HeyBub wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Perhaps we have reached a point where science is too important a
matter to be left to the scientists?


Well, the NSF (National Science Foundation), et. al., politicizes
science enough, wouldn't you say? It provides a first-level means
of spending money where it needs to be spent (I didn't say it
is a perfect system). So science is not (independently) left to
the scientists. Tax payers, via politicians, get some say in what
types of research are pursued with tax dollars.

Bill



Hmm. There's EMPIRICAL science - math, physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc. -
and there's SOFT science (social science, psychology, climatology,
phrenology, astrology) which may not be quantifiable, reproducible, or even
believable.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:57 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:


"Clean, renewable source of energy" - like what? Whale oil? There is
NOTHING that is both sparkling clean and renewable that can make
more than a trace difference in our energy needs.

Yes there is. Nuclear.

I agree, but the rabble claim that nuclear is the least "clean" of
anything. And since, in the energy field, "consensus" trumphs facts, we're
doomed.

I'm afraid as long as decisions are made on the basis of fear, nuclear is
destined to be a piddly player.


You are right - fear should not be a deciding factor. Reality should be
though. Nuclear is very dangerous and that fact must remain a preeminent
fact. It's when that realization is relaxed that thing go afoul.

--

-Mike-

On Jan 26, 4:35*pm, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

*Nuclear is very dangerous and that fact must remain a preeminent
fact. *It's when that realization is relaxed that thing go afoul.


I have to agree with that.

Safety, safety, safety.

Plop a few nukes along an electrified rail line, coast to coast and
look at the increase in safety we'll get from that. No solution is
perfect.
We're dealing with the lesser of evils here.

"Mike Marlow" writes:

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:260120101445329987%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalders tone.ca...
In article , Mike Marlow
wrote:

How far do you live from a reactor?

A couple or three kilometres.

Yes, there's a reactor in Saskatoon...

I'd rather live near a reactor than downwind from a sour gas well or a
coal burning power station.

You would huh? I live 11 miles from 3 reactors. I'm not anti-nuclear.
There have been however, enough causes for concern in the operations of
those reactors. Have you really thought about the effect of that sour gas
well and the likes of a reactor disaster?


Quite often. The chances of a reactor disaster are vanishingly small.

Even TMI released no external radiation.

That said, one would need to be building them by the hundreds to
replace the current coal and gas-fired plants.

scott

"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Those of us who live
closer understand that if something like 3 Mile Island happens -
it's our homes.

000000000000000000000000000000

Had to fly into Harrisburg once a month for a few years.

The approach took us right over TMI and as the plane banked, could
look out the window straight down into the gullet of the burned out
reactor.

Very interesting feeling.

Lew

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:43:44 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 26, 3:16*pm, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
snip

that elect google should take the time to insert
usenet conventions into their posts, rather than blast their stuff out with
no regard for how usenet operates. *Instead - we have to insert deliminators
for you....

Bull, yourself. Have you ever heard of a firewall? No NNTP posts
allowed, not even to a non-standard port. I've tried. Google is via
HTTP, so is firewall friendly.

Speaking of Usenet "standards"... Your post certainly is NOT. The
problem appears to be at *your* end. I'll check tonight if I get some
time.

Yep, Mike, your problem with Google is at your end. Everything looks
fine with Agent/Individual.

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:54:51 -0500, the infamous "Mike Marlow"
scrawled the following:


"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
tel...


It also may not save any money to buy used. I wanted a Honda or Toyota
hatchback. Around here used ones were going for a significant fraction
of the new price--ten year old cars going for half of new. Since I was
planning on driving it into the ground, I figured I may as well buy
new--that way I know the history of the car.

There are some exceptions due to market demand, but for the most part,
buying used vehicles saves a great deal of money. The biggest part of
depreciation happens in the first couple of years in a car's life, and
buying a 2-3 year old car with 20-30K miles on it generally can save about
half the price of the car. Most cars today are more than capable of
exceeding 100K miles with nothing more than a brake job, and quite capable
of doubling that without significant repairs. Not much to be gained these
days by knowing the history of a car. Notwithstanding the extreem
situations that might be referenced anectodally, most people pretty much
drive cars normally, and there just aren't the history of problems that used
to exist in the good old days.


On the other hand, if you're planning on turning over vehicles every few
years then it definitely makes financial sense to buy used.


It makes plenty of sense if you're going to keep the car for a couple
hundred thousand miles too.

