Re: If You Think Clean Coal Technology Is The Answer
John Navas
<larry...@shitstring.com> wrote in
<PqudnZ45zbHrmcXU...@supernews.com>:
>Just ask the folks in Tennessee about it. It seems the dumb bastards that
>thought of "Clean Coal Technology" haven't yet found a way to dispose of the
>millions of tons of solid waste it generates. And to think we have a fifty
>year supply of coal that will break our addiction to Middle Eastern oil. I
>hope that disaster isn't near Spike's home.
>
><http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html>
What does that have to do with r.p.d???
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
ASAAR
>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html>
>>
>>
>> What does that have to do with r.p.d???
>
> Knowing Rita, that might just be a little nod to our resident Tennessee
> Canon driver.
Nah. Knowing Rita she'll soon be in Tennessee with her D3 and big
glass, hoping to take snapshots of folks getting their ashes hauled.
ASAAR
> Just ask the folks in Tennessee about it. It seems the dumb bastards that
> thought of "Clean Coal Technology" haven't yet found a way to dispose of the
> millions of tons of solid waste it generates. And to think we have a fifty
> year supply of coal that will break our addiction to Middle Eastern oil. I
> hope that disaster isn't near Spike's home.
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html>
Better near Spike's home than mine. Better yet, move the millions
of tons of clinkers to Crawford, Texas. Since Der Bush only used
his ranch there as a popularity prop and will be abandoning it as
soon as possible when he vacates the White House, Crawford is by far
the most appropriate choice for a dumping ground considering his
legacy, and it should be acceptable by practically everyone in our
nation of NIMBYs.
Bill Graham
"Larry Thong" <larry...@shitstring.com> wrote in message
news:PqudnZ45zbHrmcXU...@supernews.com...
> Just ask the folks in Tennessee about it. It seems the dumb bastards that
> thought of "Clean Coal Technology" haven't yet found a way to dispose of
> the
> millions of tons of solid waste it generates.
Is this "solid waste" any worse than the coal itself? - It is coal we are
talking about....It is in the ground right now, and it has been there for
millions of years.....If it didn't pollute the world during all that time,
then why would you think that the coal dust that is generated by mining the
coal pollute the world any more than the coal itself?
Alan Browne
The coal residue in question is post use. Concentrates heavy metals
(eg: Hg) and often contains uranium as well.
Indeed all this crap trapped in coal does no harm - but liberated by man
it becomes a pollutant. All we wanted was the joules. But released the
CO2 and the rest of the crap as well into the environment.
Apparently home coal burning is becoming popular again in the NE US as
it is 1/2 to 1/4 the cost of oil/gas heating.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Bill Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:E7CdnRE0pOQ1rMXU...@giganews.com...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> "Larry Thong" <larry...@shitstring.com> wrote in message
>> news:PqudnZ45zbHrmcXU...@supernews.com...
>>> Just ask the folks in Tennessee about it. It seems the dumb bastards
>>> that
>>> thought of "Clean Coal Technology" haven't yet found a way to dispose of
>>> the
>>> millions of tons of solid waste it generates.
>>
>> Is this "solid waste" any worse than the coal itself? - It is coal we are
>> talking about....It is in the ground right now, and it has been there for
>> millions of years.....If it didn't pollute the world during all that
>> time, then why would you think that the coal dust that is generated by
>> mining the coal pollute the world any more than the coal itself?
>
> The coal residue in question is post use. Concentrates heavy metals (eg:
> Hg) and often contains uranium as well.
>
> Indeed all this crap trapped in coal does no harm - but liberated by man
> it becomes a pollutant. All we wanted was the joules. But released the
> CO2 and the rest of the crap as well into the environment.
>
> Apparently home coal burning is becoming popular again in the NE US as it
> is 1/2 to 1/4 the cost of oil/gas heating.
