New coal power plants in British Columbia must not emit CO2
simple_...@yahoo.com
d....@hotmail.com
<simple_langu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.techreview.com/Energy/18240/
Old news. The latest news is that there are no new coal fire power
plants in the pipeline. The BC guvmint has mandated that consumers
must reduce consumption 10% by 2020 and substantial electricity price
hikes are in the immediate future. 20% of electricity must come from
green private sources by 2020 including the burning of excess biomass.
It sounds like the demand economy of Joseph Stalin but it is a Liberal
government. Under the Liberals the poor will be penalized for global
warming. Smart operators will still be able to make a fast buck under
the new regime. I wonder who will be in power in 2020?
Exxon Liars & Crooks
d....@hotmail.com
Not you either, wise guy and not the Green Party. Besides according to
some peer reviewed scientific reports the world will be entering a
period of global cooling about that time. I plan to be alive then how
about you? Want to make a wager about the weather in 2020?
d....@hotmail.com
> d...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Besides according to
> > some peer reviewed scientific reports the world will be entering a
> > period of global cooling about that time.
>
>
> --
> Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
You are a surfer boy from sunny California.
d....@hotmail.com
My apologies 'kT', I confused you with the siamese twins "Exxon Liars
& Crooks" and "Carbon Criminal Polluters" who post from the same
hosting IP, i.e. two guys who are the same guy. You are much smarter
than "Exxon Liars & Crooks" and "Carbon Criminal Polluters". Your
post don't show a hosting IP address. So it's a little harder to track
you down and make you squirm. Exxon pays me big bucks to do just that.
But don't worry, piss me off again and I find a way to make you feel
stupid.
Ray Lopez Kiddie-Porn@NAMBLA.org
Everybody at the local cyber cafe thinks you lick Exxon's Dick for
money, which locally we call "prostitution" in surfer talk.
d....@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is a joke right, NAMBLA.org? The North American Man-Boy Love
Association. You sick perverted pedophile. You have homosexual
relations with young boys and then you brag about it. My employers at
Exxon warned me about people like you.
Ray Lopez Kiddie-Porn@NAMBLA.org
Well tell them that Ray Lopez say go screw themselves and they boy
they rode in on.
Snap Whipcrack..............
> http://www.techreview.com/Energy/18240/
>
After the Yellowstone volcano erupts the world's temperature will drop
25 degrees! So stop crying about global warming.
Vendicar Decarian
<d....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Not you either, wise guy and not the Green Party. Besides according to
> some peer reviewed scientific reports the world will be entering a
> period of global cooling about that time.
Ya, reports. A web Blog written by a crackpot Russian.
Ahahahahah Velikovski would be proud of your abiltiy to evaluate sources
of information.
Ahahahahahahahah... You Pathetic Moron....
Vendicar Decarian
"Snap Whipcrack.............." <sn...@aol.com> wrote
> After the Yellowstone volcano erupts the world's temperature will drop
> 25 degrees! So stop crying about global warming.
On what basis do you draw such a conclusion.
Please show your analysis, and explain why this was not the case in the
past.
Also tell us why such an eruption would not be countered to minimize it's
impact on the U.S.
Stupid... Stupid.. Whipped Crack.
Fran
<simple_langu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.techreview.com/Energy/18240/
Mind you, it won't making *mining* coal one whit safer. In the United
States, which is actually pretty good by world standards, roughly 300
people die each year in coalmining-related accidents. Then we can add
in all those who die from silicosis or other causes connected with
coalmining.
In places where the emergency and health systems are much more poorly
resourced and organised, where safety culture is something few think
to add to brochures, and where the labour is so cheap that it's not
worth using machines, and 20 times as many people are needed to
produce the same output, each disaster is even worse, and the numbers
dying from associated health problems are far higher.
In China, the government says it wants to reduce deaths each year from
coalmining accidents to 5000, but widely accepted figures put the toll
at five times that, and nobody really knows for sure how many life
years are stolen in total, and how much of the lives of people in
mining villages are spent ill. In some places, the villages are
literally choking in coal dust and particulate. There are places in
China where the dust in the fetid air is choking the life out of
children in tiny filthy homes and class room, where the snow is
black.
This last accident in Siberia really underlines the point. This was no
old mine -- it was opened in 2002, but the drive for profit and the
poor safety culture meant they had not installed equipment to measure
the build up of CH4 in the shafts and so when the management team went
on an inspection tour, they got to pay personally for their
malfeasance, along with quite a few miners -- at least 100 died on
last count.
One could say much the same or worse for for mines elsewhere, in
Ukraine, South Africa and India.
"Clean coal" will still come to the process dripping in the blood of
those who have harvested it, and those nearby those who have. And of
course, it's very wasteful in energy terms. I'm no fan of nuclear
energy but in terms of loss of life, coal is never going to be
comparable. Nuclear energy in life cycle terms outputs a fraction of
the CO2 of coal or even (unfiltered) natural gas. And by the time you
factor in clean coal costs, it's going to be nearly as expensive.
I believe that there are better options than nuclear energy for
baseload power -- linking wind and wave and tidal power with pumped
storage at the seabords, gasification of waste biomass and bioreactors
using algae to make biodiesel for example. But "clean coal" is a con,
and will stay that way for the next 15 years at least, which means
that even in schedule terms, it's not part of a worthwhile suite of
solutions.
Fran
xnic...@hotmail.com
Ragging up is the only way enforce safety standards - Immediate walk-
out.
The British NUM in its heyday would never have tolerated the
conditions that many of the Chinese mines operate under.
Chinese mining is also very labour intensive - each worker only
produces 2.2% of what a US miner produces with a death rate 100 times
greater.
Although the Chinese government is trying to reduce the death rate,
they are doing it by sending in inspectors.
But health and safety has to be part of the culture of the workforce
and that requires strong unions.
I tend to agree with your assessments of energy sources.
Here's a link from a recent NUM news briefing on this:-
http://www.num.org.uk/?p=news&c=num
xnic...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
To reinforce the points above, this is an extract from the article
about the Siberian mine disaster quoted in the NUM's newsletter (from
the Guardian)
"Labor union officials blamed the explosion in part on quota systems
that encourage miners to work faster and harvest more coal,
potentially leading to carelessness.
Russia's mining industry fell into disrepair when government subsidies
dried up after the Soviet collapse. At least 30 workers died in
Russian mining accidents last year, including 25 killed in a fire at a
Siberian gold mine.
In 2004, a blast at a mine on the outskirts of Novokuznetsk killed 47
workers, and in 1997, a methane explosion at a mine in the city killed
67.
The ITAR-Tass news agency said Monday's explosion was the deadliest
mine accident in the Kuzbass region in 60 years.
In recent years, conglomerates such as Evraz SA have bought up coal
mines and similar enterprises and consolidated operations, selling raw
and semi-processed material to steel smelters, electricity producers
and other major industry. But some government officials have accused
private companies of cutting corners on safety measures to save
money."
Don Kelly
"Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174455133.3...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Fran
>
------------
You "believe" but do you have any facts to work with regarding base load
plants?
It doesn't appear so.
Linking wind, wave and tidal power with pumped storage at sea boards
ignores the problems that all are not near the coast, and, near the coast,
finding suitable pumped storage locations (not all that easy) or tidal
plants which do not have adverse effects on marine biology in the region
presents problems. In addition, linking of cyclic sources, unknown
availability (except statistically) other than for the tidal plant which
requires specific infill sources when tidal power is not available (in
France the tidal plant wags the tail of the much larger nuclear dog) is not
a solution for base load. Such sources displace fuel consumption at other
plants but does not replace the need for these other plants but do not
reduce the need for adequate spinning reserve capacity which can be depended
on to be available if and when needed.
In a region such as Alberta where there is plenty of low sulphur coal near
the surface as well as oil and gas, but no waves or tides within 500 miles
and little hydro power (one large site remains but its location, size(too
big) and ecological considerations are not attractive. The coal is
bituminous to sub bituminous but you don't need anthracite for a power
plants as the plant is designed to use the coal available. Wind power is
being used in Alberta but wind power penetration of 10-20% of energy needs
is probably about all that it will cover in that region.
Do we need coal?- whether we like it or not-we do-for many years to come.
Eventually green sources and nuclear will take over. Each region is
different and has different resources and needs so one ideal solution
doesn't exist.
--
Don Kelly dh...@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
Hanson Shit Flinger Monkey
> ----------------------------"Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> remove the X to answer
Your are so provincial. In Europe Russia flexes it's muscles two years
in a row imposing large gas hikes on one country. The country
retaliates by taking gas being shipped through country on the
pipeline, suddenly German and several other countries have a major gas
shortage. You get it? Enough gas is flowing through a single pipeline
to feed several entire countries.
You don't understand the 21st century at all.
You want to saddle last century's technologies with heavy debts on
long-term undesirable technologies investments that suck up all the
oxygen for developing 21st century energies. Solar sucks in Alberta in
the summer and goes downhill from there, but Alberta investing in
Arizona solar has a high payoff.
It might be expensive to build a gas pipeline from Arizona or Nevada
to Alberta but a 1,000 mile pipeline at $1m/mile is still cheaper than
to build one 500MW coal plant at 2007 prices.
The H2-PV economy means that homes are the powerplants. In coal plants
60% of the energy goes up the smokestack, but a fuel cell gives 100%
of the energy to the house in lighting, heat and hot water.
When comparing apples to apples you need to compare the home fuel cell
to:
(1) the electric bill and
(2) the heating bill, which might be different energy, say fuel oil,
and
(3) the hot water bill, which again might be natural gas instead of
electricity or oil.
When comparing the home fuel cell apples to apples you have to compare
furnaces, air conditioning, hot water system, and electric supply.
Compared apples to apples the home fuel cell looks good if it got the
investments that a couple coal plants are getting.
Really, apples to apples, the pipeline would have feed ins from many
locations: wind fields, solar farms, hydro, tidal, biomass gasifiers.
A thousand miles of 36" pipeline holds 12,973,000 kilograms of
hydrogen at one atmosphere of pressure. 1,000 psi is about 69
atmospheres. by increasing one more atmosphere, 14.5 psi you can store
12,973,000 more kilograms. Those are kgs of H2 each equal to a gallon
of gasoline. By going up to 136 atmospheres your pipeline pressure is
2,000 psi, 869,191,000 gallons of gasoline equivalent stored in the
pipeline over 69 atmos/1000 psi.
In Europe they are way ahead. They have pipelines made of reinforced
epoxy that are certified for use at 3,750 psi. That includes the
safety margins.
Even Canada is ahead in testing new pipeline materials. These are not
the future -- you can buy these today.
Here's a picture of a guy with an aluminum tank strapped on his back
filled with 3,000 psi. Hundreds of thousands of people do this.
http://www.phuket-guide.com/travel-information/travel_health_guide/scuba_diving/scuba_diver.jpg
We haven't even got to the part about polluter pays: carbon taxes
added onto your dirty mind imaginings of a dirty future.
Both your homes and your cars can be clean burning from this H2-PV
pipeline to 21st century future instead of 20th century failed
lifestyles of the past.
The same pipeline that brings your lights and heat will bring your
motor fuel right to your door.
There's a lot you don't know about the future.
Don Kelly
"Hanson Shit Flinger Monkey" <Hanson.Cy...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in
message news:1174538163....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 21, 7:25 pm, "Don Kelly" <d...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> ----------------------------"Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1174455133.3...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
Not provincial- just knowledge of the power industry and various factors
involved. I assume that your pipeline reference implies hydrogen production
through the use of Arizona solar energy. However, the viability of this on a
large scale is questionable. Efficiency is horrendously low and efficiency
still counts -not because of fuel costs but because more plant and more
effort, (including mining and manufacturing which is not pollution free)
implies high costs per unit of energy- not just the pipeline cost. Since the
effectiveness of the H2-PV economy is questionable, there is a problem that
wishful thinking doesn't deal with.
Agreed solar sucks in Alberta so I didn't suggest its use there. The concept
of using solar energy from Arizona -in Alberta - is fine in theory but less
attractive in practice.
In addition, the home market in Alberta, or in any other region, is not the
main user of electrical energy.
I have no objections to the use of solar, wind, etc and expect further
developments and increases in their use. All was pointing out was that there
are pros and cons and the balance is not the same everywhere nor is it
always positive nor always static. What is the best balance this year will
be different from 10 or 20 years from now. That is my hope- the trouble is
that past predictions have generally not born any resemblance to what
actually developed. Ballard has been in the fuel cell game for quite a
while but its inroads into the market are still pretty small.
Suppose that we suddenly had viable technology (not just developmental as is
the present case) for large scale use of the hydrogen technology- polluting
techology will be phased out but even 30 to 50 years from now, will still be
a large part of the power generation system and likely the majority of homes
will be still linked to the grid.
Seems pessimistic- but probably closer to the truth than your proposed
future. All I am against is wishful thinking replacing real thinking. The
dominance of the solar-hydrogen economy is still a long way off- possibly in
your later lifetime, not mine -it would be nice if it were otherwise.
I am not advocating "dirty sources" but am recognising that they are there
and that replacement of these sources is going to take longer than some seem
to think. This is unfortunate but denying it will not make it untrue.
Instead of talking about gallons stored in a pipeline at different
pressures-which is not actually of any importance except when filling it-
consider the energy that can be transferred in a given period of time. You
don't use a pipeline as a storage device. Pump it in and suck it out-keep
it moving -if storage is needed use local storage at either end. This is
far more cost effective and is actually safer with tanks that are properly
designed storage vessels located in a safe place. A high pressure scuba
tank is not a good analog to a pipeline and high pressure air is a different
animal (easier to seal and the dangers of a small leak are lower).
There are technical, sociological and political problems that
exist-ignoring these doesn't do anyone any favours. -
--
Don Kelly dh...@shawcross.ca
Exxon Liars & Crooks
> messagenews:1174538163....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > We haven't even got to the part about polluter pays: carbon taxes
> > added onto your dirty mind imaginings of a dirty future.
>
> > Both your homes and your cars can be clean burning from this H2-PV
> > pipeline to 21st century future instead of 20th century failed
> > lifestyles of the past.
>
> > The same pipeline that brings your lights and heat will bring your
> > motor fuel right to your door.
>
> > There's a lot you don't know about the future.
>
> Not provincial- just knowledge of the power industry and various factors
> involved. I assume that your pipeline reference implies hydrogen production
> through the use of Arizona solar energy.
That would be a reasonable guess based on the many references to H2
and hydrogen in the post.
> However, the viability of this on a
> large scale is questionable.
Everything is questionable. That's not an analysis of the pros or
cons, compared apples to apples with other energy schemes.
> Efficiency is horrendously low and efficiency
> still counts -not because of fuel costs but because more plant and more
> effort, (including mining and manufacturing which is not pollution free)
> implies high costs per unit of energy- not just the pipeline cost.
You make statement devoid of facts and figures which can be checked
for accuracy. A couple of dump trucks of sand is the main ingredients
in silicon solar PV sufficient to cover an acre with photo cells.
That is not major-league mining or environmental hell. It costs a
couple hundred dollars in most communities to have delivered the
required quantity of sand, and the price reflects both it ease of
acquisition and it's near universal abundance. It takes 1.2 kilograms
of silicon to cover one meter with PV so we can compute with great
accuracy how much silicon it takes to cover a hectare with photo
cells.
Twelve metric tonnes of silicon, something on the scale of two dump
trucks volume. The heavier portion of sand, SiO2) is the oxygen (O2)
weighing atomic weight 16=16=32, versus the Si atomic weight 28. The
losses along the way are 7/2s so the output Si is multiplied by 3.5 to
get 42 metric tonnes of sand -- two 20 tonne dumper trailers.
Cheap polycrystal Si has a net efficiency of 13% so a meter^2 is 130
watts, and 10,000 meters per hectare is 1,300,000 W or 1.3 MW/hr.
I think we have disposed of the mining environmental issue once and
for all. Once facts and figures are put on statements the bogus
statements fall like leaves in the wind.
You claim to be knowledgeable but you didn't put your facts and
figures on display. It takes six tons of coal to make 1.3MWh, and in
one sunny day in Arizona it takes as much coal in one day to equal the
silicon mined for the PV for 25 warranty years of production. On the
second day of operation the coal mining is double the silicon mining
impacts and on the third day the coal is triple.
> Since the
> effectiveness of the H2-PV economy is questionable, there is a problem that
> wishful thinking doesn't deal with.
Your wishful thinking is we will let you kill the Earth instead of
hanging you by the neck until dead if you try. What's questionable is
your reckless disregard for the consequences of your actions.
> Agreed solar sucks in Alberta so I didn't suggest its use there.
I suggested it for Alberta, but not in Alberta, but in some sunny
place without bothering about imaginary borders. The US imports energy
from Canada and Mexico and exports energy to Mexico and Canada. It is
stupidity to limit energy production to the same place it is consumed
-- do you live in a refinery?
> The concept
> of using solar energy from Arizona -in Alberta - is fine in theory but less
> attractive in practice.
Nobody cares about your aesthetics. If you want heat, light and
transportation fuel, pick up the phone and have the company connect
you to the pipeline grid, or stay in the dark, walk and freeze to
death. I don't care which attracts you more.
> In addition, the home market in Alberta, or in any other region, is not the
> main user of electrical energy.
The same grid that supports the homes is connected to the businesses.
HERE we are not companies but consumers, so the home consumer example
is an appropriate one. You get dumber by the paragraph.
> I have no objections to the use of solar, wind, etc and expect further
> developments and increases in their use.
Your objections or not are irrelevant. You obey local, national and
international laws or face the punishment. The laws say you may not
engage in conduct that maims or kills others. Nuremberg Law is higher
than Canadian Law -- obey or be punished.
> All was pointing out was that there
> are pros and cons and the balance is not the same everywhere nor is it
> always positive nor always static.
