thousands of years of
history and the same problems occurring over and over and over again.
Lessons are never learned for any appreciable length of time, they may
be learned in the short term but are rapidly lost on successive
generations.

I have hope. In the past, few people really had any
education or access to records. Today, nearly anyone can
access an avalanche of data.

Except for the people in some of the most overpopulated, violence
steeped third world countries...


But then, I lose hope when I see people driving around town
constantly in huge massive 4x4 trucks that are obviously
just a testament to someone's ego and pocketbook.

Hey, I drive one of those huge massive 4x4 trucks I even take it off
road with substantial cargo regularly. I'm also 100% ego (and self
esteem) free.

The bling
on most of these trucks would easily pay for a small
economical vehicle.

No bling on my 10yr old truck. Didn't even fix the dually fender a city
bus that wasn't paying attention to clipped. All function, not
cosmetics.

Still, despite the overall lack of long
term learning from our mistakes, it would be a big mistake
to say "we're all gonna be screwed by our inability to learn
from the past, so fuggit, I'm going to grab every luxury I can"

I'll certainly try to conserve where practical, but I'm not very hopeful
for the future. Once my birth certificate expires around 2035-2040 I
won't care anyway.


For myself, I drive at the bottom end. Half of my vehicles
go to the scrapyard when I've used them up. Nicest car I've
ever owned in my current '94 Ford Escort which returns a
respectable 32mpg up in the foothills, an '84 Toyota truck
for those tasks I can't do with the wagon, and an '81 Honda
XL185 trail bike which gets me around 70mpg given I like to
wind it out. It'll do close to 90mpg if I want to just putt...

I certainly don't turn over vehicles every other year like some
ego-loons do. I buy new, maintain properly myself and keep a vehicle
indefinitely.


Overall, nobody gives a **** what I think or do, all I can
do is try to minimize my consumption of resources, and
quietly laugh to myself when I hear monster SUV owners
crying about what it just cost them to fill their tank.

Yep. I don't cry about the cost to fuel my truck, but when I take it on
weekend trips I sure try to get folks car(truck)pooling with me.

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:31:29 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message


The tidal generation I'm referring to involves no dams and no waves, it
is based on solidly anchored buoys. When the tidal level lowers the buoy
anchor cable retracts into the buoy to remain tight to the ocean floor.
When the tide comes in the buoyancy of the buoy produces tremendous
tension on the anchor cable which is used to spin the generator as the
buoy slowly rises (and the anchor cable extends) until the tide maxes
out. There were some recent innovations in this design that simplified
it and improved efficiency.

At any rate, a low profile buoy bobbing up and down with the tide has
extremely low environmental impact and there is a massive amount of
available energy at high densities waiting to be captured.

That certainly sounds interesting, and it sounds extremely simple. Why don't
we have them now?

'Cause we're stupid???


I think there's a bit more to it than that. Here on the Gulf of Maine
we're probably positioned better than the vast majority of the rest of
the world to take advantage of such a scheme - tides of approx 10 ft
amplitude, deep water close to shore and only rare tropical storms.
With two daily tides there's about 20 ft of rise available per day. In
our house we use a modest 10 kwh of electricity per day which equals
2.7 x 10^7 ft*lb. Divide by 20 ft and you need 680 tons of force to
generate that much power. That translates to buoy of 22000 ft^3. If
the water's deep enough, that's a buoy 100 ft tall x 17 ft in
diameter.

Another way to look at it is the displacement of one of the Aegis
destroyers, built in the next town, would be enough to power about 4
small homes.

If the tides are the more typical 2 or 3 feet, 100 foot deep water is
far from shore and hurricanes are a regular occurrence, the problems
are compounded

--
Ned Simmons

Pete C. wrote:

Not the way they are built currently. Covering 50 acres of wild area, be
it desert or forest with a reflector array around a collector tower is a
big environmental impact. Build the same facility in an urban area on
the roof of a really big mall and you've solved the environmental
problem. The generator and control facilities can be underground under
the parking lot. Indeed many of the reflectors can be over the parking
lot as well providing nice shading for the cars.

Have you ever driven through Nevada?

50 acres of solar collection wouldn't
make the slightest dent.

Jim Stewart wrote:

Pete C. wrote:

Not the way they are built currently. Covering 50 acres of wild area, be
it desert or forest with a reflector array around a collector tower is a
big environmental impact. Build the same facility in an urban area on
the roof of a really big mall and you've solved the environmental
problem. The generator and control facilities can be underground under
the parking lot. Indeed many of the reflectors can be over the parking
lot as well providing nice shading for the cars.

Have you ever driven through Nevada?

50 acres of solar collection wouldn't
make the slightest dent.

Nevada, no. West Texas and south eastern New Mexico, yes. Much
difference?

They are testing tidal flow generation in NYC's East River, which connects
New York Harbor to the Long Island Sound, and has very powerful tidal
currents.

http://enr.construction.com/features.../070509a-1.asp

the last I read was they were having some sort of technical difficulty.

I have a both a mercedes and a VW diesel, I have considered refining
"Greasel", but even at 300-400 miles a week, it's not worth it to me to mess
with a slimy mess of restaurant grease and figure out what to do with the
glycerine.
I ran 20 gallons of expired-date peanut oil in the Benz, ran fine, but it
was free. Vegetable oils still cost more than diesel.
--
Stupendous Man,
Defender of Freedom, Advocate of Liberty