>
different things. Burning any fossil fuel is going to produce carbon
dioxide, There isn't much you can do about that. Grow more plants to convert
it back into carbon and oxygen is about all we can do about that. I believe
the other pollutants can be filtered out and returned to the soil, where
they will do no more harm than they did when trapped in the coal. And carbon
dioxide is produced by many things besides human activity....Rotting
vegetation on the forest floor, and breathing, to name a couple....There
have been times during the earth's history when the carbon dioxide levels in
the atmosphere have been much greater than they are right now, so I doubt if
it's a problem. The warmer it gets, the more plant life there will be, and
the more carbon dioxide will be converted back into carbon and oxygen. Here
in Oregon, we are having the coldest winter we have had in over 40
years.....I haven't heard Al Gore's explanation for that. But there is a
hell of a lot of hand waving goin' on........
ASAAR
>> Better near Spike's home than mine. Better yet, move the millions
>> of tons of clinkers to Crawford, Texas. Since Der Bush only used
>> his ranch there as a popularity prop and will be abandoning it as
>> soon as possible when he vacates the White House, Crawford is by far
>> the most appropriate choice for a dumping ground considering his
>> legacy, and it should be acceptable by practically everyone in our
>> nation of NIMBYs.
>
> Why cry about it now since you voted Bush in twice? I'm paying for your
> misguided voting habits.
Bush? Moi? Surely you jest, Shirley. The only way I'd vote for
"killer" would be if he was one of the choices in a lineup.
Mr.T
"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Eb6dnVH7HKjlyMXU...@giganews.com...
> Here
> in Oregon, we are having the coldest winter we have had in over 40
> years.....I haven't heard Al Gore's explanation for that. But there is a
> hell of a lot of hand waving goin' on........
That's why they now call it "climate change" instead of "global warming",
and as you said it's happened many times before in the earths history.
Homo Sapiens wouldn't even exist if it hadn't!
MrT.
DRS
news:49587b5e$0$20808$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au
Which nobody is denying so why bring it up?
Chris Malcolm
It's not a problem for the planet, which has been through many worse
climate changes before. It probably won't be a problem for the
survival of Homo Sapiens, which has proved capable of surviving in a
hunter gatherer lifestyle from the tropics to the arctic.
It's a problem for our current rather fragile and short sighted human
civilisation and governments. How is a country which made such a mess
of coping with New Orleans being flooded going to cope with New York
under water? How is a world which can't cope with local rice shortages
going to cope with local water shortages?
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris H
<we...@comcast.net> writes
Well if proof were needed this is it. Bill Graham is clearly a first
class idiot.
Apparently he has also written a paper on Iraq and Saddam Hussain
without even knowing what SIS, SAS and DGSE stand for.....
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Chris H
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>In rec.photo.digital Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
>
>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Eb6dnVH7HKjlyMXU...@giganews.com...
>>> Here
>>> in Oregon, we are having the coldest winter we have had in over 40
>>> years.....I haven't heard Al Gore's explanation for that. But there is a
>>> hell of a lot of hand waving goin' on........
>
>> That's why they now call it "climate change" instead of "global warming",
>> and as you said it's happened many times before in the earths history.
>> Homo Sapiens wouldn't even exist if it hadn't!
>
>It's not a problem for the planet, which has been through many worse
>climate changes before. It probably won't be a problem for the
>survival of Homo Sapiens, which has proved capable of surviving in a
>hunter gatherer lifestyle from the tropics to the arctic.
>
>It's a problem for our current rather fragile and short sighted human
>civilisation and governments. How is a country which made such a mess
>of coping with New Orleans being flooded going to cope with New York
>under water?
Good question. Look at what happened a few years back when there were
power outages in LA and NY.... civil order started to break down in
hours.
>How is a world which can't cope with local rice shortages
>going to cope with local water shortages?
The rest of the world will cope with those problems as it does now.
There are local rice and water shortages all over the place. They are
not uncommon.
However these disruptions and hic-ups will get more wide spread and more
common. Some countries will be more able to survive than others. Urban
centres are likely to suffer most I think which means the more
industrialised countries. So the US has just changed it's economic
model in the nick of time :-)
J. Clarke
> In rec.photo.digital Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
>
>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Eb6dnVH7HKjlyMXU...@giganews.com...
>>> Here
>>> in Oregon, we are having the coldest winter we have had in over 40
>>> years.....I haven't heard Al Gore's explanation for that. But
>>> there
>>> is a hell of a lot of hand waving goin' on........