The thread was about BC. You made it about Alberta to undermine the
logic of what BC can do to make themselves obey the laws. You tried to
pretend that you don't have to obey laws in Alberta if you don't want
to.
> What is the best balance this year will
> be different from 10 or 20 years from now. That is my hope- the trouble is
> that past predictions have generally not born any resemblance to what
> actually developed.
The future is never exactly like it was envisioned. Get used to it.
> Ballard has been in the fuel cell game for quite a
> while but its inroads into the market are still pretty small.
That was then. This is now. Corporations bought by GM and under the
thumb of GM tend to comply with GM's master plan, and GM itself is
under the thumb of the du Pont Family since 1928, so GM does what the
biggest stockholders say it does. Both GM and du Ponts have very heavy
interests in the petrochemical industries, in case you haven't
noticed.
> Suppose that we suddenly had viable technology (not just developmental as is
> the present case) for large scale use of the hydrogen technology- polluting
> techology will be phased out but even 30 to 50 years from now, will still be
> a large part of the power generation system and likely the majority of homes
> will be still linked to the grid.
Not what the spreadsheets show. The last lump of coal burned in a
power plant, the last legal gallon of gasoline ever sold on Earth is
41 years from now or less. It can happen sooner, but it cannot take
longer. 41 years from now the amount of PV installed will be powering
every electric plug and switch and H2 will be powering every private
vehicle.
Again you fail to back up anything with facts and figures.
The current growth rate of PV industry wotldwide is 40% for several
years now. It was 25% compounded from 1979 to 2000. Taking the
conservative 25% compound growth rate gives the 41 years figure. Using
the current 40% compounded growth rate and FREEDOM DAY arrives much
sooner.
> Seems pessimistic- but probably closer to the truth than your proposed
> future.
My proposed future has facts and figures backing it up. Yours is
industry propaganda, from an industry who has spent $300,000,000 on
propaganda to delay the day we are free from their domination.
> All I am against is wishful thinking replacing real thinking. The
> dominance of the solar-hydrogen economy is still a long way off- possibly in
> your later lifetime, not mine -it would be nice if it were otherwise.
We've seen your kind 10,000 times here before: anonymous hit & run
throwing pessimism bombs into the group. No facts. No figures. Just
toxic memes to poison the thinking of the young.
> I am not advocating "dirty sources" but am recognising that they are there
> and that replacement of these sources is going to take longer than some seem
> to think. This is unfortunate but denying it will not make it untrue.
Toxic Memes. Poison. Observe children, and avoid this sad fate
happening to you.
> Instead of talking about gallons stored in a pipeline at different
> pressures-which is not actually of any importance except when filling it-
> consider the energy that can be transferred in a given period of time. You
> don't use a pipeline as a storage device.
The point is you CAN, if you want to, store plenty of energy in
pipeline grids without stressing the pipes or building giant storage
cans. That permanently disposes of the arguments about storage for
seasonal variations.
> Pump it in and suck it out-keep
> it moving -if storage is needed use local storage at either end. This is
> far more cost effective and is actually safer with tanks that are properly
> designed storage vessels located in a safe place. A high pressure scuba
> tank is not a good analog to a pipeline and high pressure air is a different
> animal (easier to seal and the dangers of a small leak are lower).
The scuba example is to head off any arguments that 2000 psi in a
3,750 psi rated pipe is any danger. Scuba divers strap on 3000 PSI
tanks on their back without fear of eruptions. The dangers of a small
leak on a scuba tank on your back is intense compared to a buried
pipeline.
Hydrogen is in many ways the safest of all combustible gases, but the
opposition spent $300 million to promote every lie they could about
that.
> There are technical, sociological and political problems that
> exist-ignoring these doesn't do anyone any favours. -
I dealt with it. I ran the numbers myself. I downloaded 1,100+ PDFs
from quality sources: http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html
It looks like the only one of us doing ignoring and wallowing in
ignorance is you.
Don Kelly
of silica sand "mined" ignores the fact that doping of silicon is needed to
make it into something useful(pure silicon doesn't work in semiconductors).
Where do you think the doping materials come from? How benign are they? -not
very or there would not be the concern with electronic waste that has risen.
Gallium arsenide, for example is rather nasty stuff.
It appears that you continue to misinterpret my position, replacing coherent
thought with invective and inappropriate statistics. Here is my position in
a nutshell:
a)I am not against the PV- hydrogen concept and household fuel cells. I
have questions with regard to the efficacy of this on a per household
basis.
b) I am not a fan of fossil fuel plants (much prefer hydro or even nuclear)
but they exist and will exist for some time in the future.
c)I recognise that problems exist.
d) I also recognise that changes must come about. However, I am not
convinced that the PV-hydrogen approach that you advocate is going to be a
dominant factor in 41 years. Statements that 40% growth will be dominant in
41 years depend on several assumptions which may or may not be true. If xxxx
then yyyy may be true but the problem is in the "if"
e)You have tried to compare electric bills with a number of things, and ,in
particular, the energy from hydrogen fuel cells. Fine-- comparison of xx
$/Joule to yy Joules. Apples and horseapples. The resultant best choice may
be as you indicate but neither you or I know because pertinent information
is missing.
Oh, what the hell, you have made up your mind. Your intentions are great
although your arguments based on numbers/statistics tend to be mixed up.
Don't throw in crap about storage capacity of pipelines ( a bit like talking
about the storage capacity of a wire in an electric circuit ) or mining of
silicon vs mining of coal.
Do any of your quality references on the net actually include solid
engineering analysis? It appears from quotes that it doesn't - or a lot of
pertinent information is left out, leaving numbers which may or may not be
true but sound great. Are you including any genuine science or engineering
in your thinking?
Possibly my problem is that I am expecting critical and rational thinking
on your part . Possibly it is that I am playing Devil's advocate. Possibly
it is that one of us is full of shit.
If you are saying that things need to change, and there is technology,
presently in its infancy, that will assist in such changes, I agree.
Actually it would be wonderful if I was wrong and you were right.
P.S. I used to live in Alberta and am now living in BC where the powers that
be, in my mind, (and I have told them so), are going the wrong way,
castrating BC hydro (maybe it is the reign of the MBA's that has done this-
planning horizon based on this year's bottom line).
goodbye
Don Kelly dh...@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------
"Exxon Liars & Crooks" <Liars_an...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in message
news:1174607171.1...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
---------
nice try
Exxon Liars & Crooks
> I do not dispute the coal required per MWh -but relating this to the amount
> of silica sand "mined" ignores the fact that doping of silicon is needed to
> make it into something useful(pure silicon doesn't work in semiconductors).
> Where do you think the doping materials come from? How benign are they? -not
> very or there would not be the concern with electronic waste that has risen.
> Gallium arsenide, for example is rather nasty stuff.
You are being obnoxious. The amount of Boron in PV is about 6 to 8
parts per million. Farmers regularly add pounds of the stuff to their
fertilizer mix per acre. Boron is extremely abundant, albeit in very
few concentrated locations. Purifying silicon for PV requires taking
out several hundreds parts per million.
Phosphorus is even more abundant. It's the second largest ingredient
in fertilizers.
You are attempting to throw shitballs at PV like you are a monkey in a
zoo. The fact is, one day's operation of modern coal plant consumes
135 train cars of coal in 24 hours, each car carry multiple tons of
coal.
One day's operation of a coal plant produces more environmental ruin
than all the PV ever made in the past history of the world going back
to the 1960s.
One acre of PV generates the equivalent energy every two days (11.7
sunny hours) equal to one ton of coal, 182 tons per year of coal
energy is mined from the sky clean without smokes, and in the 25 year
warranty period 4,563 tons of coal energy is produced from one single
acre of land by PV. That's 208 feet by 208 feet, covered by the
thickness of a business card, weighing two and a half tons of silicon
doped with a few pounds of boron and phosphorous.
Retief
<Liars_an...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
>You are being obnoxious.
Now THIS is comedy... Imagine this claim coming from the dork who
shifts nyms, forges posts/names, and massively increases the level of
useless noise occurring in the newsgroup...
Retief
Mass Killer COALition
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Now THIS is comedy... Imagine this claim coming from the dork who
> shifts nyms, forges posts/names, and massively increases the level of
> useless noise occurring in the newsgroup...
And he's still more acceptable than an ignorant cocksucking loser like
you.
Night of the Living Crackpots
Arnold Walker
"Exxon Liars & Crooks" <Liars_an...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in message
>
> One acre of PV generates the equivalent energy every two days (11.7
> sunny hours) equal to one ton of coal, 182 tons per year of coal
> energy is mined from the sky clean without smokes, and in the 25 year
> warranty period 4,563 tons of coal energy is produced from one single
> acre of land by PV. That's 208 feet by 208 feet, covered by the
> thickness of a business card, weighing two and a half tons of silicon
> doped with a few pounds of boron and phosphorous.
Ever thought about the environmental damage 13800 acres of PV's can cause
the environment
in cancer and health problems.
Silicon can give lung cancer...for starts......
Ever thought of what it would cost to wire up 13800 acres of PV's.
Compared to wiring up that coal plant.
Now how many acres is that coal plant going to use, even if the coal mine is
on the site.
Some answer to real estate expense....
How many people is it going require to operate and maintain 13800 acres of
PV site?
How many people is it going to require to operate and maintain the coal
plant?
What kind of legal expense are you going to have with 13800 acres of PVs?
when the community hears about your energy site?
What kind of legal expense are you going to have with coal plant?
>
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
H2P...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "Exxon Liars & Crooks" <Liars_and_Cro...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in messagenews:1174712449.1...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
The Residential rooftops of America provide 10% more space than is
requires to produce every kilowatt-hour currently used in the US.
http://hydrogentruth.info/page_04a.html
The Silicon is made out of the same sand that is in the kid's sandbox
in the playground, the same sand as on the beaches, the same sand as
goes into every bit of concrete made. The exact same sand as goes into
making your wine jugs and beer bottles laying around the floor of your
trailer.
> in cancer and health problems.
> Silicon can give lung cancer...for starts......
Silicosis is an occupational hazard like gasoline is. People die on
the job because of gasoline, you know. Coal dust causes even worse
damage to human lungs.
.
> Ever thought of what it would cost to wire up 13800 acres of PV's.
Yes. Yes I have. Have you? It cost's $1,500,000 in 2007 prices per
mile to wire the coal plant with transmission lines bringing the power
out to the distribution stations. Since new coal plants don't have any
wires yet, it means they have to be strung. The wiring for PV goes
down from the roof to a box where it goes into the house, or, if the
house is not using it all, it goes into the electric meter and spins
it backwards. The wiring in the house and the wiring from the poles to
the meter are already there, so you are talking a a few feet of wire
from the roof down to the box on each house.
> Compared to wiring up that coal plant.
> Now how many acres is that coal plant going to use, even if the coal mine is
> on the site.
The largest coal mine is 20 square miles open pit at Four Corners, New
Mexico, but coal mines mountain top in West Virgina and other places.
http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
> Some answer to real estate expense....
> How many people is it going require to operate and maintain 13800 acres of
> PV site?
Usually they do it over the internet.
> How many people is it going to require to operate and maintain the coal
> plant?
Who cares because it's not going to get built anyway.
> What kind of legal expense are you going to have with 13800 acres of PVs?
None.
> when the community hears about your energy site?
It's the LAW in California: ALL NEW COMMUNITIES have to be PV ready
when builders are making 50 or more homes in a subdivision and must
have 10% of the home power come from PV. Law starts in 2010, thre
years to get ready.
> What kind of legal expense are you going to have with coal plant?
The lawsuits will cast more than the plant construction and take 20
years in court. By the time the courts finally rule the plant
operators will be toothless white-haired senior citizens pushing
walkers.
daestrom
<H2P...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174801469....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 24, 10:22 pm, "Arnold Walker" <arnoldwal...@consolidated.net>
> wrote:
>> "Exxon Liars & Crooks" <Liars_and_Cro...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in
>> messagenews:1174712449.1...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > One acre of PV generates the equivalent energy every two days (11.7
>> > sunny hours) equal to one ton of coal, 182 tons per year of coal
>> > energy is mined from the sky clean without smokes, and in the 25 year
>> > warranty period 4,563 tons of coal energy is produced from one single
>> > acre of land by PV. That's 208 feet by 208 feet, covered by the
>> > thickness of a business card, weighing two and a half tons of silicon
>> > doped with a few pounds of boron and phosphorous.
>>
>> Ever thought about the environmental damage 13800 acres of PV's can cause
>> the environment
>
> The Residential rooftops of America provide 10% more space than is
> requires to produce every kilowatt-hour currently used in the US.
>
> http://hydrogentruth.info/page_04a.html
>
Let's see, that page claims to have a power output of 334,541 kW/sq. mile,
and a total of 6,091 sq. miles of rooftops. It summarizes at the bottom of
the table that those rooftops would produce 4,090,482,000,000 kWh a year.
That means each roof top must produce full power output for 2007 hours a
year. That's a bit over 5 hours a day, every single day of the year.
The calculations also *assume* that all 2000 sq ft of each homes roof is
able to produce full power output. How many homes have you seen that have
the entire roof tilted toward the sun?
Take for example, the northeast part of the US. Many (perhaps half) of the
homes are two-story. This means that a 2000 sqft home has roughly 1000 sqft
of roof. Again, most homes have a roof that is ridged in the middle and
pitched away from the ridge on each side, so only 1/2 of that roof is
suitable for PV (assuming the ridge runs east-west so one side faces south
and not the ridge running north-south so roof faces are towards east and
west). So that cuts the roof area again, to about 500 sqft.
About three months out of the year, my roof is covered with snow, but I do
live in a 'snow belt'. Yet there are many areas that have cloudy weather.
To produce output at your assumed levels would require 5 full sun hours per
day all year round. Large parts of the country where folks have houses do
not get this much sun.
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_pv_annual_may2004.jpg
And very few homes have all of their roof tilted at their latitude to face
the sun.
Trouble with pseudo-engineers is they pick-and-choose the numbers that suit
them and ignore the details that get in their way.
daestrom
Vendicar Decarian
"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote
> And very few homes have all of their roof tilted at their latitude to face
> the sun.
Ok, he's off by a factor of 2. I suppose the roofs of shopping malls will
have to be covered as well.
We can do the sun facing walls as well.
Course you could use an acre of wheat converting solar energy at 6%
effiiency, or an acre of PV converting at 40% efficiency.
Hmmmm.... I think I'll select the PV generation thank you.
Insignificant Flyspecks
wrote:
> <H2PV...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174801469....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 10:22 pm, "Arnold Walker" <arnoldwal...@consolidated.net>
> > wrote:
> >> "Exxon Liars & Crooks" <Liars_and_Cro...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in
> >> messagenews:1174712449.1...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
> >> > One acre of PV generates the equivalent energy every two days (11.7
> >> > sunny hours) equal to one ton of coal, 182 tons per year of coal
> >> > energy is mined from the sky clean without smokes, and in the 25 year
> >> > warranty period 4,563 tons of coal energy is produced from one single
> >> > acre of land by PV. That's 208 feet by 208 feet, covered by the
> >> > thickness of a business card, weighing two and a half tons of silicon
> >> > doped with a few pounds of boron and phosphorous.
>
> >> Ever thought about the environmental damage 13800 acres of PV's can cause
> >> the environment
>
> > The Residential rooftops of America provide 10% more space than is
> > requires to produce every kilowatt-hour currently used in the US.
>
> >http://hydrogentruth.info/page_04a.html
>
> Let's see, that page claims to have a power output of 334,541 kW/sq. mile,
> and a total of 6,091 sq. miles of rooftops. It summarizes at the bottom of
> the table that those rooftops would produce 4,090,482,000,000 kWh a year.
> That means each roof top must produce full power output for 2007 hours a
> year. That's a bit over 5 hours a day, every single day of the year.
5 hours daily, or 2000 hours per year, average insolation is used in
the US. 1,700 is used in Europe. It includes areas with 9 or 10 hours
summer peaks and ares with 2 hours winter peaks jumbled together.
Unless you can show better researched data than the 20 years of Dept
of Energy, NREL, then I will stay with the best data currently
available.
> The calculations also *assume* that all 2000 sq ft of each homes roof is
> able to produce full power output. How many homes have you seen that have
> the entire roof tilted toward the sun?
Not really. It is not actually proposing the rooftops all try to
produce power -- it is addressing the size dimension required to
counter grossly exaggerated figures put into widespread circulation by
people using illegal competition methods to protect their poser
monopoly. The rooftops could be oriented towards the sun in a rational
architecture, and they could be covered in PV, or the south facing
facades could be. The reality is people often have deciduous shade
trees protecting them from summer solar gain.
> Take for example, the northeast part of the US. Many (perhaps half) of the
> homes are two-story. This means that a 2000 sq.ft home has roughly 1000 sqft
> of roof.
The computation assigns 600 sq.ft. for multistory buildings per
residence. The figures are taken from most current US census data on
single-family detached housing including trailers and manufactured
homes, being average 2000, sq,ft., 3 - 8 rooms averaging 5 being the
most common. that makes up 75,000,000 of the homes and the rest is
30,000,000 homes with average 3 person occupancy rates.
Publicly owned buildings, like schools could also participate. After
all, these figures supply every single kilowatt, public & private,
used in the US according to most current figures available.
> Again, most homes have a roof that is ridged in the middle and
> pitched away from the ridge on each side, so only 1/2 of that roof is
> suitable for PV (assuming the ridge runs east-west so one side faces south
> and not the ridge running north-south so roof faces are towards east and
> west). So that cuts the roof area again, to about 500 sqft.
>
> About three months out of the year, my roof is covered with snow, but I do
> live in a 'snow belt'. Yet there are many areas that have cloudy weather.