The way I see it, is you can pay $350 a month to a mechanic or pay
$350 a month to a car finance company. With the latter, you get that
new car smell and no breakdowns or going without a vehicle (for days
at a time) for many years. Cost is the same, so why go used? Even
with my old skills as a mechanic, I can't do many things on new
vehicles today even if I were physically capable.

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:38:13 -0500, the infamous "Mike Marlow"
scrawled the following:

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Jan 26, 1:57 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:


"Clean, renewable source of energy" - like what? Whale oil? There is
NOTHING
that is both sparkling clean and renewable that can make more than a trace
difference in our energy needs.

Yes there is. Nuclear.

How far do you live from a reactor?

I lived 17 miles (as the crow flies, and downwind) from San Onofre
Nuclear Generation Plant (SONGS) for 35 years. They're clean, mon.

It's what we need to use to remove ourselves from the pollution known
as "coal burning". Coal-fired power plants put out more radiation per
year than all nukes have, combined for all the nuclear years. And
that's a fact. Go Nuclear!

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:18:29 -0500, the infamous "Mike Marlow"
scrawled the following:


"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:260120101445329987%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalders tone.ca...
In article , Mike Marlow
wrote:

How far do you live from a reactor?

A couple or three kilometres.

Yes, there's a reactor in Saskatoon...

I'd rather live near a reactor than downwind from a sour gas well or a
coal burning power station.

You would huh? I live 11 miles from 3 reactors. I'm not anti-nuclear.
There have been however, enough causes for concern in the operations of
those reactors. Have you really thought about the effect of that sour gas
well and the likes of a reactor disaster?

WHAT reactor disaster? The one you fear might happen but never has?
Do you also fear walking down the street for fear of getting mugged?
Fear driving for fear of getting in an accident? (ad nauseum)
Lighten up, ya wuss.

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:35:53 -0500, the infamous "Mike Marlow"
scrawled the following:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...
Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:57 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:


"Clean, renewable source of energy" - like what? Whale oil? There is
NOTHING that is both sparkling clean and renewable that can make
more than a trace difference in our energy needs.

Yes there is. Nuclear.

I agree, but the rabble claim that nuclear is the least "clean" of
anything. And since, in the energy field, "consensus" trumphs facts, we're
doomed.

I'm afraid as long as decisions are made on the basis of fear, nuclear is
destined to be a piddly player.


You are right - fear should not be a deciding factor. Reality should be
though. Nuclear is very dangerous and that fact must remain a preeminent
fact. It's when that realization is relaxed that thing go afoul.

How many nuke accidents which released radiation and killed people
have happened in the thousands of nuke years (yes, that many have been
around that long) that we've had power plants? ONE.

Number of deaths from the worst nuke accident in history: 56.


From the Wiki on Chernobyl:
"56 direct deaths. 800,000 (est) suffered radiation exposure, which
may result in as many as 4,000 cancer deaths over the lifetime of
those exposed, in addition to the approximately 100,000 fatal cancers
to be expected from all other causes in this population.[1]"

_May_ result in an additional 4,000 cancer deaths, or 4% more than the
100,000 cancer deaths they have from everything else. The fact is, the
area around Chernobyl has FEWER cancer deaths than the rest of Russia.
Nuclear power doesn't sound too awfully dangerous to me, Mike. Aren't
you being a bit paranoid about this? Dayam!

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:55:29 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:

On Jan 26, 4:35*pm, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

*Nuclear is very dangerous and that fact must remain a preeminent
fact. *It's when that realization is relaxed that thing go afoul.

I have to agree with that.
Safety, safety, safety.

43,000 people die in auto accidents in the USA every year. Not one
dies from nuke power.

Nuke power doesn't sound relaxed and unsafe to me; drivers do.

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

In article , "J. Clarke" wrote:

However nuclear, at least the kind we know how to do now, is not renewable.

It might as well be:
http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PA...11983cohen.pdf

In article , wrote:

The way I see it, is you can pay $350 a month to a mechanic or pay
$350 a month to a car finance company. With the latter, you get that
new car smell and no breakdowns or going without a vehicle (for days
at a time) for many years. Cost is the same, so why go used? Even
with my old skills as a mechanic, I can't do many things on new
vehicles today even if I were physically capable.

But the cost isn't the same, not even remotely close. If you're paying $350 a
month for a mechanic, you made a *very* poor choice when buying a used car.

Mike Marlow wrote:

I'm afraid as long as decisions are made on the basis of fear,
nuclear is destined to be a piddly player.