>
>> That's why they now call it "climate change" instead of "global
>> warming", and as you said it's happened many times before in the
>> earths history. Homo Sapiens wouldn't even exist if it hadn't!
>
> It's not a problem for the planet, which has been through many worse
> climate changes before. It probably won't be a problem for the
> survival of Homo Sapiens, which has proved capable of surviving in a
> hunter gatherer lifestyle from the tropics to the arctic.
>
> It's a problem for our current rather fragile and short sighted
> human
> civilisation and governments. How is a country which made such a
> mess
> of coping with New Orleans being flooded going to cope with New York
> under water?
The devil in me wants to say "by having a 'good riddance' party". Los
Angeles and DC the same--pity the politicians can't be made to stay
there while it floods though.
But look at the projections. They're talking 2 degrees in the next
100 years. That's not going to melt Antarctica or Greenland and so
the flooding scenario isn't in the cards. They want you to _think_
that it is though.
> How is a world which can't cope with local rice shortages
> going to cope with local water shortages?
So let's see, there's going to be widespread flooding but there's
going to be a water shortage.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Cynicor
>
> But look at the projections. They're talking 2 degrees in the next
> 100 years. That's not going to melt Antarctica or Greenland and so
> the flooding scenario isn't in the cards. They want you to _think_
> that it is though.
Er...I don't think you understand what a 2 degree average increase in
100 years would cause.
>> How is a world which can't cope with local rice shortages
>> going to cope with local water shortages?
>
> So let's see, there's going to be widespread flooding but there's
> going to be a water shortage.
Er...I don't think you understand the difference between flood water and
potable water.
Keith nuttle
you can detect a 2 degree rise in the temperature of the planet with
about as 100 degree temperature range over the surface of the earth each
day of the year?
Chris H
<jclarke...@cox.net> writes
The ICE caps ARE melting though it is happening. The 2degrees is an
Average figure.
>> How is a world which can't cope with local rice shortages
>> going to cope with local water shortages?
>
>So let's see, there's going to be widespread flooding but there's
>going to be a water shortage.
That's right. Some areas will be flooded (and have a shortage of
drinking water) Other areas will have droughts
Alan Smithee
news:PqudnZ45zbHrmcXU...@supernews.com...
> Just ask the folks in Tennessee about it. It seems the dumb bastards that
> thought of "Clean Coal Technology" haven't yet found a way to dispose of
> the
> millions of tons of solid waste it generates. And to think we have a
> fifty
> year supply of coal that will break our addiction to Middle Eastern oil.
> I
> hope that disaster isn't near Spike's home.
What about the waste from nuclear power plants? Where does that go?
Alan Browne
Read the article Bill. The issue was the plant spilling post burned
coal ashes.
As to mining coal, strip and mountain top mining in Virginia has
devastated forests and disrupted streams.
CO2 'tipping points' is a dangerous game. Make no assumption that it
will self balance rapidly enough. Already higher CO2 in oceans is
changing acidity levels and killing of speisces and driving them into
narrower niches where there is too much competition for food or not
enough oxygen.
You mention a lot of sinks for CO2, but the game is not played one
sided. It is: sourcedCO2 - sinkedCO2 => growing CO2 concentration.
And sources are beating sinks.
Further tipping points include vast amounts of methane trapped in the
tundra. If the tundra warms up enough (and the polar regions are
warming faster than anywhere else) that methane will suddenly be
released. Methane is a greenhouse gas.
To suggest that man is not having an effect on GW and/or that a tipping
point won't be reached is the worst form of head-in-the-sand defense for
the indefensible. The worst part is that for most energy requiring
processes we use heat very inefficiently which leverages the CO2 output
unnecessarily*.
Shame.
In the end, life will continue. But not human life.
EOD for me.
*See the New York Times Technology or Science section about houses being
built in Germany that need negligible amounts of added heat or cooling.
Alan Browne
> But look at the projections. They're talking 2 degrees in the next
> 100 years. That's not going to melt Antarctica or Greenland and so
> the flooding scenario isn't in the cards. They want you to _think_
> that it is though.
It is the boundary conditions that are important.