> To produce output at your assumed levels would require 5 full sun hours per
> day all year round. Large parts of the country where folks have houses do
> not get this much sun.http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_pv_annual_may2004.jpg
Your image is accurate. Your conclusion is inaccurate.
The highest payoffs are in the US southwest, where full PV coverage
should begin first. The six, seven and eight hours average days there
compensate for a lot of clouds in the worst solar districts along the
Canadian border from the Northeast to Seattle.
There is nothing stopping NY from putting its PV in Arizona, except
stupidity.
Pipelines are the cheapest most cost-effective means of moving bulk
power across the country. Pipelines cost less than wires and are less
exposed.
The need for POWER is not just for electric power, but heating energy
and hot water and cooking. Gas supplies all in one with home fuel
cells eventually displacing individual utility devices. Co-generation
of light and heat is 70% to 80% efficient using natural gas, and would
be even more efficient using hydrogen. By comparison, super-critical
boilers cannot top 60% efficiency for electricity and must waste the
rest as unused heat. Heating is the far more expensive utility bill in
the dreary skies parts of the country, exactly because they get poor
sunshine.
Your wasteful mentality cannot think comprehensively. You insist in
separating utilities into monopolies that can be centrally controlled
from Wall Street after a century of proof from the Soviet Union that
centralized planning is the least efficient system known. Competition
does not mean only between giant dinosaurs slated for oblivion. When
freedom exists, people build homes that are solar oriented to reap an
easy return from selling power to their neighbors -- the utility
monopolies refused to permit feed-in for decades, so no wonder people
disregarded their roof's profit potential.
> And very few homes have all of their roof tilted at their latitude to face
> the sun.
>
> Trouble with pseudo-engineers is they pick-and-choose the numbers that suit
> them and ignore the details that get in their way.
>
> daestrom
So why do you prefer to act like a "pseudo-engineer who pick-and-
choose the numbers that suit you and ignore the details that get in
daestrom's way."
R.H. Allen
>
> 5 hours daily, or 2000 hours per year, average insolation is used in
> the US. 1,700 is used in Europe. It includes areas with 9 or 10 hours
> summer peaks and ares with 2 hours winter peaks jumbled together.
> Unless you can show better researched data than the 20 years of Dept
> of Energy, NREL, then I will stay with the best data currently
> available.
In a really sunny month at an excellent location with a properly tilted
solar array you can count on 8 hours a day over the course of that
month. But the maximum daily average over the course of any month that
NREL has ever seen for a module titled at (latitude - 15) degrees
anywhere in the United States is 8.6 hours (in Las Vegas). Nowhere in
the US will you get 9 to 10 hours a day reliably for any length of time,
if ever, unless you use tracking (in which case you can do much better
than 9 to 10 hours a day). That's straight from NREL's data.
beav
<Insignifica...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
if there was a payoff, institutions, companies and people would be
going PV in droves, not in trickles. there would be huge industries
supporting this PV industry. not just a bunch chip manufacturers
selling damaged Si pieces.
>
>There is nothing stopping NY from putting its PV in Arizona, except
>stupidity.
merely economics. make your business case on Wall Street. find
investors.
hahahaha!
you sure can name-call. how's the sales calls going? you've got a
lot of hype, a lot of hope and not much else.
Arnold Walker
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42yNh.12030$Sm....@read1.cgocable.net...
You could not really be expected to do differently.
Insignificant Flyspecks
Vendicar Decarian
>> Hmmmm.... I think I'll select the PV generation thank you.
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> Of course you would .....lame data with holes in it .
> You could not really be expected to do differently.
Not only that. I'm going to require you to pay for it. And if you refuse
I'm going to throw you in jail, take your house, your car, and your other
posessions, and sell them to the highest bidder, and then use the money to
build the necessary facilities.
Capitulate or die. Which is your choice.
Vendicar Decarian
"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
> if there was a payoff, institutions, companies and people would be
> going PV in droves, not in trickles.
If there was a payoff in using CF lighting, people wouild be going to CF
lighting in drives not in trickles.
There is a proven payoff. Your supposition is therefore disproven.
Eeyore
Vendicar Decarian wrote:
CF lighting is popular outside the USA. I have almost nothing but CFLs here for
example.
Graham
Vendicar Decarian
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
> CF lighting is popular outside the USA. I have almost nothing but CFLs
> here for
> example.
Congrats.
It will soon be a legislated requirement in YankVille, and the
RepubliKKKants will do their best to preserve the God Given AmeriKKKan right
to flush 3/4 of their electric power down the toilet.
CF has it's problems as well though. Mercury. CF is a stepping stone to
OLED lighting, now just entering the spotlight market.
beav
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
>> if there was a payoff, institutions, companies and people would be
>> going PV in droves, not in trickles.
>
> If there was a payoff in using CF lighting, people wouild be going to CF
>lighting in drives not in trickles.
uuuummmmm. they are. the local Home Depot has a 5 CF pack that's
free after rebate.
for the chance to reduce my lighting bill to close to zero, i jumped
all over that one.
2 months ago, we had a big ice storm that knocked out power in my
neighborhood for several days. i had a small generator fired up to
run the furnace and water pump. 20 A available.
incandescent lights would cause a noticeable drag on the generator.
several CFs made no difference. a CRT TV set was impossible to watch
but a digital LCD screen made no difference. modern refrigerator?
yes. ancient one? no.
microwave? yes. resistance oven? no.
what i'm trying to say is that efficiency is its own reward. vast
schemes are unnecessary.
if anything, economic drive to efficiency makes a transition to some
other source of power simpler.
>
> There is a proven payoff. Your supposition is therefore disproven.
you were saying something?
>
>
Arnold Walker
If it was a good idea ,legislated would not be needed ....
Big government equals big corruption....
Take a look at the Demon-cratics some time.......
Hang all Exxon Directors
Vendicar Decarian
>> It will soon be a legislated requirement in YankVille, and the
>> RepubliKKKants will do their best to preserve the God Given AmeriKKKan
>> right to flush 3/4 of their electric power down the toilet.
>>
>> CF has it's problems as well though. Mercury. CF is a stepping stone to
>> OLED lighting, now just entering the spotlight market.
Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> Government legislated is the problem.
Still drunk Arnold?
Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> If it was a good idea ,legislated would not be needed ....
Get off the booze Arnold.
Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> Big government equals big corruption....
Big corporations = big corruption.
Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> Take a look at the Demon-cratics some time.......
Where are the WMD Arnold? Where are those mobile weapons labs? And those
crop dusters that were designed to carry anthrax, Where are they?
You Lying RepubliKKKan piece of filth.'
Souls Black as Coal
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1603320,00.html
Warming May Create Climates, Cut Others
Some climates may disappear from Earth entirely, not just from their
current locations, while new climates could develop if the planet
continues to warm, a study says. Such changes would endanger some
plants and animals while providing new opportunities for others, said
John W. Williams, an assistant professor of geography at the
University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Using global change forecasts prepared for the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, researchers led by Williams used computer models to
estimate how climates in various parts of the world would be affected.
Their findings are being published in this week's online edition of
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The IPCC, representing the world's leading climate scientists,
reported in February that "warming of the climate system is
unequivocal, as is now evident from observation of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice
and rising global average sea level."
Tropical regions in particular may face unexpected changes,
particularly the rain forests in the Amazon and Indonesia, Williams'
researchers concluded.
This was surprising, Williams said in a telephone interview, since the
tropics tend to have little variation in weather.
But that also means temperature changes of 3 or 4 degrees in these
regions might have more impact than a change of 5 to 8 degrees in a
region that is accustomed to regular changes.
Species living in tropical areas may be less able to adapt, he said,
adding that that is speculative and needs further study.
Areas like the Southeastern United States and the Arabian Peninsula
may also be affected, the researchers said, adding that mountain areas
such as in Peruvian and Colombian Andes and regions such as Siberia
and southern Australia face a risk of climates disappearing
altogether.
That doesn't mean these regions would have no climate at all - rather
their climate would change and the conditions currently in these areas
would not occur elsewhere on Earth.
That would pose a risk to species living in those areas, Williams
observed.
If some regions develop new climates that don't now exist, that might
provide an opportunity for species that live there, Williams said.
"But we can't make a prediction because it's outside our current
experience and outside the experience of these species
Arnold Walker
We could see a major leap....
Vendicar Decarian
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:53:06 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
> <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
>>> if there was a payoff, institutions, companies and people would be
>>> going PV in droves, not in trickles.
>>
>> If there was a payoff in using CF lighting, people wouild be going to CF
>>lighting in drives not in trickles.
"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
> uuuummmmm. they are. the local Home Depot has a 5 CF pack that's
> free after rebate.
Neato. Why is that needed 25 years after their introduction? Why hasn't
the AmeriKKKan population converted 25 years after they became available?
If AmeriKKKans had been moving to CF in droves, then incandescent would
have been replace entierly two decades ago.
"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
> for the chance to reduce my lighting bill to close to zero, i jumped
> all over that one.
You will cut your lighting bill by 3/4 of (1/5,1/3) approx of your total
since lighting is typically about 1/5th or maybe 1/3rd of your total
depending on how you have things arranged. So expect a reduction of 15% to
25%. Mine was about 20%.
"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
> 2 months ago, we had a big ice storm that knocked out power in my
> neighborhood for several days. i had a small generator fired up to
> run the furnace and water pump. 20 A available.
>
> Incandescent lights would cause a noticeable drag on the generator.
> several CFs made no difference. a CRT TV set was impossible to watch
> but a digital LCD screen made no difference. modern refrigerator?
> yes. ancient one? no.
> microwave? yes. resistance oven? no.
I recently had to replace my hot water tank and refrigerator. I purchased
units that were more appropriate for the size of my home and as a result cut
my energy consumpiton by anothe 20%. Solar water heating is in the cards in
the coming few years. That I estimate will reduce consumption by another
30% in my case. At this point though it makes little economic sense. I now
consume only about $10 of electric power a month. It makes more sense to
put resources into increase winter heating efficiency.
As it stands I've improved that by about 50% over the last decade as well.
"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
> what i'm trying to say is that efficiency is its own reward. vast
> schemes are unnecessary.
>
> if anything, economic drive to efficiency makes a transition to some
> other source of power simpler.
Remember the final goal for you is a reduction of your energy consumption
by 90%.
So far I'm at around 60% with no change in lifestyle. In fact an
improvement in comefort, with reduced reliance on utilities and greater
security from service interruptions.
With regard to backup power, my furnace can operate in convection mode so
as long as there is gas pressure, it continues to provide heat. Lighting
and sundry electic power is available from two UPS systems, Hot water and
refrigeration will maintain themselves for 24 hours, and fuel for emergency
cooking is stocked. I have a week before I start to start getting
inventive.
For example, the two small UPS power supplies will provide minimal
lighting using CF bulbs for about 15 to 20 total hours.
I have tentative plans for implementing a direct passive solar heating
system that will reduce winter time heating fuel consumption by another 50%,
The final steps of adding a condensing furnace and a flash hot water heater
and the removal of the electrically heated tank should get me very close to
a 90% reduction in overall energy consumption.
As consumption is reduced, new possibilities begin to become feasable like
PV generatrion for powering low voltage OLED lighting, At that point
Refrigeration becomes 50% of the electric power consumption with the
remainder being the ceiling fans and the PC entertainment system. PC power
requirements will drop about 50% over the next few years, and refrigeration
during the winter months can be accomplished at zero cost through the
utilization of cold outside air.
As to the fans, they are not designed to be efficient. Typically electric
motor designs can be made around 30% more efficient.
Oh and as to your comment on big projects not being required. They are
absoutely required as long as the population remains ignorant and compacent
so that new generating facilities are required to provide current levels of
power.
There are some big changes that can be made with very little effort for
example. Like requiring all new housing be built such that the largest roof
surface and wall surface is available for the installation of solar panels
and passive heating systems.
It's not rocket science.
Exxon Liars & Crooks
Unequivocal, Arnold Walker, "warming of the climate system is
Arnold Walker
"Exxon Liars & Crooks" <Liars_an...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in message
In the end life continued....even when we are talking 100F temperature
change.
As in the some of the transitions from global warming to global cooling.
At that time we glaciers as far south as Colorado and Kansas.
The land species like mamoths had more hair during that time of cooling
period.
It is also unequivocal ,that you cannot buy your way out of climate change
with carbon coupons.
Though the con artist will be heart broken ,if you didn't belive that you
could.
Night of the Living Crackpots
Arnold Walker
right.
And that California and Louisaina is a prime example of what big government
can do for you.
Maybe if you are going to require that much money on energy ,add the same
provision for nuke power.
At least ,the comsumer would get thier money's worth on that.
The miltary is already running home sized nuke devices for sensors ,etc.
And after all ,if nukes for terrists is a good thing like you stated on Iran
......then there is nothing stoppping homeowners from
also claiming their right to nuke power.
Especially with the same tax credits and all of PV.
With PV still having troubles paying off in a reasonable period.
Invasion of the Crackpots
wrote:
> "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:wLgOh.12444$Sm....@read1.cgocable.net...
>
>
>
> >> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:53:06 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
>
> >>>"beav" <BEAVI...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
> >>>> if there was a payoff, institutions, companies and people would be
> >>>> going PV in droves, not in trickles.
>
> >>> If there was a payoff in using CF lighting, people wouild be going to CF
> >>>lighting in drives not in trickles.
>
> >> uuuummmmm. they are. the local Home Depot has a 5 CF pack that's
> >> free after rebate.
>
> > Neato. Why is that needed 25 years after their introduction? Why hasn't
> > the AmeriKKKan population converted 25 years after they became available?
>
> > If AmeriKKKans had been moving to CF in droves, then incandescent would
> > have been replace entierly two decades ago.
>
> >> for the chance to reduce my lighting bill to close to zero, i jumped
> >> all over that one.
>
> > You will cut your lighting bill by 3/4 of (1/5,1/3) approx of your total
> > since lighting is typically about 1/5th or maybe 1/3rd of your total
> > depending on how you have things arranged. So expect a reduction of 15%
> > to 25%. Mine was about 20%.
>
> >> 2 months ago, we had a big ice storm that knocked out power in my
> >> neighborhood for several days. i had a small generator fired up to
> >> run the furnace and water pump. 20 A available.
>
> >> Incandescent lights would cause a noticeable drag on the generator.
> >> several CFs made no difference. a CRT TV set was impossible to watch
> >> but a digital LCD screen made no difference. modern refrigerator?
> >> yes. ancient one? no.
> >> microwave? yes. resistance oven? no.
>
> > I recently had to replace my hot water tank and refrigerator. I
> > purchased units that were more appropriate for the size of my home and as
> > a result cut my energy consumpiton by anothe 20%. Solar water heating is
> > in the cards in the coming few years. That I estimate will reduce
> > consumption by another 30% in my case. At this point though it makes
> > little economic sense. I now consume only about $10 of electric power a
> > month. It makes more sense to put resources into increase winter heating
> > efficiency.
>
> > As it stands I've improved that by about 50% over the last decade as
> > well.
>
Unequivocal, Joe Fischer, "warming of the climate system is
Vendicar Decarian
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> The Demon-cratic has spoken ....now if it could be logic .
> We could see a major leap....
Get off the booze Arnold.
Australian detainee writes of beatings at Guantánamo
By Raymond Bonner
Monday, March 19, 2007
LONDON: The first Guantánamo detainee to be formally charged under the new
military commission rules, David Hicks, has alleged in a court document
filed here that during nearly five years in American custody he has been
frequently beaten during interrogations, and that as a result he
"cooperated" with his interrogators.
The document said that beatings and other abuse included being thrown on the
ground along with other detainees and walked on by soldiers, being stripped
naked, having all his body hair shaved, and being subjected to injections.
The maltreatment began during interrogations in Afghanistan and continued
aboard U.S. Naval ships where he was held before being taken to Guantánamo,
in early 2002, according to an affidavit by Hicks that has been filed in
support of a request by Hicks for British citizenship. Hicks is Australian;
his mother was born in Britain.
A spokesman for the military commission, Commander J.D. Gordon, described
Hicks's allegations as "false," and "completely lacking in merit."
At a U.S. military commission hearing scheduled for March 26, Hicks will
plead not guilty to the charge of material support for terrorism, his
lawyer, Major Michael Mori, said. The initial charges against Hicks,
including attempted murder and aiding the enemy, have been dropped.
Major Mori's aggressive representation continues to draw fire from the chief
prosecutor of the military commission, Colonel Morris Davis. In an e-mail
last week to the judge who oversees the military commissions, Colonel Davis
said that Major Mori appears to be in violation of Article 88 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice, which prohibits an officer from using
"contemptuous language" against the president, vice-president, secretary of
defense and other senior officials.
Davis then cited numerous statements by Major Mori on his trips to
Australia, which would be considered insulting, rude or disrespectful. A
copy of the e-mail, from Colonel Davis to Judge Susan Howard, was provided
to the New York Times by a person who supports Major Mori and who likened
Davis's attacks to the removal by the Justice Department of several U.S.
Attorneys.
Major Mori declined to comment on Colonel Davis's latest criticisms. Earlier
this month, after Colonel Davis first voiced disapproval of Major Mori's
conduct, Major Mori said that it might force him to withdraw from the case.
In his e-mail, Colonel Davis also expressed concern that "Major Mori's
campaign is having a direct impact on an elected government of one of our
closest allies in an election year and while they are support us in a war."
Prime Minister John Howard of Australia, of the center-right Liberal Party,
was now trailing in the polls, Colonel Davis noted, adding that "David Hicks
is a factor."
Commander Gordon, the commission spokesman, declined to discuss Colonel
Davis's e-mail.
In Australia, Major Mori is widely credited, by Hicks's supporters and
critics, with having changed the public attitude toward Hicks. At the time
of his arrest, Hicks was often described in Australia's tabloids as
"Australia's Taliban." Now, across the political spectrum, there is pressure
on Howard to have Hicks returned to Australia soon.