You are right - fear should not be a deciding factor. Reality should
be though. Nuclear is very dangerous and that fact must remain a
preeminent fact. It's when that realization is relaxed that thing go
afoul.

Dangerous? Oh, bother!

THE MOST dangerous form of power generation is -- wait for it now --
hydroelectric. Dams don't fail too often, but when they do, LOOK OUT.

There are three dangers from nuclear power: radiation poisoning, genetic
mutation, and cancer. With radiation poisoning, you get over it or you die.
There has never been a case of radiation-induced genetic mutation (human or
animal) coming to term and the fetus being born. And cancer is the most
studied disease on the planet.

Contrast those known dangers with the fact we don't even know the NAMES of
all the stuff that comes out of a coal-fired power plant's smokestack.

About 50% of the nation's electricity is generated by coal. If one could
show that the deaths attributed to coal-fired power plants are greater in
number than any that could conceivable occur from corresponding nuclear
facilities, wouldn't you say that reality should rule?

Okay, consider this: The nuclear fuel for a reasonably-size power plant for
ten years can be carried in a bread truck. The amount of coal that needs to
be moved from Wyoming to Chicago is vast beyond imagination. The number of
people killed or injured in mining, processing, and transporting that huge
amount of stuff is not negligible - and is considerably more than their
colleagues in the nuclear industry.

All that said, the biggest "fear" over nuclear power is: "We don't know what
to do with the waste!" Bull****. We know LOTS of ways to dispose of the
nuclear waste material - we just haven't chosen one. We haven't chosen a
method of disposal because we don't yet have to do so. By delaying the
decision, we increase our chances of discovering an even BETTER way of
disposing of it.

It would be a shame to encase it all in molten glass beads and rocket-ship
it into the sun only to discover later that the waste material could easily
be transformed into imitation Gucci handbags.

In article , wrote:

How many nuke accidents which released radiation and killed people
have happened in the thousands of nuke years (yes, that many have been
around that long) that we've had power plants? ONE.

Number of deaths from the worst nuke accident in history: 56.

Compare to approximately two orders of magnitude more deaths _per year_ in
coal mining accidents (worldwide)...


From the Wiki on Chernobyl:
"56 direct deaths. 800,000 (est) suffered radiation exposure, which
may result in as many as 4,000 cancer deaths over the lifetime of
those exposed, in addition to the approximately 100,000 fatal cancers
to be expected from all other causes in this population.[1]"

... and 14,000 new cases of black lung _every year_ in just the U.S. and
China.

"The worst coal mining disaster in the world took place on April 26, 1942 in
Benxihu Colliery, located at Benxi, Liaoning. A coal-dust explosion killed
1,549 miners working that day."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_disasters]

Chernobyl times twenty-eight.

Chris Friesen wrote:

On 01/26/2010 10:08 AM, HeyBub wrote:

One allows the
"invisible hand" to determine progress, the other uses "consensus."

Would that be the "invisible hand" that contributed to massive global
economic upheaval?

Never heard Barney Frank or Chris Dodd referred to in that way.




Not sure I'd want that particular hand to determine anything.


Definitely not Barney's, that's for sure.

Chris

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Mike Marlow wrote:


"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
el...


It also may not save any money to buy used. I wanted a Honda or Toyota
hatchback. Around here used ones were going for a significant fraction
of the new price--ten year old cars going for half of new. Since I was
planning on driving it into the ground, I figured I may as well buy
new--that way I know the history of the car.

There are some exceptions due to market demand, but for the most part,
buying used vehicles saves a great deal of money. The biggest part of
depreciation happens in the first couple of years in a car's life, and
buying a 2-3 year old car with 20-30K miles on it generally can save about
half the price of the car. Most cars today are more than capable of
exceeding 100K miles with nothing more than a brake job, and quite capable
of doubling that without significant repairs. Not much to be gained these
days by knowing the history of a car. Notwithstanding the extreem
situations that might be referenced anectodally, most people pretty much
drive cars normally, and there just aren't the history of problems that
used to exist in the good old days.

... it really depends and you need to look carefully. A number of years
ago, we bought a Ford Explorer, low miles used for significant savings over
new. When I went looking for a pickup, all of the used ones I could find
had nearly 100k miles on them and were about $5k below brand new, 0 mile
sticker price. I figured that even for a vehicle that might last 200k or
more miles, paying 3/4 brand new price (or more) for a 1/2 used vehicle
didn't make any sense.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Bill wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Perhaps we have reached a point where science is too important a
matter to be left to the scientists?