That's an average increase which means that much of the arctic/antarctic
spends more and more time above 0 than below it. This means less
freezing of water in the fall (freeze starts late) and more melting of
ice in the spring (melt begins early) with a net loss of ice.
It is enough that everyone is scrambling to prepare for shipping via the
arctic (really shortens the Asia-Europe route); defending Arctic
sovereignty claims (there may be oil down there) and that the last few
years have seen alarming declines in ice in the arctic.
This is a long term problem (decades/centuries) but most people simply
want to shoo it away in the short term.
> So let's see, there's going to be widespread flooding but there's
> going to be a water shortage.
Salt water ain't too good for drinking.
Cynicor
Are you actually serious with this statement? You don't believe that
measurements can detect variations in mean temperatures because some
parts of the world are warmer than others? Or have you just never seen
any measurements?
Cynicor
>>
>> But look at the projections. They're talking 2 degrees in the next
>> 100 years. That's not going to melt Antarctica or Greenland and so
>> the flooding scenario isn't in the cards. They want you to _think_
>> that it is though.
>
> The ICE caps ARE melting though it is happening. The 2degrees is an
> Average figure.
Arctic ice is melting a lot faster than Antarctic. But it's a simple
fact that the Arctic ice cover is quickly retreating. Which, in turn,
leads to lessened reflectivity and more heat absorption, which leads to
faster warming.
It's just amazingly specious for people to say "but it's only 20 degrees
there, so 2 degrees isn't going to melt anything."
And no, 2 degrees doesn't cause flooding. It's the effects of the 2
degrees that will cause more frequent "100 year" flooding. If people
don't think that human activity has any effect on habitability, I invite
them to compare maps of southern Louisiana 50 years ago versus today.
>>> How is a world which can't cope with local rice shortages
>>> going to cope with local water shortages?
>>
>> So let's see, there's going to be widespread flooding but there's
>> going to be a water shortage.
>
> That's right. Some areas will be flooded (and have a shortage of
> drinking water) Other areas will have droughts
Other areas will get invasive plants that don't die when there's no
longer a hard frost. And they will lose species that need a frost to
properly germinate the next year.
Keith nuttle
The changes in pH in these studies are in the range of 0.1 pH units.
This is within the accuracy of the measurement of pH. pH "standards"
values are given with a +/- 0.1 units accuracy so the value of the
sample can not be better than +/-0.1. (Reference: any lab supply catalog)
Additionally pH as measured in the laboratory is an electrical
measurement that approximates the pH (negative log of the Hydrogen ion
concentration.) There are many interferences that affect the pH
measurement that have nothing to do with the concentration of the
Hydrogen ion. (Reference: any high school chemistry book)
The results are these studies are bogus.
>
> You mention a lot of sinks for CO2, but the game is not played one
> sided. It is: sourcedCO2 - sinkedCO2 => growing CO2 concentration.
Equation invalid. As stated there is nothing to prevent a negative
growing CO2 concentration, ie a reduction in the CO2 level
>
> And sources are beating sinks.
>
> Further tipping points include vast amounts of methane trapped in the
> tundra. If the tundra warms up enough (and the polar regions are
> warming faster than anywhere else) that methane will suddenly be
> released. Methane is a greenhouse gas.
>
> To suggest that man is not having an effect on GW and/or that a tipping
> point won't be reached is the worst form of head-in-the-sand defense for
> the indefensible. The worst part is that for most energy requiring
> processes we use heat very inefficiently which leverages the CO2 output
> unnecessarily*.
>
> Shame.
>
> In the end, life will continue. But not human life.
The end of life will be when the media listens to the scientists and
stops peddling the global warming religion.
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> CO2 'tipping points' is a dangerous game. Make no assumption that it
>> will self balance rapidly enough. Already higher CO2 in oceans is
>> changing acidity levels and killing of speisces and driving them into
>> narrower niches where there is too much competition for food or not
>> enough oxygen.
>
> The changes in pH in these studies are in the range of 0.1 pH units.
> This is within the accuracy of the measurement of pH. pH "standards"
> values are given with a +/- 0.1 units accuracy so the value of the
> sample can not be better than +/-0.1. (Reference: any lab supply catalog)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/science/23obsquid.html?_r=1&ref=science
I'll take such reports over your "lab supply catalog" derived opinions
any time.