Major Mori has also been praised by former detainees for his representation.
Hicks said he was picked up by the Northern Alliance, which was fighting
with the Americans against the Taliban, and was treated well for two weeks.
"When the U.S. interrogators showed up my treatment changed," Hicks wrote.
He said he was interrogated by five Americans, who were dressed in black
combat gear and without any insignia. "The U.S. interrogators would question
me, and after my responses I would be slapped in the back of the head and
told I was lying."
At one point he was forced to sit on a window ledge, and outside there were
six American soldiers with their weapons pointed at him, he wrote.
One interrogator, "obviously agitated, took out his pistol and aimed it at
me, with his hand shaking violently with rage." It was at this point, "I
realized that if I did not cooperate with U.S. interrogators, I might be
shot."
He was first taken to the USS Peleliu, which he knew because of
announcements over the public address system. Among the detainees was John
Walker Lindh, the American who pleaded guilty and is now serving 20 years.
Hicks said he could hear other detainees "screaming in pain" when being
interrogated.
He was later transferred to the USS Bataan, where the conditions became
"drastically" worse, he asserted. He was fed only a handful of rice or fruit
three times a day, and on several occasions, he and other detainees,
blindfolded, hooded, and handcuffed were thrown onto helicopters and taken
to an unknown location, and put in a large hangar.
They were forced to kneel for 10 hours, during which time "I was hit in the
back of the head with the butt of a rifle several times (hard enough to
knock me over), slapped in the back of the head, kicked, stepped on, and
spat on. I could hear the groans and cries of other detainees."
He was flown back to the ship, and a few days later back to the hangar.
A week or so later, he was flown to Kandahar, where he and other detainees
"were forced to lie face down in the mud while solders walked across our
backs."
He was stripped, all his body hair shaved, and a piece of "white plastic was
forcibly inserted in my rectum for no apparent reason," he wrote. Soldiers
make crude comments about the plastic insertion.
A detainee with only one leg, was "set upon" by a special military team and
its dogs. He was dragged out of his cell, and there was blood on his fact
and the cell floor. "It put me in such fear that I just knew I would
'cooperate' in any way with the U.S."
He said he was also shown a picture of another Australian, Mamdouh Habib,
who had been rendered by the United States to Egypt, where he has alleged he
was badly tortured.
"In the photo, Habib's face was black and blue," Hicks wrote. "I first
thought it was a photo of a corpse." The interrogator told Hicks that if he
did not cooperate he would be sent to Egypt "to suffer the same fate," Hicks
said in his affidavit.
"This regular brutality left me in a heightened state of fear and anxiety
about my own safety," Hicks wrote. "I realized that if I pleased the
interrogators I could avoid the physical abuse."
Copyright © 2007 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
Crackpot Lemmings Goosestepping Off Cliffs
"warming of the climate system is unequivocal"
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/washington/washington/entries/2007/03/27/coal_interests.html
Coal Interests Fight Polar Bear Action
An organization representing companies that mine coal and burn it to
make electricity has called on its members to fight the proposed
listing of the polar bear as an endangered or threatened species.
"This will essentially declare 'open season' for environmental lawyers
to sue to block viirtually any project that involves carbon dioxide
emissions," the Western Business Roundtable said in an e-mail.
To settle a lawsuit by environmental groups, the Department of
Interior announced last month that it would take a year to consider
whether global warming and melting Arctic ice justifies declaring the
bear "endangered" or "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.
"This seems a little unfair, pitting all those big coal companies and
power companies against the poor polar bear," sniffed Frank O'Donnell,
president of Clean Air Watch.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/27/endangered_species/?source=whitelist
Inside the secretive plan to gut the Endangered Species Act
Proposed regulatory changes, obtained by Salon, would destroy the
"safety net for animals and plants on the brink of extinction," say
environmentalists.
By Rebecca Clarren
Print Email Digg it Del.icio.us My Yahoo RSS Font: S / S+ / S++
story image
March 27, 2007 | The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is maneuvering to
fundamentally weaken the Endangered Species Act, its strategy laid out
in an internal 117-page draft proposal obtained by Salon. The proposed
changes limit the number of species that can be protected and curtail
the acres of wildlife habitat to be preserved. It shifts authority to
enforce the act from the federal government to the states, and it
dilutes legal barriers that protect habitat from sprawl, logging or
mining.
"The proposed changes fundamentally gut the intent of the Endangered
Species Act," says Jan Hasselman, a Seattle attorney with
Earthjustice, an environmental law firm, who helped Salon interpret
the proposal. "This is a no-holds-barred end run around one of
America's most popular environmental protections. If these regulations
stand up, the act will no longer provide a safety net for animals and
plants on the brink of extinction."
In recent months, the Fish and Wildlife Service has gone to
extraordinary efforts to keep drafts of regulatory changes from the
public. All copies of the working document were given a number
corresponding to a person, so that leaked copies could be traced to
that individual. An e-mail sent in March from an assistant regional
director at the Fish and Wildlife Service to agency staff, asking for
comments on and corrections to the first draft, underscored the
concern with secrecy: "Please Keep close hold for now. Dale [Hall,
director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] does not want this
stuff leaking out to stir up discontent based on speculation."
Many Fish and Wildlife Service employees believe the draft is not
based on "defensible science," says a federal employee who asked to
remain anonymous. Yet "there is genuine fear of retaliation for
communicating that to the media. People are afraid for their jobs."
Chris Tollefson, a spokesperson for the service, says that while it's
accurate to characterize the agency as trying to keep the draft under
wraps, the agency has every intention of communicating with the public
about the proposed changes; the draft just hasn't been ready. And, he
adds, it could still be changed as part of a forthcoming formal review
process.
Administration critics characterize the secrecy as a way to maintain
spin control, says Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for
Biological Diversity, a national environmental group. "This
administration will often release a 300-page-long document at a press
conference for a newspaper story that will go to press in two hours,
giving the media or public no opportunity to digest it and figure out
what's going on," Suckling says. "[Interior Secretary Dirk] Kempthorne
will give a feel-good quote about how the new regulations are good for
the environment, and they can win the public relations war."
In some ways, the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act
should come as no surprise. President Bush has hardly been one of its
fans. Under his reign, the administration has granted 57 species
endangered status, the action in each case being prompted by a
lawsuit. That's fewer than in any other administration in history --
and far fewer than were listed during the administrations of Reagan
(253), Clinton (521) or Bush I (234). Furthermore, during this
administration, nearly half of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
employees who work with endangered species reported that they had been
directed by their superiors to ignore scientific evidence that would
result in recommendations for the protection of species, according to
a 2005 survey of more than 1,400 service biologists, ecologists and
botanists conducted by Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility, a nonprofit organization.
"We are not allowed to be honest and forthright, we are expected to
rubber stamp everything," wrote a Fish and Wildlife Service biologist
as part of the survey. "I have 20 years of federal service in this and
this is the worst it has ever been."
The agency has long seen a need to improve the act, says Tollefson.
"This is a look at what's possible," he says. "Too much of our time as
an agency is spent responding to litigation rather than working on
recovering the species that are most in need. The current way the act
is run creates disincentives for people to get involved with
recovering species."
Kempthorne, boss of the Fish and Wildlife Service, has been an
outspoken critic of the act. When he was a U.S. senator from Idaho in
the late 1990s, he championed legislation that would have allowed
government agencies to exempt their actions from Endangered Species
Act regulations, and would have required federal agents to conduct
cost-benefit analyses when considering whether to list a species as
endangered. (The legislation failed.) Last June, in his early days as
interior secretary, Kempthorne told reporters, "I really believe that
we can make improvements to the act itself."
Kempthorne is keeping good on his promise. The proposed draft is
littered with language lifted directly from both Kempthorne's 1998
legislation as well as from a contentious bill by former Rep. Richard
Pombo, R-Calif. (which was also shot down by Congress). It's "a wish
list of regulations that the administration and its industry allies
have been talking about for years," says Suckling.
Written in terse, dry legal language, the proposed draft doesn't make
for easy reading. However, the changes, often seemingly subtle,
generally serve to strip the Fish and Wildlife Service of the power to
do its stated job: to protect wildlife. Some verge on the biologically
ridiculous, say critics, while others are a clear concession to
industry and conservative Western governors who have long complained
that the act degrades the economies of their states by preventing
natural-resource extraction.
One change would significantly limit the number of species eligible
for endangered status. Currently, if a species is likely to become
extinct in "the foreseeable future" -- a species-specific timeframe
that can stretch up to 300 years -- it's a candidate for act
protections. However, the new rules scale back that timeline to mean
either 20 years or 10 generations (the agency can choose which
timeline). For certain species with long life spans, such as killer
whales, grizzly bears or wolves, two decades isn't even one
generation. So even if they might be in danger of extinction, they
would not make the endangered species list because they'd be unlikely
to die out in two decades.
"It makes absolutely no sense biologically," wrote Hasselman in an e-
mail. "One of the Act's weaknesses is that species aren't protected
until they're already in trouble and this proposal puts that flaw on
steroids."
Perhaps the most significant proposed change gives state governors the
opportunity and funding to take over virtually every aspect of the act
from the federal government. This includes not only the right to
create species-recovery plans and the power to veto the reintroduction
of endangered species within state boundaries, but even the authority
to determine what plants and animals get protection. For plants and
animals in Western states, that's bad news: State politicians
throughout the region howled in opposition to the reintroduction of
the Mexican gray wolf into Arizona and the Northern Rockies wolf into
Yellowstone National Park.
"If states are involved, the act would only get minimally enforced,"
says Bob Hallock, a recently retired 34-year veteran of the Fish and
Wildlife Service who, as an endangered species specialist, worked with
state agencies in Idaho, Washington and Montana. "States are, if
anything, closer to special economic interests. They're more
manipulated. The states have not demonstrated the will or interest in
upholding the act. It's why we created a federal law in the first
place."
Additional tweaks in the law would have a major impact. For instance,
the proposal would narrow the definition of a species' geographic
range from the landscape it inhabited historically to the land it
currently occupies. Since the main reason most plants and animals head
toward extinction is due to limited habitat, the change would strongly
hamper the government's ability to protect chunks of land and allow
for a healthy recovery in the wild.
The proposal would also allow both ongoing and planned projects by
such federal agencies as the Army Corps of Engineers and the Forest
Service to go forward, even when scientific evidence indicates that
the projects may drive a species to extinction. Under the new
regulations, as long as the dam or logging isn't hastening the
previous rate of extinction, it's approved. "This makes recovery of
species impossible," says Suckling. (You can read the entire proposal,
a PDF file, here.)
Gutting the Endangered Species Act will only thicken the pall that has
hung over the Fish and Wildlife Service for the past six years,
Hallock says. "They [the Bush administration] don't want the
regulations to be effective. People in the agency are like a bunch of
whipped dogs," he says. "I think it's just unacceptable to go around
squashing other species; they're of incalculable benefit to us. The
optimism we had when this agency started has absolutely been dashed."
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/007/bush-administration-rewrite-of-endangered-species-act-regulations-would-gut-protections.html
Bush Administration Rewrite of Endangered Species Act Regulations
Would Gut Protections
Hush-hush proposal "a no-holds-barred end run around one of America's
most popular laws"
Washington, DC -- A secret draft of regulations that fundamentally
rewrite the Endangered Species Act was leaked to two environmental
organizations, which provided them to the press last night An article
in Salon quotes Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman saying, "The
proposed changes fundamentally gut the intent of the Endangered
Species Act."
The changes are fiercely technical and complicated, but make future
listings extremely difficult, redefine key concepts to the detriment
of protected species, virtually hand over administration of the act to
hostile states, and severely restrict habitat protections.
Many of the changes -- lifted from unsuccessful legislative proposals
from then-Senator (now Interior Secretary) Dirk Kempthorne and the
recently defeated congressman Richard Pombo -- are reactions to
policies and practices established as a result of litigation filed by
environmental organizations including Earthjustice.
"After the failure of these legislative proposals in the last
Congress, the Bush administration has opted to gut the Endangered
Species Act through the only avenue left open: administrative
regulations," said Hasselman. "This end-run around the will of
Congress and the American people will not succeed."
A major change would make it more difficult for a species to gain
protection, by scaling back the "foreseeable future" timeframe in
which to consider whether a species is likely to become extinct.
Instead of looking far enough ahead to be able to reasonably determine
whether a species could be heading for extinction, the new regulations
would drastically shorten the timeframe to either 20 years or 10
generations at the agency's discretion. For species with long
generations like killer whales and grizzly bears, this truncated view
of the future isn't nearly enough time to accurately predict whether
they are at-risk now.
"These draft regulations represent a total rejection of the values
held by the vast majority Americans: that we have a responsibility to
protect imperiled species and the special places they call home," said
Kate Freund, Legislative Associate at Earthjustice.
According to several sources within the Fish and Wildlife Service
quoted by Salon, hostility to the law within the agency has never been
so intense. "I have 20 years of federal service in this and this is
the worst it has ever been," one unnamed source is quoted as saying.
In addition, the proposal would allow projects by the Forest Service
and other agencies to proceed even if scientific evidence suggests
that the projects might drive species to extinction so long as the
rate of decline doesn't accelerate owing to the project.
The Bush administration's antipathy to the law is shown by the numbers
of species it has protected, in each case as the result of litigation
-- 57. By comparison, 253 species were listed during the Reagan
administration, 521 under Clinton, and 234 under Bush I.
The administration reportedly had expected to reveal the new
regulations in a few weeks. The draft regulations must be published in
the Federal Register for public comment before they can become final,
which is likely to be at least a year off.
Contact:
Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice, (206) 343-7340, ext. 25
Vendicar Decarian
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> All the above happened in the last 7 cycles of global warming and cooling.
> In the end life continued....even when we are talking 100F temperature
> change.
The past 7 cycles of global warming and cooling? I guess you mean days.
Or do you mean years? Or are you referring to the 100,000 year glacial
cycle? Those are the only cycles that are apparent from the earth's
temperature record.
Presuming you are talking about the 100,000 year cycle of ice ages, yes,
life survived but then it was greatly reduced, even when it had thousands of
years to adapt and evolve.
Current man made temperature changes are larger and are occurring over 100
years not 100,000
Oh, life will continue all right. Just maybe not yours.
Vendicar Decarian
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> It is not rocket science to figure out that didn't start until the price
> was right.
The price has been right since the introduction of CF lighting.
Businesses have used them for the last quarter of a century because they
reduce cooling costs, energy costs, and repacement costs. It's pretty much
always been a fact that one CF bulb used appropriately so it's lifespan is 4
years, saves a consumer about $20 in energy costs over the lifetime of the
bulb. So even at $19 per bulb which they have never been, there is a net
saving.
Today with utility discounts and government discounts (horray), costs can
be as low as $0. Yet many AmeriKKKans still don't use them.
Too Stupid I guess.
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> Maybe if you are going to require that much money on energy ,add the same
> provision for nuke power.
> At least ,the comsumer would get thier money's worth on that.
A meaningless outburst of nothingness.
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> The miltary is already running home sized nuke devices for sensors ,etc.
They are typically RTG's RadioIsotope Thermal Generators, although
sometimes for minute amounts of power they just collect the exoelectrons and
use them. More power is available from RTG's particularly in space
applications where you can make use of the near 0'C temperature of space.
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> And after all ,if nukes for terrists is a good thing like you stated on
> Iran ......then there is nothing stoppping homeowners from
> also claiming their right to nuke power.
So the population of Iran are terrorists now? What Alcohol induced
halucination gave you that idea?
Ahahahahahahaha... Arnold, you silly old drunk you...
Crooked Corporations Backing Crooked Politicians
Anti-global warming law not exactly new in Texas
'91 act never invoked for several reasons, including jurisdiction
issues
Since September 1991, Texas has been able to control pollutants
causing global warming:
"Consistent with applicable federal law, the board by rule may control
air contaminants as necessary to protect against adverse health
effects related to ... climatic changes, including global warming"
Health and Safety Code, Section 382.0205
Climate change may be getting more attention at the Texas Capitol than
ever before, but for more than 15 years state law has recognized the
emissions that cause global warming.
Lawmakers in 1991 gave the state environmental agency authority to
control air contaminants "to protect against adverse health effects
related to ... climatic changes, or global warming."
"I was floored when I saw it," Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin, said of the
provision. "Texas has a law that permits our environmental agency to
regulate global warming emissions, but the agency has never done it.
It is kind of amazing."
The language was so deeply buried in the 1,700-page bill that
consolidated all environmental matters under a single agency in 1991
that the main sponsor said it was inserted without a single dispute.
"It was just pollution in general at the time that people recognized;
there wasn't a debate over it at the time," said former Sen. Carl
Parker, D-Port Arthur, who was the lead author of Senate Bill 2.
The rash of climate change measures this session has renewed debate
over why the state in the last decade has never taken action. Texas,
like the federal government, does not regulate emissions of carbon
dioxide.
Jeff Saitas, the executive director of the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality from 1998 through October 2002, said the agency
was aware of the rule, but decided global warming was best addressed
on the federal level.
"When you talk about something as large as climate change, in the
scheme of things, it really takes a national and international
solution," Saitas said.
Yet just last year, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott sided with the
Bush administration in a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the federal
government is arguing that it does not have the authority to control
carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles.
Arnold Walker
O trustee con artist....
Vendicar Decarian
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> Try again 1500years....you really need to learn what you talking about.
Oh, I don't think you are going to live that long. Cirrosis of the liver
it appears will probably be your undoing.
Arnold Walker
Insults are the greatest comment coming from socialist liar .
It proves they have been at least near enorgh to caught in thier lie, to go
on the defensive.
And on the newsgroup that seems to be pretty regular.......