Well, the NSF (National Science Foundation), et. al., politicizes
science enough, wouldn't you say? It provides a first-level means
of spending money where it needs to be spent (I didn't say it
is a perfect system). So science is not (independently) left to
the scientists. Tax payers, via politicians, get some say in what
types of research are pursued with tax dollars.

Bill


Now, take that to the next level. When politicians decide what *type* of
research is to be funded and then the results that receive continuing
grants, what do you think will be the primary research interests and working
hypotheses of the scientists so funded.

As one person said, the result of having the government pay for something
is to continue to get more of that something.




Hmm. There's EMPIRICAL science - math, physics, astronomy, chemistry,
etc. - and there's SOFT science (social science, psychology, climatology,
phrenology, astrology) which may not be quantifiable, reproducible, or
even believable.




--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
Bill wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Perhaps we have reached a point where science is too important a
matter to be left to the scientists?


Well, the NSF (National Science Foundation), et. al., politicizes
science enough, wouldn't you say? It provides a first-level means
of spending money where it needs to be spent (I didn't say it
is a perfect system). So science is not (independently) left to
the scientists. Tax payers, via politicians, get some say in what
types of research are pursued with tax dollars.

Bill


Now, take that to the next level. When politicians decide what *type* of
research is to be funded and then the results that receive continuing
grants, what do you think will be the primary research interests and
working
hypotheses of the scientists so funded.

As one person said, the result of having the government pay for something
is to continue to get more of that something.


Fair enough. If the government announces that they would like to see more
reseach on education, then you will see more proposals to do research on
education. I know of institutions which hire people to stay
abreast of the types of proposals that are likely to be funded. What is
your point?

It sounds like you already know what type of research will be funded. I
don't
pretend to know. Military applications seem like a safe bet.

Bill

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

How many nuke accidents which released radiation and killed people
have happened in the thousands of nuke years (yes, that many have been
around that long) that we've had power plants? ONE.

Number of deaths from the worst nuke accident in history: 56.

Compare to approximately two orders of magnitude more deaths _per year_ in
coal mining accidents (worldwide)...


From the Wiki on Chernobyl:
"56 direct deaths. 800,000 (est) suffered radiation exposure, which
may result in as many as 4,000 cancer deaths over the lifetime of
those exposed, in addition to the approximately 100,000 fatal cancers
to be expected from all other causes in this population.[1]"

Disingenuous, at best. There were up to 500,000 people resettled and likely
millions of domestic animals killed.

On Jan 26, 11:56*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Bill wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Perhaps we have reached a point where science is too important a
matter to be left to the scientists?

Well, the NSF (National Science Foundation), et. al., politicizes
science enough, wouldn't you say? *It provides a first-level means
of spending money where it needs to be spent (I didn't say it
is a perfect system). * So science is not (independently) left to
the scientists. *Tax payers, via politicians, get some say in what
types of research are pursued with tax dollars.

Bill

* Now, take that to the next level. *When politicians decide what *type* of
research is to be funded and then the results that receive continuing
grants, what do you think will be the primary research interests and working
hypotheses of the scientists so funded.

* As one person said, the result of having the government pay for something
is to continue to get more of that something.


I have heard this at MY breakfast table...." Yup, that's a good field
to get into, the gov't is doling out all kinds of money for research
projects..." and those kids are still in highschool. (They were
talking about AGW)

I should imagine those kids are smart enough to know that if, after
the first paper calls the whole AWG for what it is, their funding will
be cut off.

The good ol' academic trough.

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:19:07 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

How many nuke accidents which released radiation and killed people
have happened in the thousands of nuke years (yes, that many have been
around that long) that we've had power plants? ONE.

Number of deaths from the worst nuke accident in history: 56.

Compare to approximately two orders of magnitude more deaths _per year_ in
coal mining accidents (worldwide)...


From the Wiki on Chernobyl:
"56 direct deaths. 800,000 (est) suffered radiation exposure, which
may result in as many as 4,000 cancer deaths over the lifetime of
those exposed, in addition to the approximately 100,000 fatal cancers
to be expected from all other causes in this population.[1]"

Disingenuous, at best. There were up to 500,000 people resettled and likely
millions of domestic animals killed.

Granted, the Chernobyl (pure negligence on a faulty design) accident
was a disaster, but look at the billions of dollars of damage from
coal-fired acid rain. Look at the amount of toxic waste from the coal
furnaces (some not even ours, imported to the USA in Chinese drywall.)
Chernobyl was a one-time happening while the disaster that it coal is
continuing to this day. Why aren't the Chicken Littles of the world
doing more about that? Have you read about the unstoppable
underground coal mine fires? Talk about a nasty carbon footprint...