Crackpot Lemmings Goosestepping Off Cliffs
"warming of the climate system is unequivocal"
Coal Interests Fight Polar Bear Action
An organization representing companies that mine coal and burn it to
make electricity has called on its members to fight the proposed
listing of the polar bear as an endangered or threatened species.
"This will essentially declare 'open season' for environmental lawyers
to sue to block viirtually any project that involves carbon dioxide
emissions," the Western Business Roundtable said in an e-mail.
To settle a lawsuit by environmental groups, the Department of
Interior announced last month that it would take a year to consider
whether global warming and melting Arctic ice justifies declaring the
bear "endangered" or "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.
"This seems a little unfair, pitting all those big coal companies and
power companies against the poor polar bear," sniffed Frank O'Donnell,
president of Clean Air Watch.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/27/endangered_species/?source=whitelist
Inside the secretive plan to gut the Endangered Species Act
Proposed regulatory changes, obtained by Salon, would destroy the
"safety net for animals and plants on the brink of extinction," say
environmentalists.
March 27, 2007 | The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is maneuvering to
Crackpot Lemmings Goosestepping Off Cliffs
"warming of the climate system is unequivocal"
Vendicar Decarian
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> Admiting your ignorant message is a lie are we.
Drunk again Arnold? Get off the booze.
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> Insults are the greatest comment coming from socialist liar .
Then let me "comment" you again - you Peon.
Drunk this early Arnold?
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> It prove have they been at least near enorgh to caught in thier lie, to
> go.
Go sleep it off, drunk.
T. Keating
wrote:
>Insignificant Flyspecks wrote:
>>
>> 5 hours daily, or 2000 hours per year, average insolation is used in
>> the US. 1,700 is used in Europe. It includes areas with 9 or 10 hours
>> summer peaks and ares with 2 hours winter peaks jumbled together.
>> Unless you can show better researched data than the 20 years of Dept
>> of Energy, NREL, then I will stay with the best data currently
>> available.
>
>In a really sunny month at an excellent location with a properly tilted
>solar array you can count on 8 hours a day over the course of that
>month. But the maximum daily average over the course of any month that
>NREL has ever seen for a module titled at (latitude - 15) degrees
>anywhere in the United States is 8.6 hours (in Las Vegas). Nowhere in
>the US will you get 9 to 10 hours a day reliably for any length of time,
>if ever, unless you use tracking (in which case you can do much better
>than 9 to 10 hours a day). That's straight from NREL's data.
Obviously NOT (straight from NREL data).
During the spring and summertime months, a there are large areas of
the US where a Dual axis tracker would receive in excess of 10
kWh/m^2/day of solar flux..
(April to August..)
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/colorgifs/160.GIF
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/colorgifs/161.GIF
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/colorgifs/162.GIF
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/colorgifs/163.GIF
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/colorgifs/164.GIF
T. Keating
wrote:
>Insignificant Flyspecks wrote:
>>
>> 5 hours daily, or 2000 hours per year, average insolation is used in
>> the US. 1,700 is used in Europe. It includes areas with 9 or 10 hours
>> summer peaks and ares with 2 hours winter peaks jumbled together.
>> Unless you can show better researched data than the 20 years of Dept
>> of Energy, NREL, then I will stay with the best data currently
>> available.
>
>In a really sunny month at an excellent location with a properly tilted
>solar array you can count on 8 hours a day over the course of that
>month. But the maximum daily average over the course of any month that
>NREL has ever seen for a module titled at (latitude - 15) degrees
>anywhere in the United States is 8.6 hours (in Las Vegas). Nowhere in
>the US will you get 9 to 10 hours a day reliably for any length of time,
>if ever, unless you use tracking (in which case you can do much better
>than 9 to 10 hours a day). That's straight from NREL's data.
Obviously NOT (straight from NREL data).
During the spring and summertime months there are large areas of the
R.H. Allen
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:37:56 -0400, "R.H. Allen" <kka...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Insignificant Flyspecks wrote:
>>> 5 hours daily, or 2000 hours per year, average insolation is used in
>>> the US. 1,700 is used in Europe. It includes areas with 9 or 10 hours
>>> summer peaks and ares with 2 hours winter peaks jumbled together.
>>> Unless you can show better researched data than the 20 years of Dept
>>> of Energy, NREL, then I will stay with the best data currently
>>> available.
>> In a really sunny month at an excellent location with a properly tilted
>> solar array you can count on 8 hours a day over the course of that
>> month. But the maximum daily average over the course of any month that
>> NREL has ever seen for a module titled at (latitude - 15) degrees
>> anywhere in the United States is 8.6 hours (in Las Vegas). Nowhere in
>> the US will you get 9 to 10 hours a day reliably for any length of time,
>> if ever, unless you use tracking (in which case you can do much better
>> than 9 to 10 hours a day). That's straight from NREL's data.
>
>
> Obviously NOT (straight from NREL data).
>
> During the spring and summertime months there are large areas of the
> US where a Dual axis tracker would receive in excess of 10 kWh/m^2/day
> of solar flux..
Obviously you misread what I wrote....
Joe Fischer
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>CF lighting is popular outside the USA. I have almost nothing but CFLs here for
>example.
>Graham
Most here still cost $6 to $9 US.
Joe Fischer
NobodyYouKnow
"Joe Fischer" <G...@wrongversion.com> wrote in message
news:65hs031qu66npf5tp...@4ax.com...
It's a global economy stupid. Stop being a provincial asshole.
And prices even in the backwater U.S. are closer to $US5.50 which is paid
back in a year or soi.
> Joe Fischer
>
Eric Swanson
G...@wrongversion.com says...
You might want to take a trip to WalMart or Lowes.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Fischer
<TheVoice...@nowhere.ino> wrote:
>
>"Joe Fischer" <G...@wrongversion.com> wrote in message
>news:65hs031qu66npf5tp...@4ax.com...
>
>It's a global economy stupid. Stop being a provincial asshole.
Then sell me 1,000 for 99 cents each.
>And prices even in the backwater U.S. are closer to $US5.50 which is paid
>back in a year or soi.
I just bought some Chinamade, but anybody that
pays $5.50 is not getting that great a deal here, not at $0.06/KWH
Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
>> Most here still cost $6 to $9 US.
>
>You might want to take a trip to WalMart or Lowes.
That is where I saw the prices.
Joe Fischer
Toxic Meme Germs
> In article <65hs031qu66npf5tpvcrluh7m5oasdp...@4ax.com>,
I bought a four-pack of CFs 100-watt equivalent bulbs for $4 for the
pack of them at Safeway food store. I think it was a promotional item,
not an everyday price.
Vendicar Decarian
"Joe Fischer" <G...@wrongversion.com> wrote
> Most here still cost $6 to $9 US.
In my area the cost at discount stores is $1.00 per bulb (40->60 watt), and
in regular stores approx $2.00 per bulb 13 watt, $3.00 (26 watt).
Assuming a 8 hour on time over 4 years of bulb life, $0.05 per KWatt/Hour,
they will save abut $27.50 in energy costs, and half a tonnne of coal from
being burned.
Vendicar Decarian
"Joe Fischer" <G...@wrongversion.com> wrote
> I just bought some Chinamade, but anybody that
> pays $5.50 is not getting that great a deal here, not at $0.06/KWH
China made I noted have suffered some recalls here (globe), and I've
personally seen some of the globe units that have had the electronics burn
out. Not bulbs that I've owned. But then they only cost $2.00 or so when
purchaed.
Sylvania 9 watts $1.00 per bulb here locally.
Vendicar Decarian
"Toxic Meme Germs" <Toxic...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote
> I bought a four-pack of CFs 100-watt equivalent bulbs for $4 for the
> pack of them at Safeway food store. I think it was a promotional item,
> not an everyday price.
Promotions here typically see CF bulb prices at $0.00
Seriously. ZERO Cost after rebate or coupon.
And the energy savings per bulb are about $27.50 and a half tonne of
coal.
Purchasing them is a no brainer. Although they shouldn't be used in the
bathroom or rooms where they are turned on and off 5+ times a day. Bulb
life is lowered with each start.
Vendicar Decarian
>>You might want to take a trip to WalMart or Lowes.
"Joe Fischer" <G...@wrongversion.com> wrote
> That is where I saw the prices.
Always low prices.... Always.
Under promotion here (which is very common, I saw some two days ago).
Price $0.00
ZERO COST.
Savings $27.50 per bulb over a 4 year life, or about a half tonne of
coal..
Steve Spence
--
Steve Spence
Director, Green-Trust
http://www.green-trust.org
"Joe Fischer" <G...@wrongversion.com> wrote in message
news:65hs031qu66npf5tp...@4ax.com...
daestrom
"Insignificant Flyspecks" <Insignifica...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote
in message news:1174859812....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 25, 9:03 am, "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> <H2PV...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1174801469....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 24, 10:22 pm, "Arnold Walker" <arnoldwal...@consolidated.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "Exxon Liars & Crooks" <Liars_and_Cro...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in
>> >> messagenews:1174712449.1...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> <snip>
>> >> > One acre of PV generates the equivalent energy every two days (11.7
>> >> > sunny hours) equal to one ton of coal, 182 tons per year of coal
>> >> > energy is mined from the sky clean without smokes, and in the 25
>> >> > year
>> >> > warranty period 4,563 tons of coal energy is produced from one
>> >> > single
>> >> > acre of land by PV. That's 208 feet by 208 feet, covered by the
>> >> > thickness of a business card, weighing two and a half tons of
>> >> > silicon
>> >> > doped with a few pounds of boron and phosphorous.
>>
>> >> Ever thought about the environmental damage 13800 acres of PV's can
>> >> cause
>> >> the environment
>>
>> > The Residential rooftops of America provide 10% more space than is
>> > requires to produce every kilowatt-hour currently used in the US.
>>
>> >http://hydrogentruth.info/page_04a.html
>>
>> Let's see, that page claims to have a power output of 334,541 kW/sq.
>> mile,
>> and a total of 6,091 sq. miles of rooftops. It summarizes at the bottom
>> of
>> the table that those rooftops would produce 4,090,482,000,000 kWh a year.
>> That means each roof top must produce full power output for 2007 hours a
>> year. That's a bit over 5 hours a day, every single day of the year.
>
> 5 hours daily, or 2000 hours per year, average insolation is used in
> the US. 1,700 is used in Europe. It includes areas with 9 or 10 hours
> summer peaks and ares with 2 hours winter peaks jumbled together.
> Unless you can show better researched data than the 20 years of Dept
> of Energy, NREL, then I will stay with the best data currently
> available.
>
>> able to produce full power output. How many homes have you seen that
>> have
>> the entire roof tilted toward the sun?
>
> Not really. It is not actually proposing the rooftops all try to
> produce power -- it is addressing the size dimension required to
> counter grossly exaggerated figures put into widespread circulation by
> people using illegal competition methods to protect their poser
> monopoly.
Then you should at least use non-exaggerated figures of your own. If you
want people to take you seriously, why don't you use an accurate estimate of
roof-top generation? Your numbers for available roof space on single family
residences is exaggerated, your available hours of power output for a fixed,
non-tracking system mounted on a roof is only valid if you live in Arizona
or some such place.
Have you considered the number of rooftops in Arizona versus the number in
Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, or other 'non-ideal' locations? How about
a little weighted-average of the available roof space versus locale?
> The rooftops could be oriented towards the sun in a rational
> architecture, and they could be covered in PV, or the south facing
> facades could be. The reality is people often have deciduous shade
> trees protecting them from summer solar gain.
>
'Could be'?? So now you want to tear down and rebuild?
As far as deciduous shade, wouldn't that same shade reduce your solar PV
output? Or do you want to put up PV on the roof, then chop down the trees
that people 'often have' ??
Your assumptions and 'ideas' seem to be getting further and further away
from the current reality.
>> Take for example, the northeast part of the US. Many (perhaps half) of
>> the
>> homes are two-story. This means that a 2000 sq.ft home has roughly 1000
>> sqft
>> of roof.
>
> The computation assigns 600 sq.ft. for multistory buildings per
> residence.
That would be apartment complexes and town houses. Not single family
residences.
> The figures are taken from most current US census data on
> single-family detached housing including trailers and manufactured
> homes, being average 2000, sq,ft., 3 - 8 rooms averaging 5 being the
> most common. that makes up 75,000,000 of the homes and the rest is
> 30,000,000 homes with average 3 person occupancy rates.
>
You still don't get it do you. A 2000 sq ft, 3-8 room house does not have
2000 sq-ft of roof space. A two-story single family residence with 2000
sqft of living space has a footprint of just 1000 sq ft. If 1/2 the
single-family homes are two story, then the average roof space is only
1/2*1000 + 1/2*2000 = 1500 sq ft.
If most single family homes have a typical pitched roof, then only 1/2 of
the roof space is suitable for installing solar. Unless you want to build
up the opposite face higher than the ridge line. Yeah, that's a real
practical idea.
> Publicly owned buildings, like schools could also participate. After
> all, these figures supply every single kilowatt, public & private,
> used in the US according to most current figures available.
>
Your 'figures' seem to assume that Arizona is as densely populated as New
York. Your 'figures' seem to assume a 2000 sq ft single family residence
has more roof space than reality.
>> Again, most homes have a roof that is ridged in the middle and
>> pitched away from the ridge on each side, so only 1/2 of that roof is
>> suitable for PV (assuming the ridge runs east-west so one side faces
>> south
>> and not the ridge running north-south so roof faces are towards east and
>> west). So that cuts the roof area again, to about 500 sqft.
>>
>> About three months out of the year, my roof is covered with snow, but I
>> do
>> live in a 'snow belt'. Yet there are many areas that have cloudy
>> weather.
>> To produce output at your assumed levels would require 5 full sun hours
>> per
>> day all year round. Large parts of the country where folks have houses
>> do
>> not get this much
>> sun.http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_pv_annual_may2004.jpg
>
> Your image is accurate. Your conclusion is inaccurate.
>
> The highest payoffs are in the US southwest, where full PV coverage
> should begin first. The six, seven and eight hours average days there
> compensate for a lot of clouds in the worst solar districts along the
> Canadian border from the Northeast to Seattle.
>
> There is nothing stopping NY from putting its PV in Arizona, except
> stupidity.
>
And 3000 miles. Oh, how 'inconvenient' for you to have forgotten about
that.
> Pipelines are the cheapest most cost-effective means of moving bulk
> power across the country. Pipelines cost less than wires and are less
> exposed.
>
So, how much does the energy cost after you collect it in Arizona, convert
it to a form that can be put in a pipeline, pumped it to NY, converted it
back into electricity and ready to sell? If you can beat the prices I'm
currently paying, sign me up.
> The need for POWER is not just for electric power, but heating energy
> and hot water and cooking. Gas supplies all in one with home fuel
> cells eventually displacing individual utility devices. Co-generation
> of light and heat is 70% to 80% efficient using natural gas, and would
> be even more efficient using hydrogen. By comparison, super-critical
> boilers cannot top 60% efficiency for electricity and must waste the
> rest as unused heat. Heating is the far more expensive utility bill in
> the dreary skies parts of the country, exactly because they get poor
> sunshine.
>
Blah, blah, blah...
And when I want more electricity than heat? Guess I just open a window
while running the fuel cell, is that it? Or I pay for both a fuel-cell
system for use in the dead of winter, and a PV system for use in the summer?
And some sort of storage system as well?
I'm much better off reducing my energy needs and living more in harmony with
nature (and so is the planet). Which is something I work towards every year
(CFL's, task lighting, insulation, lower water usage, stopping air
infiltration, lower transportation costs, and whatever else I can do).
How much CO2 would a co-gen system produce if I keep my same energy usage
patterns and get all my electricity from NG in a fuel cell instead of some
utility? Just because a *co-gen* efficiency is higher than power plant,
doesn't mean I generate less CO2 for each kWhr of electric I use. Think
about it.
> Your wasteful mentality cannot think comprehensively. You insist in
> separating utilities into monopolies that can be centrally controlled
> from Wall Street after a century of proof from the Soviet Union that
> centralized planning is the least efficient system known.
I haven't mentioned utilities or Wall Street. And while I admit my energy
usage is more than some that post here, I don't consider it 'wasteful' by
any stretch of the imagination. Where do you get such crud?
Your numbers are very 'optimistic' and you gloss over several very real
issues that need to be addressed. You're just as bad as the folks on the
'other side' that say it can't be done at all. You say all our energy needs
can be met by just putting PV on every roof top. What a joke. Sure, if
money is no object. If massive storage can be had. If transmission of your
energy over long distances can be done without exorbitant losses. More
'ifs' there than reality.
Like many pseudo-engineers, you poke a few numbers into a spreadsheet and
say, "Gee, we should do this." You haven't considered storage. You haven't
addressed conversion and transmission losses from places like AZ to NY.
Your 'figures' seem to assume that population is spread evenly across the
country when it isn't.
Then you start spouting off about fuel-cell technology running on NG as a
way to be more efficient but haven't looked at the ratio of heat versus
electric output. Or even better, hydrogen, but wait, where's that coming
from, AZ? Just like a lot of pseudo-engineers, lots of half-baked ideas,
none of them well thought out.
daestrom
Crackpot Lemmings Chow for Exxon's Tiger Teeth & Claws
wrote:
> Then you start ...
A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
This website is posted by federal court order and contains nothing
that was not evidence used in trials. At the trials lawyers had
opportunity of due process of law to object and exclude evidence --
these are the ones that were not excluded.
It confirms the activist website which merely quotes public knowledge.
TASSC "Global Warming"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Global+Warming%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
TASSC "Singer, F."
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Singer%2C+F.%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
TASSC "Lindzen, R"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Lindzen%2C+R%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
TASSC "Michaels, P"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Michaels%2C+P%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
"Patrick J. Michaels"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Patrick+J.+Michaels%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
"Patrick Michaels"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Patrick+Michaels%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
"Science & Environmental Policy Project"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Science+%26+Environmental+Policy+Project%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=521
#596 - A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
A new study concludes that this has been the warmest century in 600
years, and that the hottest years during this century have been 1990,
1995, and 1997.[1,2] This is further evidence that global warming is
upon us, and that humans are contributing to it by burning coal and
oil. (See REHW #430, #466.) "Our conclusion was that the warming of
the past few decades appears to be closely tied to emission of
greenhouse gases by humans and not [by] any of the natural factors,"
say Michael E. Mann, principal author of the new study.[1]
The global temperature varies as time passes because of natural
changes in sunlight reaching the Earth, dust from volcanoes (which
reflects sunlight back into space), and changing amounts of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere.
So-called greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide [CO2], but also
methane and a few others that are less important) allow sunlight to
strike the Earth but don't allow heat to escape back into space as
readily, thus trapping heat near the surface, just as the glass roof
on a greenhouse does. Scientists have recognized the existence of this
"greenhouse effect" for about 100 years and they know that, sooner or
later, increasing the amount of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere
must warm the planet. Thus scientists don't debate whether greenhouse
gases will cause global warming. They debate when it will be
noticeable, how big the warming will be, and what its consequences
might be.
During the past 100 years, humans burning coal and oil have increased
the atmosphere's concentration of carbon dioxide [CO2] --the main
greenhouse gas --by 25%, and the concentration is still rising.
Actual temperature measurements only go back about 150 years, so
temperatures earlier than that must be inferred from tree rings,
corals and fossils in the oceans, deposits left by glaciers, the
chemical composition of ancient ice at the poles, and fossilized
pollen found in lake sediments. The new study, published in the
British journal NATURE, uses many of these techniques to reconstruct
the Earth's temperature back to the year 1400 A.D.[2]
The new study bolsters the consensus reached in 1996 by an
overwhelming majority of the world's climatologists, that (a) global
warming is probably noticeable now; and (b) human activities are
probably contributing to the rise in the planet's average temperature.
That consensus conclusion was published in the second Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),[3]
which is an office of the United Nations Environment Programme and the
World Meteorological Organization.
For their part, the coal and oil corporations are not taking this
scientific consensus lying down. They are fighting back with a multi-
million dollar public relations plan that was recently leaked to the
NEW YORK TIMES.[4] These corporations stand to lose by the global
climate-change agreement reached last December 11 in Kyoto, Japan. The
Kyoto agreement binds the U.S. to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions
to 7% below 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012. For a country like
the U.S., which has steadily rising emissions, the Kyoto agreement
will require cuts as great as 30% to 35% below where emissions would
otherwise be by the year 2012. (See REHW #577.)
In an attempt to undermine the Kyoto agreement, the energy
corporations plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the
industry's views of climate science and to train them in public
relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians, and the
public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify
controls on greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that trap the sun's
heat near Earth."[4] The plan is being spearheaded by Joe Walker, a
public relations representative of the American Petroleum Institute.
The scientific talent for the public relations campaign is being
recruited by Frederick Seitz, who is a physicist, not a climatologist,
but who has an impressive scientific resume as former president of the
American Physical Society, former president of the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), and president emeritus of Rockefeller University. Dr.
Seitz is also distinguished by being one of the last remaining
scientists who insist that humans have not altered the stratospheric
ozone layer, despite an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary.
He is currently associated with two libertarian think tanks, the
George C. Marshall Institute and the Advancement of Sound Science
Coalition (see www.marshall.org, www.tassc.org, and www.junkscience.com).
Dr. Seitz injected himself into the climate debate forcefully by
attacking the IPCC just days after publication of the IPCC's consensus
conclusion that humans were probably contributing to global warming.
Writing in the WALL STREET JOURNAL June 12, 1996, Dr. Seitz called the
IPCC report a "major deception on global warming." He accused IPCC
scientists of the most "disturbing corruption of the peer-review
process" that he had ever witnessed. And he accused one particular
scientist, Benjamin Santer, of having made "unauthorized changes" to
the IPCC report for political purposes. It turned out that Seitz had
not attended any of the IPCC meetings, and he had not contacted Santer
to find out whether the changes to the IPCC document were "authorized"
or not. It also turned out that all of Seitz's charges were wrong --
the IPCC report had been peer-reviewed by roughly one thousand
qualified scientists and all of the writing in the final report was
fully authorized.[5]
Dr. Seitz and his associates at the George C. Marshall Institute are
now preparing to release a petition that they reportedly sent to
"virtually every scientist in every field" in the U.S.[6] There are 10
million people with undergraduate degrees in science in the U.S., and
half a million with science Ph.D.s. Of these, 15,000 science graduates
and 6000 with Ph.D. degrees have reportedly signed the petition, which
rejects the Kyoto agreement and argues that increasing levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the planet. The mass
mailing to scientists included a copy of an article formatted to look
as if it had been published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed journal
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. It was not. The
article, which had been neither peer-reviewed nor published, argued
that the release of more carbon dioxide "will help to maintain and
improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all
people." The Union of Concerned Scientists (www.ucsusa.org) has
branded the exercise "a deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific
community with misinformation on the subject of climate change."
According to the NEW YORK TIMES, the energy corporations plan to spend
$5 million over the next two years to "maximize the impact of
scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media, and
other key audiences." Their plan calls for spending $600,000 (not
including costs of advertising) on a media campaign to influence
science writers, editors, columnists, and TV network correspondents
using as many as 20 "respected climate scientists" recruited
specifically "to inject credible science and scientific accountability
into the climate science debate, thereby raising questions about and
undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'" The energy
corporations say they intend to provide "a one-stop resource for
members of Congress, the media industry, and all others concerned."
This latest plan to "educate" Americans about global warming will be
paid for by Exxon, Chevron, and other supporters of the American
Petroleum Institute. Previous similar attempts in recent years have
been funded by Exxon, Shell Oil, Unocal, ARCO, the British Coal
Corporation, the German Coal Mining Association, and Cyprus Minerals,
a western mining company that is the single biggest funder of the so-
called Wise Use anti-environmental movement in the U.S.[7]
Who knows? With enough money, it may be possible to convince Congress
and the media that global warming is not happening, despite the
evidence, which is considerable (see REHW #430, #466):
** Average global air temperatures have risen this century.
** The oceans have warmed this century;
** The level of the oceans has been rising this century because water
expands as it warms;
** Many glaciers have shrunk this century in response to warming;
** Plants are moving upward on mountainsides as temperatures rise;
** Rainfall --particularly torrential rainfall --has been increasing
this century as global warming has put more water vapor into the air;
** Floods are increasing because of more rainfall;
** In England, where climatic records reach back several hundred
years, spring has been arriving earlier in recent decades;
** The IPCC and the World Health Organization say that global warming
is expanding the range of mosquitoes that carry malaria, yellow fever,
and dengue fever, a trend that will put millions of additional humans
at risk from these diseases. (See REHW #466.)
** Computer models predict that global warming will be accompanied by
more storms and more intense storms, and, in fact, this has been
happening. To protect itself the U.S. insurance industry in 1996
stopped insuring certain storm-prone areas on the eastern seaboard and
along the Gulf coast.[8]
Already severe storms are hurting people in California, Alabama, the
upper midwest, and New England, to mention only U.S. locations where
extreme weather events have struck in recent months. Real people are
suffering. Affected individuals, and all taxpayers, are paying large
costs. If the world scientific consensus is correct, this will
continue until our use of coal and oil is cut by 60% or 70% and the
atmosphere can stabilize again. At present there is no possibility --
none--of achieving such drastic cuts because the oil and coal
companies are too powerful.
Global warming is the most important problem we face because it has
the potential to disrupt every part of the global ecosystem. It is
also the most important because it promises to reveal the fundamental
flaws in the permissive way we treat corporations: (1) we give them
the free- speech protections of the Bill of Rights, allowing them to
spend millions on disinformation campaigns aimed at maintaining a
harmful status quo. And (2) we allow them to manipulate our most basic
democratic institutions by pumping millions of dollars into election
campaigns. It seems clear that if we are to solve the global warming
problem, these two practices will have to change.
--Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
=====
[1] William K. Stevens, "New Evidence Finds This is the Warmest
Century in 600 years," NEW YORK TIMES April 28, 1998, pg. C3.
[2] Michael E. Mann and others, "Global-scale temperature patterns and
climate forcing over the past six centuries," NATURE Vol. 392 (April
23, 1998), pgs. 779-787. See also, Gabriele Hegerl, "The past as a
guide to the future," NATURE Vol. 392 (April 23, 1998), pgs. 758-759.
[3] J.J. Houghton and others, editors, CLIMATE CHANGE 1995: THE
SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
1996).
[4] John H. Cushman, Jr., "Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate
Treaty," NEW YORK TIMES April 26, 1998, pgs. A1, A24.
[5] Paul N. Edwards and Stephen H. Schneider, "The 1995 IPCC Report:
Broad Consensus or 'Scientific Cleansing,' ECOFABLES/ECOSCIENCE No. 1
(Fall 1997), pgs. 3-9. ECOFABLES/ECOSCIENCE is published by the Center
for Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020. E-mail:
ecofa...@bing.stanford.edu; telephone (415) 723-5924; fax: (415) 723-
5920.
[6] Colin Macilwain, "Petition strengthens hand of global warming
skeptics," NATURE Vol. 392 (April 16, 1998), pg. 639.
[7] Ross Gelbspan, "Hot Air on Global Warming; Science and Academia in
the Service of the Fossil Fuel Industry," MULTINATIONAL MONITOR Vol.
18, No. 11 (November 1997), pgs. 14-17.
[8] Joseph B. Treaster, "Insurer Curbing Sales of Policies in Storm
Areas," NEW YORK TIMES October 10, 1996, pgs. A1, D6.
Descriptor terms: global warming; greenhouse effect; corporations;
kyoto; insurance industry; libertarians; think tanks; ipcc;
beavith
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:53:06 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
>> <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
>>>> if there was a payoff, institutions, companies and people would be
>>>> going PV in droves, not in trickles.
>>>
>>> If there was a payoff in using CF lighting, people wouild be going to CF
>>>lighting in drives not in trickles.
>
>
>
>"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
>> uuuummmmm. they are. the local Home Depot has a 5 CF pack that's
>> free after rebate.
>
> Neato. Why is that needed 25 years after their introduction? Why hasn't
>the AmeriKKKan population converted 25 years after they became available?
>
> If AmeriKKKans had been moving to CF in droves, then incandescent would
>have been replace entierly two decades ago.
because you can buy incandescents for a pack of 4 for $1.50 vs a CF 5
pack for $10.58.
It's the rare individual that figures life cycle cost. or has the
patience to "wait" for break even and payback
for 25 years? sure. first generation CFs were 10+ bucks each. and
noisy.
pretty much just curiosities.
>
>
>"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
>> for the chance to reduce my lighting bill to close to zero, i jumped
>> all over that one.
>
> You will cut your lighting bill by 3/4 of (1/5,1/3) approx of your total
>since lighting is typically about 1/5th or maybe 1/3rd of your total
>depending on how you have things arranged. So expect a reduction of 15% to
>25%. Mine was about 20%.
right.
my last two kids left for college, my in laws died, daughter #2 has
her own apartment and daughter #1 married and moved away. we've gone
from close to $200/month for power and now we're down $80.00/month.
oil bill plunged too.
>
>
>"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
>> 2 months ago, we had a big ice storm that knocked out power in my
>> neighborhood for several days. i had a small generator fired up to
>> run the furnace and water pump. 20 A available.
>>
>> Incandescent lights would cause a noticeable drag on the generator.
>> several CFs made no difference. a CRT TV set was impossible to watch
>> but a digital LCD screen made no difference. modern refrigerator?
>> yes. ancient one? no.
>> microwave? yes. resistance oven? no.
>
> I recently had to replace my hot water tank and refrigerator. I purchased
>units that were more appropriate for the size of my home and as a result cut
>my energy consumpiton by anothe 20%. Solar water heating is in the cards in
>the coming few years. That I estimate will reduce consumption by another
>30% in my case.
<smirk> could we be working to some kind of epiphany here?
>At this point though it makes little economic sense.
i'll treasure this moment forever.
> I now
>consume only about $10 of electric power a month. It makes more sense to
>put resources into increase winter heating efficiency.
>
> As it stands I've improved that by about 50% over the last decade as well.
>
>
>"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
>> what i'm trying to say is that efficiency is its own reward. vast
>> schemes are unnecessary.
>>
>> if anything, economic drive to efficiency makes a transition to some
>> other source of power simpler.
>
> Remember the final goal for you is a reduction of your energy consumption
>by 90%.
>
> So far I'm at around 60% with no change in lifestyle. In fact an
>improvement in comefort, with reduced reliance on utilities and greater
>security from service interruptions.
>
> With regard to backup power, my furnace can operate in convection mode so
>as long as there is gas pressure, it continues to provide heat. Lighting
>and sundry electic power is available from two UPS systems, Hot water and
>refrigeration will maintain themselves for 24 hours, and fuel for emergency
>cooking is stocked. I have a week before I start to start getting
>inventive.
yeah. gas, LP or town, does have an upside. i've got oil , so i need
some kind of power to run teh furnace.
>
> For example, the two small UPS power supplies will provide minimal
>lighting using CF bulbs for about 15 to 20 total hours.
>
> I have tentative plans for implementing a direct passive solar heating
>system that will reduce winter time heating fuel consumption by another 50%,
>The final steps of adding a condensing furnace and a flash hot water heater
>and the removal of the electrically heated tank should get me very close to
>a 90% reduction in overall energy consumption.
>
> As consumption is reduced, new possibilities begin to become feasable like
>PV generatrion for powering low voltage OLED lighting, At that point
>Refrigeration becomes 50% of the electric power consumption with the
>remainder being the ceiling fans and the PC entertainment system. PC power
>requirements will drop about 50% over the next few years, and refrigeration
>during the winter months can be accomplished at zero cost through the
>utilization of cold outside air.
OLED. when it matures a bit. thing is, it'll be chasing established
CF efficiency.
>
> As to the fans, they are not designed to be efficient. Typically electric
>motor designs can be made around 30% more efficient.
>
>Oh and as to your comment on big projects not being required. They are
>absoutely required as long as the population remains ignorant and compacent
>so that new generating facilities are required to provide current levels of
>power.
the economics for widespread system changeover become more difficult
as the supply required drops.
for instance, its mucheasier to run, say, one central nuke plant, than
to cover square miles in PV, because it covers all demand, rahter than
having to engineer storage FOR the PV.
If "efficiency" becomes a real strategy, switchover to PV becomes more
difficult and less economical. that is, less economical than it
already is.
>
>There are some big changes that can be made with very little effort for
>example. Like requiring all new housing be built such that the largest roof
>surface and wall surface is available for the installation of solar panels
>and passive heating systems.
>
>It's not rocket science.
all new housing have BAT house wrap and insulation technologies.
orientation is a nice, but way down the list of "impact" ideas.
>
>
no spam
>> Most here still cost $6 to $9 US.
>
> In my area the cost at discount stores is $1.00 per bulb (40->60 watt),
> and in regular stores approx $2.00 per bulb 13 watt, $3.00 (26 watt).
>
> Assuming a 8 hour on time over 4 years of bulb life, $0.05 per KWatt/Hour,
> they will save abut $27.50 in energy costs, and half a tonnne of coal from
> being burned.
First off, how many bulbs do you have that are on for 8 hrs/day 365 days a
year? I don't have any. In the winter maybe one or two of mine MIGHT be on
for 5-6 hrs/day (6 pm to midnight, bed time is usually 9-10pm) a couple of
days a month. In the summer most of my lights are on for less than a hour
each, if that much.
Second, what about the lost of life someone talked about with the on off
cycles?
Third, is there or is there not mercury in the bulbs?
Vendicar Decarian
"no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
> First off, how many bulbs do you have that are on for 8 hrs/day 365 days a
> year? I don't have any. In the winter maybe one or two of mine MIGHT be
> on for 5-6 hrs/day (6 pm to midnight, bed time is usually 9-10pm) a couple
> of days a month. In the summer most of my lights are on for less than a
> hour each, if that much.
4 hours, 6 hours, 8 hours, it's irrelevant. The bulb will fail because it
will refuse to start, not because it's on too long.
"no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
> Second, what about the lost of life someone talked about with the on off
> cycles?
Cycle the thing once or twice a day, you get 4-5 years. Lifetime seems to
be limited by the number of starts. Put one in the bathroom and cycle it 10
times a day and you get a 1 year lifetime approx.
"no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
> Third, is there or is there not mercury in the bulbs?
They do... Absolutely.. And this will need to be addressed in a decade or
so. OLED lighting will be starting to displace CF at that point. OLED
lighting offers similar efficiency but longer lifetime without the power
cycling problem, and since it's made from discrete components the light
emitting parts of the units should not fail at once but fail emitter by
emitter over time.
no spam
>> a year? I don't have any. In the winter maybe one or two of mine MIGHT
>> be on for 5-6 hrs/day (6 pm to midnight, bed time is usually 9-10pm) a
>> couple of days a month. In the summer most of my lights are on for less
>> than a hour each, if that much.
>
> 4 hours, 6 hours, 8 hours, it's irrelevant. The bulb will fail because
> it will refuse to start, not because it's on too long.
No its not. The amount of money spent is based on how long the light burns
before it has to be replaced. By our own words you are saying that you
numbers are way off. Instead of your high number 14600 hours of run time (8
hrs/day*365 day/year*5 years) before failure you can look to get only 3/4 to
1/2 of that. That means that your savings would be cut by the same number.
>> Second, what about the lost of life someone talked about with the on off
>> cycles?