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:06:12 -0500, the infamous "Bill"
scrawled the following:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
om...
Bill wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Perhaps we have reached a point where science is too important a
matter to be left to the scientists?


Well, the NSF (National Science Foundation), et. al., politicizes
science enough, wouldn't you say? It provides a first-level means
of spending money where it needs to be spent (I didn't say it
is a perfect system). So science is not (independently) left to
the scientists. Tax payers, via politicians, get some say in what
types of research are pursued with tax dollars.

Bill


Now, take that to the next level. When politicians decide what *type* of
research is to be funded and then the results that receive continuing
grants, what do you think will be the primary research interests and
working
hypotheses of the scientists so funded.

As one person said, the result of having the government pay for something
is to continue to get more of that something.


Fair enough. If the government announces that they would like to see more
reseach on education, then you will see more proposals to do research on
education. I know of institutions which hire people to stay
abreast of the types of proposals that are likely to be funded. What is
your point?

It sounds like you already know what type of research will be funded. I
don't
pretend to know. Military applications seem like a safe bet.

I believe that his point is: Politicians get lots of mileage from
saying they're doing something about AGWK, so they support funding of
AGWK research. Skeptics don't scare the public or put money into the
politicians' pockets, so they don't get funding.

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 05:39:31 -0800, Larry Jaques
continuing to this day. Why aren't the Chicken Littles of the world
doing more about that? Have you read about the unstoppable
underground coal mine fires? Talk about a nasty carbon footprint...

Not to mention the thousands or more who have died from black lung
disease and all the other related illnesses attached to coal mining.

On Jan 26, 10:49*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
tel...

It also may not save any money to buy used. *I wanted a Honda or Toyota
hatchback. *Around here used ones were going for a significant fraction
of the new price--ten year old cars going for half of new. *Since I was
planning on driving it into the ground, I figured I may as well buy
new--that way I know the history of the car.

There are some exceptions due to market demand, but for the most part,
buying used vehicles saves a great deal of money. *The biggest part of
depreciation happens in the first couple of years in a car's life, and
buying a 2-3 year old car with 20-30K miles on it generally can save about
half the price of the car. *Most cars today are more than capable of
exceeding 100K miles with nothing more than a brake job, and quite capable
of doubling that without significant repairs. *Not much to be gained these
days by knowing the history of a car. *Notwithstanding the extreem
situations that might be referenced anectodally, most people pretty much
drive cars normally, and there just aren't the history of problems that
used to exist in the good old days.

* ... it really depends and you need to look carefully. *A number of years
ago, we bought a Ford Explorer, low miles used for significant savings over
new. *When I went looking for a pickup, all of the used ones I could find
had nearly 100k miles on them and were about $5k below brand new, 0 mile
sticker price. *I figured that even for a vehicle that might last 200k or
more miles, paying 3/4 brand new price (or more) for a 1/2 used vehicle
didn't make any sense.

When I bought my 2001, the only "cheap" pickup I found was a 4YO with
80K miles and a rebuilt title (one side of the truck was an "SE", the
other "LE" or some such thing). It was $6K!

On Jan 27, 3:19*am, "LDosser" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message

...





In article ,
wrote:

How many nuke accidents which released radiation and killed people
have happened in the thousands of nuke years (yes, that many have been
around that long) that we've had power plants? ONE.

Number of deaths from the worst nuke accident in history: 56.

Compare to approximately two orders of magnitude more deaths _per year_ in
coal mining accidents (worldwide)...

From the Wiki on Chernobyl:
"56 direct deaths. 800,000 (est) suffered radiation exposure, which
may result in as many as 4,000 cancer deaths over the lifetime of
those exposed, in addition to the approximately 100,000 fatal cancers
to be expected from all other causes in this population.[1]"

Disingenuous, at best. There were up to 500,000 people resettled and likely
millions of domestic animals killed.

There are two schools of thought, each with an agenda.
1) Wow, such major carnage and only 56 dead.. maybe a few sickness
down the road... that's a long way from a Horishima.
2) Millions of dead people will breed millions of almost dead and
disfigured zombies!!

In article , Upscale wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 05:39:31 -0800, Larry Jaques
continuing to this day. Why aren't the Chicken Littles of the world
doing more about that? Have you read about the unstoppable
underground coal mine fires? Talk about a nasty carbon footprint...

Not to mention the thousands or more who have died from black lung
disease and all the other related illnesses attached to coal mining.

Yep, fourteen thousand new cases every year in just the U.S. and China.

Subject

Like it or lump it, dependance on fossil fuels is operating on
borrowed time.

Just as oil saved the whale, it's time to transition to clean energy
generation to save our planet.

You can go screaming and running into that good night or you can be
part of the solution.

Alternate clean renewable energy resources are plentiful.

Geo Thermal, solar, hydro, wind, yes an even nulcear, IF the disposal
problems can be resolved.

The challenge is to figure how best to get the job done effectively.

Flapping your gums, or in this forum your fingers on a keyboard,
simply isn't productive.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Subject

Like it or lump it, dependance on fossil fuels is operating on
borrowed time.

Why do you say that? Every year the provable reserves of petroleum
increases. Heck, there's even a theory that oil is being CREATED deep
underground.


Alternate clean renewable energy resources are plentiful.

Geo Thermal, solar, hydro, wind, yes an even nulcear, IF the disposal
problems can be resolved.

For the foreseeable future (say, 200 years), geothermal, solar, hydro, and
wind can, at best, merely nibble at the margins.

You can't run an Aluminum production facility - that takes Gigawatts of
power - off of sunbeams. Ever.

On 01/27/2010 09:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:

You can't run an Aluminum production facility - that takes Gigawatts of
power - off of sunbeams. Ever.

You underestimate the sun.

Average insolation for the earth is 250W/m^2. Using arrays of mirrors
to focus heat it would take a reflective area 1kmx4km to generate 1GW of
power.

Chris

wrote:
On Jan 26, 10:49 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
el...
It also may not save any money to buy used. I wanted a Honda or Toyota
hatchback. Around here used ones were going for a significant fraction
of the new price--ten year old cars going for half of new. Since I was
planning on driving it into the ground, I figured I may as well buy
new--that way I know the history of the car.
There are some exceptions due to market demand, but for the most part,
buying used vehicles saves a great deal of money. The biggest part of
depreciation happens in the first couple of years in a car's life, and
buying a 2-3 year old car with 20-30K miles on it generally can save about
half the price of the car. Most cars today are more than capable of
exceeding 100K miles with nothing more than a brake job, and quite capable
of doubling that without significant repairs. Not much to be gained these
days by knowing the history of a car. Notwithstanding the extreem
situations that might be referenced anectodally, most people pretty much
drive cars normally, and there just aren't the history of problems that
used to exist in the good old days.
... it really depends and you need to look carefully. A number of years
ago, we bought a Ford Explorer, low miles used for significant savings over
new. When I went looking for a pickup, all of the used ones I could find
had nearly 100k miles on them and were about $5k below brand new, 0 mile
sticker price. I figured that even for a vehicle that might last 200k or
more miles, paying 3/4 brand new price (or more) for a 1/2 used vehicle
didn't make any sense.

When I bought my 2001, the only "cheap" pickup I found was a 4YO with
80K miles and a rebuilt title (one side of the truck was an "SE", the
other "LE" or some such thing). It was $6K!


I'm totally pleased with my used pick up - 2004 Chevy Duramax diesel
2500, 54k miles bough in Jan of '07. Paid $20K instead of $44K for a
new '07. I only have 92K miles on it now as it's mainly used for towing
a 27' 5th wheel. It gets over 21MPG all around and 14.5MPG towing. At
my age, it'll probably be the last truck I buy as it should make it to
400-500K miles.

On Jan 27, 10:09*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Subject

Like it or lump it, dependance on fossil fuels is operating on
borrowed time.

Why do you say that? Every year the provable reserves of petroleum
increases. Heck, there's even a theory that oil is being CREATED deep
underground.

Now find a way to burn that 'new' batch of hydrocarbons cleanly.
This is not just about an infinite supply of oil, Bub, it's the mess
it makes as well.
Same for coal. If the stuff were to deliver itself at a power station
for free, it is still godawful dirty.
Just looking at the supply is looking at the problem with blinders on.

Alternate clean renewable energy resources are plentiful.

Geo Thermal, solar, hydro, wind, yes an even nulcear, IF the disposal
problems can be resolved.

For the foreseeable future (say, 200 years), geothermal, solar, hydro, and
wind can, at best, merely nibble at the margins.