>
> Cycle the thing once or twice a day, you get 4-5 years. Lifetime seems to
> be limited by the number of starts. Put one in the bathroom and cycle it
> 10 times a day and you get a 1 year lifetime approx.
IOW, CF's are only good for certain applications and you could actually lose
money, instead of saving it, if you used them in some places.
>> Third, is there or is there not mercury in the bulbs?
>
> They do... Absolutely.. And this will need to be addressed in a decade or
Logic like this is why we have some of the problems we have now. You need
to think about the end of life of a product BEFORE it is produced not after
you have to get rid of it.
Think nuke waste of today. If we had set up a nuke waste recycle program as
the power plants were being built we'd have no problem now.
Vendicar Decarian
"no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
> No its not. The amount of money spent is based on how long the light
> burns before it has to be replaced.
If you want to maximize the bulb life, keep it on. This is true of both
incandescent bulbs and CF bulbs.
It makes more sense to turn them off when you leave the room.
"no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
> By our own words you are saying that you numbers are way off.
No, they are very accurate.
"no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
> Instead of your high number 14600 hours of run time (8 hrs/day*365
> day/year*5 years) before failure you can look to get only 3/4 to 1/2 of
> that. That means that your savings would be cut by the same number.
Yup. Your cost savings would be less but still highly beneficail. And
the amount of energy used is quartered no matter what the bulb life is.
>>> Second, what about the lost of life someone talked about with the on off
>>> cycles?
>>
>> Cycle the thing once or twice a day, you get 4-5 years. Lifetime seems
>> to be limited by the number of starts. Put one in the bathroom and cycle
>> it 10 times a day and you get a 1 year lifetime approx.
"no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
> IOW, CF's are only good for certain applications and you could actually
> lose money, instead of saving it, if you used them in some places.
You can't eat them either.
They have their use, which is virtually everywhere. Oh, by the way,
they make a great trouble light bulb as well since there is no filament and
hence they are not prone to shock damage.
>>> Third, is there or is there not mercury in the bulbs?
>>
>> They do... Absolutely.. And this will need to be addressed in a decade
>> or
"no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
> Logic like this is why we have some of the problems we have now. You need
> to think about the end of life of a product BEFORE it is produced not
> after you have to get rid of it.
Once there is a large enough installed base to worry about the disposal
issues, it will be time to solve the disposal issues.
Fortunately CF lighting will be a short term thing. Low voltage LED
lighting is already on the market in the form of spotlights and of course
those high effiiency flashlights.
LED interestingly is actually somewhat less efficient than CF, but that is
changing, and will not be the case once it has widespread use.
"no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
> Think nuke waste of today. If we had set up a nuke waste recycle program
> as the power plants were being built we'd have no problem now.
Like Iran.
Vendicar Decarian
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> If AmeriKKKans had been moving to CF in droves, then incandescent would
>>have been replace entierly two decades ago.
"beavith" <beav...@netscape.net> wrote
> because you can buy incandescents for a pack of 4 for $1.50 vs a CF 5
> pack for $10.58.
CF's last 4-5 years, regular bulbs less than a year on average. Total
cost over 4 years for the bulbs themselves is $6.00. CF remains $8.00 for 4
in your example. The extra expense of $2.00 produces $100 in energy savings
over the lifetime of the bulbs.
It's really a no brainer.
"beavith" <beav...@netscape.net> wrote
> It's the rare individual that figures life cycle cost. or has the
> patience to "wait" for break even and payback
Breakeven for a $2.00 CF bulb is what? 4 months?
So you purchase 1. Wait 4 months, purchase another, in 2 months purchase
another, wait 2 months and purchase another, wait 1 month and purchase
another, wait another month purchase another, wait another month purchase
another, wait another month and purchase another.
Now you are down to a payback time of 2 weeks, and this has taken you an
initial investment of $2.00 and 1 year. and you now own 8 cf bulbs. Which
will save you $50 per year on your electric bill.
"beavith" <beav...@netscape.net> wrote
> for 25 years? sure. first generation CFs were 10+ bucks each. and
> noisy.
And for some people they flickered. So what?
>>"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
> my last two kids left for college, my in laws died, daughter #2 has
> her own apartment and daughter #1 married and moved away. we've gone
> from close to $200/month for power and now we're down $80.00/month.
> oil bill plunged too.
The electric component of my electric bill is $10 per month. $50 once all
of the various delivery charges and other local fees and taxes are added.
>> I recently had to replace my hot water tank and refrigerator. I
>> purchased
>>units that were more appropriate for the size of my home and as a result
>>cut
>>my energy consumpiton by anothe 20%. Solar water heating is in the cards
>>in
>>the coming few years. That I estimate will reduce consumption by another
>>30% in my case.
"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
> <smirk> could we be working to some kind of epiphany here?
Not sure what you mean.
>>At this point though it makes little economic sense.
"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
> i'll treasure this moment forever.
Only filth is motivated by money. For me it is simply an interesting
problem and a moral obligation.
"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
> yeah. gas, LP or town, does have an upside. i've got oil , so i need
> some kind of power to run teh furnace.
Using a generator to run an intermitant blower is a horrible waste of
fuel. But with furnace designs being what they are, there isn't much of an
alternative other than a pile of batteries. In the future every house will
have a standby battery that will supply at least a few hours of minimal
power, and lighting will be 12 volt low current led based.
A generator that runs intermitantly to charge the batteries will be a good
product to market once overall power consumption drops by the requisite 90%
"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
> OLED. when it matures a bit. thing is, it'll be chasing established
> CF efficiency.
Yes. But there are LED lamps now that are as efficient as CF. The
problem has been low efficiency at high power. A problem that has been
largely solved over the past decade or so.
"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
> the economics for widespread system changeover become more difficult
> as the supply required drops.
>
> for instance, its mucheasier to run, say, one central nuke plant, than
> to cover square miles in PV, because it covers all demand, rahter than
> having to engineer storage FOR the PV.
>
> If "efficiency" becomes a real strategy, switchover to PV becomes more
> difficult and less economical. that is, less economical than it
> already is.
More difficult to create PV centralized generating stations all other
things being equal. But peak oil has passed, and fuel prices are rising.
For individuals, improved efficiency means less PV cost to service one's
power requirements.
"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
> all new housing have BAT house wrap and insulation technologies.
> orientation is a nice, but way down the list of "impact" ideas.
Improving thermal efficiency of a home by 50% will reduce winter time
heating costs by 50% or more. And again, there comes a point where the home
can be heated with body and appliance thermal output.
One thing about CF lighting is that it actualy <increases> the winter
heating costs since they displace conventional bulbs that produce 90% heat.
So it can be argued that CF lighting in the winter months produce much less
savomgs as they other wise would since their use requires more heating fuels
be purfchased.
On the other hand they also reduce the about of summer time cooling
required.
Vendicar Decarian
"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote
> The reality is that building structures exposed to the weather is insane.
> Rational people superinsulate and Earth shelter structures. Then they
> require little or no heating and cooling at all. It's a very simple
> process to site your solar and wind where they function the best. That's
> why we have copper wires, you know.
Mid latitude homes that are well insulated can <EASILY> get most of their
daytime heat from the sun - even in the dead of winter. This has to be
supplemented with some other form of heating in the winter
Dug into a hillside, and insulated on three sides, All winter heating could
come from solar.
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
wrote:
Do not propagate lies in your subject lines.
YOU are responsible for message subject lines issued by your computer,
when you hit "send".
Scientific reticence and sea level rise
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/8ec93a773f7cfb39
Scientific reticence and sea level rise, as text, part 1 of 4
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/14916919792c5786
Scientific reticence and sea level rise, as text, part 2 of 4
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/99014e28094b7cc9
Scientific reticence and sea level rise, as text, part 3 of 4
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/753260bdc51c4c66
Scientific reticence and sea level rise, as text, part 4 of 4
Unequivocal, "warming of the climate system is unequivocal"
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1603320,00.html
Warming May Create Climates, Cut Others
Some climates may disappear from Earth entirely, not just from their
current locations, while new climates could develop if the planet
continues to warm, a study says. Such changes would endanger some
plants and animals while providing new opportunities for others, said
John W. Williams, an assistant professor of geography at the
University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Using global change forecasts prepared for the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, researchers led by Williams used computer models to
estimate how climates in various parts of the world would be affected.
Their findings are being published in this week's online edition of
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The IPCC, representing the world's leading climate scientists,
reported in February that "warming of the climate system is
unequivocal, as is now evident from observation of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice
and rising global average sea level."
Tropical regions in particular may face unexpected changes,
particularly the rain forests in the Amazon and Indonesia, Williams'
researchers concluded.
This was surprising, Williams said in a telephone interview, since the
tropics tend to have little variation in weather.
But that also means temperature changes of 3 or 4 degrees in these
regions might have more impact than a change of 5 to 8 degrees in a
region that is accustomed to regular changes.
Species living in tropical areas may be less able to adapt, he said,
adding that that is speculative and needs further study.
Areas like the Southeastern United States and the Arabian Peninsula
may also be affected, the researchers said, adding that mountain areas
such as in Peruvian and Colombian Andes and regions such as Siberia
and southern Australia face a risk of climates disappearing
altogether.
That doesn't mean these regions would have no climate at all - rather
their climate would change and the conditions currently in these areas
would not occur elsewhere on Earth.
That would pose a risk to species living in those areas, Williams
observed.
If some regions develop new climates that don't now exist, that might
provide an opportunity for species that live there, Williams said.
"But we can't make a prediction because it's outside our current
experience and outside the experience of these species
no spam
>>>have been replace entierly two decades ago.
>
>
> "beavith" <beav...@netscape.net> wrote
>> because you can buy incandescents for a pack of 4 for $1.50 vs a CF 5
>> pack for $10.58.
>
> CF's last 4-5 years, regular bulbs less than a year on average. Total
> cost over 4 years for the bulbs themselves is $6.00. CF remains $8.00 for
> 4 in your example. The extra expense of $2.00 produces $100 in energy
> savings over the lifetime of the bulbs.
>
> It's really a no brainer.
If the following is wrong please let me know but if it is correct please
start using more realistic numbers.
I thought their life was linked to their on/off cycle and your 4-5 year
average life span was based on one cycle per day and your cost savings are
based on 8 hr/day of usage. Seems to me that most of my lights have at
least 2 cycles/day. I get up in the morning and turn them on then turn them
off as I leave for work. When I get home I do it again. Others, such as
the bathroom light get several per day. That means I'd be looking at 2-2.5
yr/bulb.
Also I can't think of a single bulb in my house that burns of 8 hr/day every
day of the year. I'd think a yearly average of 4 hrs/day would be high.
That means you numbers are way off for a real life scenario. You'd get half
the life and half the usage bring your cost per year up and your savings per
year down.
Let's see if I can do this cost for bulbs for 4 years; incand $6, CF $16.
Money saved $50. So for investing $10 you get $50. 500% profit still ain't
nothing to sneeze at but its way down from your 5,000%
>
>
>>>At this point though it makes little economic sense.
>
> "beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
>> i'll treasure this moment forever.
>
> Only filth is motivated by money. For me it is simply an interesting
> problem and a moral obligation.
Hate to break your bubble but its money not love that makes the world go
around. If you want to really cut your lighting bill and make even less
impact on the environment then why not raise bees and a little cotton and
make your own candles? Actually your be helping the environment from what
I've read the number of wild and hived bees are going down causing some
pollination problems.
no spam
>> burns before it has to be replaced.
>
> If you want to maximize the bulb life, keep it on. This is true of both
> incandescent bulbs and CF bulbs.
>
> It makes more sense to turn them off when you leave the room.
Or just open a window shade.
>
>
> "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
>> By our own words you are saying that you numbers are way off.
>
> No, they are very accurate.
Not for me and I'm willing to bet most home usage. How many people do you
know have light usage of a yearly average of 8 hrs/day?
>
>
> "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
>> Instead of your high number 14600 hours of run time (8 hrs/day*365
>> day/year*5 years) before failure you can look to get only 3/4 to 1/2 of
>> that. That means that your savings would be cut by the same number.
>
> Yup. Your cost savings would be less but still highly beneficail. And
> the amount of energy used is quartered no matter what the bulb life is.
True. As I pointed out in another msg using even my lower numbers
'investing' in CF's can give you a return of 500%. Most people wouldn't
turn that down. My problem is people using bad numbers to support their
case. It can be an individual on a newsgroup or a company on a TV ad.
>>>> Second, what about the lost of life someone talked about with the on
>>>> off cycles?
>>>
>>> Cycle the thing once or twice a day, you get 4-5 years. Lifetime seems
>>> to be limited by the number of starts. Put one in the bathroom and cycle
>>> it 10 times a day and you get a 1 year lifetime approx.
>
> "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
>> IOW, CF's are only good for certain applications and you could actually
>> lose money, instead of saving it, if you used them in some places.
>
> You can't eat them either.
>
> They have their use, which is virtually everywhere. Oh, by the way,
> they make a great trouble light bulb as well since there is no filament
> and hence they are not prone to shock damage.
Now there's an example of a very good selling point. Another couple more,
IIRC, they don't run as hot so less chance of getting burned and a drop of
water hitting one won't cause it to implode. Of course very few people use
drop lights.
>
>
>>>> Third, is there or is there not mercury in the bulbs?
>>>
>>> They do... Absolutely.. And this will need to be addressed in a decade
>>> or
>
> "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
>> Logic like this is why we have some of the problems we have now. You
>> need to think about the end of life of a product BEFORE it is produced
>> not after you have to get rid of it.
>
> Once there is a large enough installed base to worry about the disposal
> issues, it will be time to solve the disposal issues.
Go back and read a little history on the storage of nuke waste in the US and
you will find very similar statements about we'll solve the problem before
it gets large enough to be a real problem.
>> Think nuke waste of today. If we had set up a nuke waste recycle program
>> as the power plants were being built we'd have no problem now.
>
> Like Iran.
AFAIK, Iran has no nuke fuel/waste handling plan much less recycling plan.
I don't think they are building breeder reactors either, which would reduce
the amount of waste out there.
>
>
Paul M. Eldridge
>If the following is wrong please let me know but if it is correct please
>start using more realistic numbers.
>
>I thought their life was linked to their on/off cycle and your 4-5 year
>average life span was based on one cycle per day and your cost savings are
>based on 8 hr/day of usage. Seems to me that most of my lights have at
>least 2 cycles/day. I get up in the morning and turn them on then turn them
>off as I leave for work. When I get home I do it again. Others, such as
>the bathroom light get several per day. That means I'd be looking at 2-2.5
>yr/bulb.
>
>Also I can't think of a single bulb in my house that burns of 8 hr/day every
>day of the year. I'd think a yearly average of 4 hrs/day would be high.
>That means you numbers are way off for a real life scenario. You'd get half
>the life and half the usage bring your cost per year up and your savings per
>year down.
>
>Let's see if I can do this cost for bulbs for 4 years; incand $6, CF $16.
>Money saved $50. So for investing $10 you get $50. 500% profit still ain't
>nothing to sneeze at but its way down from your 5,000%
To earn Energy Star certification, a CFL must be capable of at least
one start for every two hours of rated life -- on that basis, a CFL
with a rated life of 10,000 hours should withstand at least 5,000
starts. Assuming an average of 2 starts per day (not taking into
consideration accumulated hours of operation), the minimum life
expectancy of an Energy Star CFL is about 7 years.
The Lighting Research Centre of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
conducted a series of stress tests on Energy Star lamps on behalf of
the EPA. Six samples of each of the nine products tested were cycled
on and off every five minutes. They found that two of the nine
sampled products failed early on (fewer than 10,000 starts each), but
the remaining seven products -- 42 lamps in all -- continued to
operate after approximately 32,000 starts [the point at which the
testing was ended).
Source:
http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/lightingTransformation/pdf/durabilityTestingFinalReport.pdf
Cheers,
Paul
Vendicar Decarian
>> "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
>> No, they are very accurate.
"no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
> Not for me and I'm willing to bet most home usage. How many people do you
> know have light usage of a yearly average of 8 hrs/day?
Why would you feel that your bulb usage alters my calculations? Stupid.
Isn't it up to you to estimate your own utilization? Can you manage to
compute a ratio? Most AmeriKKKan Apes can at least do that, even though we
know you don't have much for brains.
>> "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
>>> Instead of your high number 14600 hours of run time (8 hrs/day*365
>>> day/year*5 years) before failure you can look to get only 3/4 to 1/2 of
>>> that. That means that your savings would be cut by the same number.
>>
>> Yup. Your cost savings would be less but still highly beneficail. And
>> the amount of energy used is quartered no matter what the bulb life is.
>
> True. As I pointed out in another msg using even my lower numbers
> 'investing' in CF's can give you a return of 500%. Most people wouldn't
> turn that down. My problem is people using bad numbers to support their
> case. It can be an individual on a newsgroup or a company on a TV ad.
I probably do average about 8 hours of light use per day over the year.
I'm usually up until 2 in the morning. I prefer working at night so that
I'm not bothered by chimps.
>> You can't eat them either.
>>
>> They have their use, which is virtually everywhere. Oh, by the way,
>> they make a great trouble light bulb as well since there is no filament
>> and hence they are not prone to shock damage.
"no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
> Now there's an example of a very good selling point. Another couple more,
> IIRC, they don't run as hot so less chance of getting burned and a drop of
> water hitting one won't cause it to implode. Of course very few people
> use drop lights.
I have to go spelunking under my house a few times a year, and a trouble
light is indispensable. Just used it to fix some water pipes that had been
split, under the bathroom (crawlspace) of the father of a friend of mine.
As a tool they are indispensable - almost as indispensable as a crank LED
flashlight.
>> Once there is a large enough installed base to worry about the disposal
>> issues, it will be time to solve the disposal issues.