The biggest culprit, in terms of dirty power, are the base-load
generating stations. That's where nuclear shines. ( I know..even in
the dark, hahafrickin' ha)

You can't run an Aluminum production facility - that takes Gigawatts of
power - off of sunbeams. Ever.

Aluminum production is a VERY small percentage of the power used on a
daily basis. So that dog don't hunt.
The nice thing about aluminum smelters, is that they can run on off-
peak hours smoothing the load curve.

A lot of dirt from fossil fuel also comes from mobile power.
Electrification of mass transport (people and goods) is a huge step
towards reducing dirty fuel consumption. Outlaw all stinky-fuel
powered lawnmowers and weed-whackers and leaf blowers. Put your nation
to work with push mowers and burn off some that fat! Outlaw tractors
and combines, harvest by hand... burn off even more fat.

See, Bub? You don't have an exclusive on silly-talk. G

Now for some light entertainment: *tuning my gittar*

*clearing throat*

When I was a child my family would travel
Down to Western Kentucky where my parents were born
And there's a backwards old town that's often remembered
So many times that my memories are worn.

Chorus:
And daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County
Down by the Green River where Paradise lay
Well, I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking
Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away

Well, sometimes we'd travel right down the Green River
To the abandoned old prison down by Adrie Hill
Where the air smelled like snakes and we'd shoot with our pistols
But empty pop bottles was all we would kill.

Repeat Chorus:

Then the coal company came with the world's largest shovel
And they tortured the timber and stripped all the land
Well, they dug for their coal till the land was forsaken
Then they wrote it all down as the progress of man.

Repeat Chorus:

When I die let my ashes float down the Green River
Let my soul roll on up to the Rochester dam
I'll be halfway to Heaven with Paradise waitin'
Just five miles away from wherever I am.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Subject

Like it or lump it, dependance on fossil fuels is operating on
borrowed time.

Just as oil saved the whale, it's time to transition to clean energy
generation to save our planet.

You can go screaming and running into that good night or you can be
part of the solution.

Alternate clean renewable energy resources are plentiful.

Geo Thermal,

Show us a working base-loade geothermam power plant.

solar,

Show us a working solar base-load power plant.

hydro,

Show us ten sites where a major hydro facility can be built that don't
already have one.

wind,

Show us a working base-load wind power plant.

yes an even nulcear,

This is the only item on your list that is proven to work and to have
significant growth capability.

IF the disposal
problems can be resolved.

The challenge is to figure how best to get the job done effectively.

Flapping your gums, or in this forum your fingers on a keyboard,
simply isn't productive.

Neither is pretending that pie in the sky is proven technology.

On Jan 27, 10:10*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Subject

Like it or lump it, dependance on fossil fuels is operating on
borrowed time.

Just as oil saved the whale, it's time to transition to clean energy
generation to save our planet.

You can go screaming and running into that good night or you can be
part of the solution.

Alternate clean renewable energy resources are plentiful.

Geo Thermal,

Show us a working base-loade geothermam power plant.

This is a good ideat, too:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4473382,00.html

solar,

Show us a working solar base-load power plant.

hydro,

Show us ten sites where a major hydro facility can be built that don't
already have one.

There are many but the greenies want dams torn down, not built.

wind,

Show us a working base-load wind power plant.

yes an even nulcear,

This is the only item on your list that is proven to work and to have
significant growth capability.

*LOTS* if you include Thorium and surplus weapons Plutonium. Greenies
aren't going to like this alternative much either.

IF the disposal
problems can be resolved.

The challenge is to figure how best to get the job done effectively.

Flapping your gums, or in this forum your fingers on a keyboard,
simply isn't productive.

Neither is pretending that pie in the sky is proven technology.

What do you want from watermellons. The interest is *not* in energy,
rather the opposite.

Chris Friesen wrote:
On 01/27/2010 09:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:

You can't run an Aluminum production facility - that takes Gigawatts
of power - off of sunbeams. Ever.

You underestimate the sun.

Average insolation for the earth is 250W/m^2. Using arrays of mirrors
to focus heat it would take a reflective area 1kmx4km to generate 1GW
of power.

Look, if you're going to advocate for solar at least learn how to run the
numbers properly. You need a continuous 1GW to run your aluminum plant.
You're going to use "mirrors" to "focus heat". Fine. Now you're going to
do what with that heat? Run a heat engine? So you're getting what, 50%
efficiency? (I'm being generous with that one). So you need to double that
area. Now, it gets dark at night, so you need to store energy somehow. You
need to generate 500W/m^2 during the day to make up for the 0 at night. So
double it again--more than double for a mid-latitude installation where days
are shorter than nights in the winter--for the Baie-Comeau plant for example
you'd have to triple that reflector area. And your storage system isn't
going to be completely efficient--if you're using batteries then you have
the immense cost of replacing them every few hundred charge/discharge
cycles--go out and price a gigawatt of the cheapest batteries you can find
and get back to us. Or maybe you're going to electrolyze water into
hydrogen. So that's happening at 80 percent. Now what are you going to do
with that hydrogen, use it to run your heat engine at night or are you going
to use fuel cells? If you're running your heat engine at night then you've
got another 50 percent efficiency hit, so double your collector area again
plus another 25 percent. Or maybe you're going to run hydrogen-oxygen fuel
cells--that's more efficient (but not hugely more) but now you also have a
huge bank of fuel cells to maintain. And how much added capacity do you
need to provide to deal with heavy overcast? How much does rain degrade the
efficiency of your reflectors? How much additional capacity do you need to
provide to allow for dust and bird poop on the reflectors, or are you going
to clean 16 or more square kilometers of reflector every day? And how many
cleanings can they take before the surface becomes unacceptably degraded?


So, your solar collector area to power that plant in Baie-Comeau, Quebec,
would be maybe 5.5-6km square, not your 1x4. The aluminum plant itself is
only about .5x.5 or .25 square kilometers. So how many power plants 20
times the size of the facility they power can we afford to build? The
Manic-5 dam, which actually does power that facility, using water from a
lake in a gigantic meteor crater, is only about 1.2km long. The entire
Millstone nuclear plant in Connecticut is only about .6x.2km.

On Jan 27, 10:20*am, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 01/27/2010 09:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:

You can't run an Aluminum production facility - that takes Gigawatts of
power - off of sunbeams. Ever.

You underestimate the sun.

Average insolation for the earth is 250W/m^2. *Using arrays of mirrors
to focus heat it would take a reflective area 1kmx4km to generate 1GW of
power.

Chris

This is likely to spark a load of questions. There is a really cool
saying in Dutch which translates into "one fool can ask more questions
than a 1thousand wise men can answer."
Apply when needed, rinse and repeat. G

On 1/27/2010 9:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Like it or lump it, dependance on fossil fuels is operating on
borrowed time.

Why do you say that? Every year the provable reserves of petroleum
increases. Heck, there's even a theory that oil is being CREATED deep
underground.

If the theory is correct, it would be a Good Thing to encourage that
process to take place in more readily accessible locations...

You can't run an Aluminum production facility - that takes Gigawatts of
power - off of sunbeams. Ever.

So? Run the aluminum production facilities from some other power source.

Patient to doctor: "It hurts when I do /this/."
Doctor to patient: "Well then, don't /do/ that!"



--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On 1/27/2010 8:44 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

The challenge is to figure how best to get the job done effectively.

All discussion fosters thought on some level, whether you agree with it
or not.

Flapping your gums, or in this forum your fingers on a keyboard,
simply isn't productive.

Only for the close minded ... and, as we see, it was your choice to
either hit the NEXT key, or flap yours.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Jim Weisgram wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:14:01 -0600, Swingman wrote:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html


http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Sorry, no can do. I suspect that few who frequent this forum truly
can, regarless of the large number of posts in this thread. Also, I am
not sure why this got posted in a woodworking forum. I mean, really,
why rec.woodworking?

I merely have a bachelor's in science, but that is sufficient for me
to know I can't seriously affirm or refute the body of evidence that
has been assembled regarding global warming.

But I do have opinions on some of these things.

Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

Chris Friesen wrote:
On 01/27/2010 09:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:

You can't run an Aluminum production facility - that takes Gigawatts
of power - off of sunbeams. Ever.

You underestimate the sun.

Average insolation for the earth is 250W/m^2. Using arrays of mirrors
to focus heat it would take a reflective area 1kmx4km to generate 1GW
of power.


Heh! Can you imagine what it costs to cover 4 sq km with grass seed, let
alone MIRRORS?

I have run the numbers. Allowing for conversion efficiency (70%), darkness
(12 hours), clouds (20%), and latitude (30°N), it would take a solar
collector the size of the Los Angeles basin (~1200 sq miles) to supply
electricity just for California (~50Gw). The only way to reduce the size of
the solar farm is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.

Leaving aside the cost to construct, install, and maintain something
covering 3,000 sq km, the citizens in Los Angles would have to live in
perpetual darkness.

Which, when one thinks on it ....