"no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
> Go back and read a little history on the storage of nuke waste in the US
> and you will find very similar statements about we'll solve the problem
> before it gets large enough to be a real problem.
I know alll about nuke waste storage and "disposal". The difference is
that nuke waste has never had a solution, while CF lighting is gone in 20
years. or less.
"no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
> AFAIK, Iran has no nuke fuel/waste handling plan much less recycling plan.
> I don't think they are building breeder reactors either, which would
> reduce the amount of waste out there.
Give em 5 years. They will.
\
Vendicar Decarian
"Paul M. Eldridge" <paul.e...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote
> To earn Energy Star certification, a CFL must be capable of at least
> one start for every two hours of rated life -- on that basis, a CFL
> with a rated life of 10,000 hours should withstand at least 5,000
> starts. Assuming an average of 2 starts per day (not taking into
> consideration accumulated hours of operation), the minimum life
> expectancy of an Energy Star CFL is about 7 years.
>
> The Lighting Research Centre of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
> conducted a series of stress tests on Energy Star lamps on behalf of
> the EPA. Six samples of each of the nine products tested were cycled
> on and off every five minutes. They found that two of the nine
> sampled products failed early on (fewer than 10,000 starts each), but
> the remaining seven products -- 42 lamps in all -- continued to
> operate after approximately 32,000 starts [the point at which the
> testing was ended).
>
> Source:
> http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/lightingTransformation/pdf/durabilityTestingFinalReport.pdf
Excellent post.
Vendicar Decarian
"no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
> I thought their life was linked to their on/off cycle and your 4-5 year
> average life span was based on one cycle per day and your cost savings are
> based on 8 hr/day of usage.
8 hours of usage but bulb lifetime is 4-5 years when not used in the
bathroom.
So over a 4 year lifetime, you have $8.00 cost rather than a $6.00 cost
(and it's going to be bigger than that), for a net increase in cost of
$2.00 and a savings of about $100 in energy <not> consumed.
So for that additional $2.00 investment you save $100.
Vendicar Decarian wrote:
>> Only filth is motivated by money. For me it is simply an interesting
>> problem and a moral obligation.
"no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
> Hate to break your bubble but its money not love that makes the world go
> around.
So says an AmeriKKKan money grubber. The Average AmeriKKKan money grubber
spends 4,800 minutes a day as a wage slave and 10 minutes a day as a parent.
"no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
> If you want to really cut your lighting bill and make even less impact on
> the environment then why not raise bees and a little cotton and make your
> own candles?
Why? Are there insufficient candles in the world?
The fact of the matter is that well over 80% of the work done in
AmeriKKKa is unproductive labour.
Such is the "efficiency" of the Capitalist economic system.
"no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
> Actually your be helping the environment from what I've read the number of
> wild and hived bees are going down causing some pollination problems.
Looks like it's a pesticide that was banned in "old Europe" a decade ago
for doing the same thing and which has been recently promoted by the Bush
Administration.
beav
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
>>> No, they are very accurate.
>
>
>"no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
>> Not for me and I'm willing to bet most home usage. How many people do you
>> know have light usage of a yearly average of 8 hrs/day?
>
> Why would you feel that your bulb usage alters my calculations? Stupid.
>
> Isn't it up to you to estimate your own utilization? Can you manage to
>compute a ratio? Most AmeriKKKan Apes can at least do that, even though we
>know you don't have much for brains.
what a sweet individual....
their heavy water plant is coming on line shortly. presuming they
have enriched, even slightly enriched, U the candu style reactor
becomes merely an engineering exercise. Pu is the product, without
all the hassle of breeder tech.
>\
>
beav
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> If AmeriKKKans had been moving to CF in droves, then incandescent would
>>>have been replace entierly two decades ago.
>
>
>"beavith" <beav...@netscape.net> wrote
>> because you can buy incandescents for a pack of 4 for $1.50 vs a CF 5
>> pack for $10.58.
>
> CF's last 4-5 years, regular bulbs less than a year on average. Total
>cost over 4 years for the bulbs themselves is $6.00. CF remains $8.00 for 4
>in your example. The extra expense of $2.00 produces $100 in energy savings
>over the lifetime of the bulbs.
>
> It's really a no brainer.
agreed.
for some people even a no-brainer is a brainer. politicians,
especially.
>
>
>"beavith" <beav...@netscape.net> wrote
>> It's the rare individual that figures life cycle cost. or has the
>> patience to "wait" for break even and payback
>
>Breakeven for a $2.00 CF bulb is what? 4 months?
>
>So you purchase 1. Wait 4 months, purchase another, in 2 months purchase
>another, wait 2 months and purchase another, wait 1 month and purchase
>another, wait another month purchase another, wait another month purchase
>another, wait another month and purchase another.
>
>Now you are down to a payback time of 2 weeks, and this has taken you an
>initial investment of $2.00 and 1 year. and you now own 8 cf bulbs. Which
>will save you $50 per year on your electric bill.
i get it. you're preaching to the choir.
>
>
>"beavith" <beav...@netscape.net> wrote
>> for 25 years? sure. first generation CFs were 10+ bucks each. and
>> noisy.
>
> And for some people they flickered. So what?
very expensive, noisy, flicker, didn't like the color, etc. if it
doesn't appeal to people, for whatever reason, they won't buy it.
<shrug> its human nature.
you can demand people change, but you're just shovelling against tthe
tide.
>
>
>>>"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
>> my last two kids left for college, my in laws died, daughter #2 has
>> her own apartment and daughter #1 married and moved away. we've gone
>> from close to $200/month for power and now we're down $80.00/month.
>> oil bill plunged too.
>
> The electric component of my electric bill is $10 per month. $50 once all
>of the various delivery charges and other local fees and taxes are added.
yeah. i have to think most of my $80 is sunk/stranded cost and taxes.
gotta love it.
>
>
>>> I recently had to replace my hot water tank and refrigerator. I
>>> purchased
>>>units that were more appropriate for the size of my home and as a result
>>>cut
>>>my energy consumpiton by anothe 20%. Solar water heating is in the cards
>>>in
>>>the coming few years. That I estimate will reduce consumption by another
>>>30% in my case.
>
>"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
>> <smirk> could we be working to some kind of epiphany here?
>
> Not sure what you mean.
you were leaning towards something...
>
>
>>>At this point though it makes little economic sense.
>
OOOOHHHHH! and there it is. : )
>"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
>> i'll treasure this moment forever.
>
> Only filth is motivated by money. For me it is simply an interesting
>problem and a moral obligation.
DOHHHH!
you were so close. so very close.
>
>
>"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
>> yeah. gas, LP or town, does have an upside. i've got oil , so i need
>> some kind of power to run teh furnace.
>
> Using a generator to run an intermitant blower is a horrible waste of
>fuel. But with furnace designs being what they are, there isn't much of an
>alternative other than a pile of batteries. In the future every house will
>have a standby battery that will supply at least a few hours of minimal
>power, and lighting will be 12 volt low current led based.
>
>A generator that runs intermitantly to charge the batteries will be a good
>product to market once overall power consumption drops by the requisite 90%
believe me. a generator is a pain in the ass. i had to run it to
keep the pipes from freezing. the house temp had dropped to the low
40s (F) after a day of no power.
it's not a solution, but a band aid.
as afar as the next high tech solution ---- perhaps. plan B was to
fire up the wood burner. the wife doesn't care for it much because it
leaves dust and smells. i'm not so picky. if the generator was a
no-go, dust and smell drop way down on the depth chart.
>
>
>"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
>> OLED. when it matures a bit. thing is, it'll be chasing established
>> CF efficiency.
>
> Yes. But there are LED lamps now that are as efficient as CF. The
>problem has been low efficiency at high power. A problem that has been
>largely solved over the past decade or so.
>
>
>"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
>> the economics for widespread system changeover become more difficult
>> as the supply required drops.
>>
>> for instance, its mucheasier to run, say, one central nuke plant, than
>> to cover square miles in PV, because it covers all demand, rahter than
>> having to engineer storage FOR the PV.
>>
>> If "efficiency" becomes a real strategy, switchover to PV becomes more
>> difficult and less economical. that is, less economical than it
>> already is.
>
> More difficult to create PV centralized generating stations all other
>things being equal. But peak oil has passed, and fuel prices are rising.
possibly. the world poliitical solution keeps the markets roiled.
easy access oil is tied up in unsettled states.
efficiency, literally, is its own reward. politically and
economically.
>
> For individuals, improved efficiency means less PV cost to service one's
>power requirements.
>
>
>"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
>> all new housing have BAT house wrap and insulation technologies.
>> orientation is a nice, but way down the list of "impact" ideas.
>
> Improving thermal efficiency of a home by 50% will reduce winter time
>heating costs by 50% or more. And again, there comes a point where the home
>can be heated with body and appliance thermal output.
true, but we have a ways to go before that happens. remember earth
sheltered houses? i'm mystified why they haven't developed a
following. probably the associated engineering expense...
>
> One thing about CF lighting is that it actualy <increases> the winter
>heating costs since they displace conventional bulbs that produce 90% heat.
>So it can be argued that CF lighting in the winter months produce much less
>savomgs as they other wise would since their use requires more heating fuels
>be purfchased.
what's more expensive: oil to heat or electricity to heat? it just
changes the ledger entry attributed to cost.
>
>On the other hand they also reduce the about of summer time cooling
>required.
>
right.
>
no spam
>
>
> "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
>> Not for me and I'm willing to bet most home usage. How many people do
>> you know have light usage of a yearly average of 8 hrs/day?
>
> Why would you feel that your bulb usage alters my calculations? Stupid.
First I said you numbers are wrong for most people. You imply that people
can save $100/year by buying just 4 CF bulbs. Most people would be lucky to
get half that. If a business was doing that you'd be screaming about how
the capitalists are deceiving people just to make more money. Why not just
say how people could save over $300/yr by leaving the bulb on 24 hrs/day?
>
> Isn't it up to you to estimate your own utilization? Can you manage to
> compute a ratio? Most AmeriKKKan Apes can at least do that, even though
> we know you don't have much for brains.
If you will notice I did run the more realistic numbers.
>
>
>
>>> "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
>>>> Instead of your high number 14600 hours of run time (8 hrs/day*365
>>>> day/year*5 years) before failure you can look to get only 3/4 to 1/2 of
>>>> that. That means that your savings would be cut by the same number.
>>>
>>> Yup. Your cost savings would be less but still highly beneficail. And
>>> the amount of energy used is quartered no matter what the bulb life is.
>>
>> True. As I pointed out in another msg using even my lower numbers
>> 'investing' in CF's can give you a return of 500%. Most people wouldn't
>> turn that down. My problem is people using bad numbers to support their
>> case. It can be an individual on a newsgroup or a company on a TV ad.
>
> I probably do average about 8 hours of light use per day over the year.
> I'm usually up until 2 in the morning. I prefer working at night so that
> I'm not bothered by chimps.
So you have deliberately decided to live a life style that uses more
electricity than necessary. How much could you reduce your carbon foot
print if you waited until daylight to work? You and your kind are killing
the planet!
>
>
>
>>> You can't eat them either.
>>>
>>> They have their use, which is virtually everywhere. Oh, by the way,
>>> they make a great trouble light bulb as well since there is no filament
>>> and hence they are not prone to shock damage.
>
> "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
>> Now there's an example of a very good selling point. Another couple
>> more, IIRC, they don't run as hot so less chance of getting burned and a
>> drop of water hitting one won't cause it to implode. Of course very few
>> people use drop lights.
>
> I have to go spelunking under my house a few times a year, and a trouble
> light is indispensable. Just used it to fix some water pipes that had
> been split, under the bathroom (crawlspace) of the father of a friend of
> mine.
The best thing I have find for that is a LED headlight. No cord to drag and
your hands are free.
>
>>> Once there is a large enough installed base to worry about the disposal
>>> issues, it will be time to solve the disposal issues.
>
>
> "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
>> Go back and read a little history on the storage of nuke waste in the US
>> and you will find very similar statements about we'll solve the problem
>> before it gets large enough to be a real problem.
>
> I know alll about nuke waste storage and "disposal". The difference is
> that nuke waste has never had a solution, while CF lighting is gone in 20
> years. or less.
>
> "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
>> AFAIK, Iran has no nuke fuel/waste handling plan much less recycling
>> plan. I don't think they are building breeder reactors either, which
>> would reduce the amount of waste out there.
>
> Give em 5 years. They will.
I may have mis-spoke. It seems that Iran does have a waste disposable plan:
spread it around on people they don't like (i.e. anyone who does not agree
with their world view).
no spam
>>> plan.
>>> I don't think they are building breeder reactors either, which would
>>> reduce the amount of waste out there.
>>
>> Give em 5 years. They will.
>
>
> their heavy water plant is coming on line shortly. presuming they
> have enriched, even slightly enriched, U the candu style reactor
> becomes merely an engineering exercise. Pu is the product, without
> all the hassle of breeder tech.
My point was they don't want to reduce the 'waste' by building breeders they
want the 'waste' to convert to weapons grade stuff.
no spam
Now that's some data I can use. So the 'profit' would be a little more
based on longer use. Someone had implied in a post that the death of a CF
was caused by the on off cycle not the burn time.
Now for that pesky Hg problem they have.
no spam
>> average life span was based on one cycle per day and your cost savings
>> are based on 8 hr/day of usage.
>
> 8 hours of usage but bulb lifetime is 4-5 years when not used in the
> bathroom.
>
> So over a 4 year lifetime, you have $8.00 cost rather than a $6.00 cost
> (and it's going to be bigger than that), for a net increase in cost of
> $2.00 and a savings of about $100 in energy <not> consumed.
>
> So for that additional $2.00 investment you save $100.
Based on your earth killing use of 8 hr/day of use of electric lights. I
wonder how much energy I save, compared to you, by working with the shades
up and the windows opened?
>
>
> Vendicar Decarian wrote:
>>> Only filth is motivated by money. For me it is simply an interesting
>>> problem and a moral obligation.
>
>
> "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
>> Hate to break your bubble but its money not love that makes the world go
>> around.
>
> So says an AmeriKKKan money grubber. The Average AmeriKKKan money
> grubber spends 4,800 minutes a day as a wage slave and 10 minutes a day as
> a parent.
Showing your math skills again. 24 hrs/day * 60 min/hr = 1440 min/day.
I'm well above average. When my kids were small I spend about 60 mins a day
as money grubbing business owner and 1380 min/day as a parent. Even today I
spend 900 min/day as a parent while the kids are in school.
With that said I actually agree with your basic concept.
<preaching mode on>
PEOPLE SHOULD STOP WORKING TO BUY A NEW CAR EVERY TWO YRARS AND WORK ON
RAISING THEIR KIDS!!!
<preaching mode off>
>
>
> "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
>> If you want to really cut your lighting bill and make even less impact
>> on the environment then why not raise bees and a little cotton and make
>> your own candles?
>
> Why? Are there insufficient candles in the world?
>
> The fact of the matter is that well over 80% of the work done in
> AmeriKKKa is unproductive labour.
And 93.5% of all statistic are made up.
But again I slightly agree with you. I've worked in enough union shops to
say that in all of them at least 10% of the man hours spent are wasted.
> Such is the "efficiency" of the Capitalist economic system.
Actually the capitalist system is very efficient. Its the socialist union
system that cause the problem. Its amazing how much work people will do if
they are getting rewarded for. The opposite holds true, its amazing how
little work you get out of people if they are getting paid if they work or
not.
> "no spam" <n...@spam.net> wrote
>> Actually your be helping the environment from what I've read the number
>> of wild and hived bees are going down causing some pollination problems.
>
> Looks like it's a pesticide that was banned in "old Europe" a decade ago
> for doing the same thing and which has been recently promoted by the Bush
> Administration.
There are many reasons. The covering of open land for homes, roads and the
like is one of the main reasons. The fact that the government is getting
more and more involved in the bee and honey business is another. A lot of
the little beekeepers are just saying 'screw it', it ain't worth the hassle.
Paul M. Eldridge
>> To earn Energy Star certification, a CFL must be capable of at least
>> one start for every two hours of rated life -- on that basis, a CFL
>> with a rated life of 10,000 hours should withstand at least 5,000
>> starts. Assuming an average of 2 starts per day (not taking into
>> consideration accumulated hours of operation), the minimum life
>> expectancy of an Energy Star CFL is about 7 years.
>
>Now that's some data I can use. So the 'profit' would be a little more
>based on longer use. Someone had implied in a post that the death of a CF
>was caused by the on off cycle not the burn time.
>
>Now for that pesky Hg problem they have.
Program start ballasts are far more kind to fluorescent lamps, which
means they can be cycled on and off more frequently without causing
undue harm. I'm not familiar with the electronic circuitry used in
CFLs, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the better products out
there excel in this regard (e.g., the Philips Universal CFL has a
rated life of 15,000 hours).
In terms of Hg, the Philips 25-watt Universal CFL contains 2.64 mg,
which is about half the amount found in other CFLs. Philips has
recently announced that they will be making further cuts, so this
number could drop to as little as 1.5 mg or less. To put this in
perspective, the three Honeywell thermostats in my home each contain
3,000 mg of mercury.
What we need to realize is that the continued use of incandescent
lamps is far more damaging to our health and the environment due to
the additional electricity they consume and all that this entails.
Compared to the 100-watt bulb it replaces, this CFL would save 1,125
kWh over the course of its rated life, and in the case of coal-fired
generation, would eliminate the release of 14.6 pounds of SO2, 6.8
pounds of NOx, 2,530 pounds of CO2 and 11 mg of mercury (plus several
other toxic metals). And whereas the mercury in our CFL can be
recycled or secured in a landfill at the end of its life, the mercury
emissions from a coal-fired plant are released into the atmosphere and
thus indiscriminately pollute our air, soil and water.
Cheers,
Paul