Keith nuttle
statistically significant. (t values greater that about 2) By random
variation it is probable that any two averages pulled from groups of
numbers from the same population will be slightly diferent.
Chris H
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>J. Clarke wrote:
>> So let's see, there's going to be widespread flooding but there's
>>going to be a water shortage.
>
>Salt water ain't too good for drinking.
Nor water containing sewage or other waste
Keith nuttle
> Keith nuttle wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> CO2 'tipping points' is a dangerous game. Make no assumption that it
>>> will self balance rapidly enough. Already higher CO2 in oceans is
>>> changing acidity levels and killing of speisces and driving them into
>>> narrower niches where there is too much competition for food or not
>>> enough oxygen.
>>
>> The changes in pH in these studies are in the range of 0.1 pH units.
>> This is within the accuracy of the measurement of pH. pH "standards"
>> values are given with a +/- 0.1 units accuracy so the value of the
>> sample can not be better than +/-0.1. (Reference: any lab supply
>> catalog)
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/science/23obsquid.html?_r=1&ref=science
>
> I'll take such reports over your "lab supply catalog" derived opinions
> any time.
>
standards and instruments for pH from those Lab Supply catalogs. Every
laboratory in the country uses those standards from those Lab Supply
catalogs; from schools, universities, the FDA, EPA, and every research
lab in the country including those that measure the ocean pH's. There
are some good articles of pH measurements online just google pH
measurements.
John Navas
wrote in <2008122816472377923-savageduck@savagenet>:
>... The stuff in Tennessee spil
>is just a cocktail of toxic waste. You might have noticed this happened
>less than 20 miles from Oak Ridge, home of Oak Ridge National
>Laboratory and is part of our nuclear weapons program. There is an
>ongoing program to decontaminate and cleanup the area, as well as a
>program to remove or stabilize residues from decades of production and
>research. Very much like that other toxic "atomic" town Hanford
>Washington the most contaminated nuclear site in the USA.
Way off topic and lacking in proof. Water tests are within both federal
and state guidelines for potable water. Other tests haven't yet been
completed. In the meantime it's just speculation.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
John Navas
wrote in <Eb6dnVH7HKjlyMXU...@giganews.com>:
>OK, but this is the burning of the coal, and not the mining of it....Two
>different things. Burning any fossil fuel is going to produce carbon
>dioxide, There isn't much you can do about that. Grow more plants to convert
>it back into carbon and oxygen is about all we can do about that. I believe
>the other pollutants can be filtered out and returned to the soil, where
>they will do no more harm than they did when trapped in the coal. And carbon
>dioxide is produced by many things besides human activity....Rotting
>vegetation on the forest floor, and breathing, to name a couple....There
>have been times during the earth's history when the carbon dioxide levels in
>the atmosphere have been much greater than they are right now, so I doubt if
>it's a problem. The warmer it gets, the more plant life there will be, and
>the more carbon dioxide will be converted back into carbon and oxygen. Here
>in Oregon, we are having the coldest winter we have had in over 40
>years.....I haven't heard Al Gore's explanation for that. But there is a
>hell of a lot of hand waving goin' on........
Way off topic and totally bogus.
* New USGS Report:
Climate Change Occurring Faster than Previously Predicted
<http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/12/26/new-usgs-report-climate-change-occurring-faster-than-previous-predictions/>
* Greenland's Glaciers Losing Ice Faster This Year Than Last Year,
Which Was Record-setting Itself
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215091015.htm>
* Arctic Ice Melting at Alarming Pace as Temperatures Rise
<http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/12/16/arctic-ice-melting-at-alarming-pace-as-temperatures-rise.html>
* Swiss glaciers melting away at an accelerating rate
<http://www.entertainmentandshowbiz.com/swiss-glaciers-melting-away-at-an-accelerating-rate-200812287945>
* Melting Yosemite glacier an omen
<http://www.modbee.com/1618/story/541293.html>
* Climate change takes its toll on British countryside
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/3966715/Climate-change-takes-its-toll-on-British-countryside.html>
* Convincing the climate-change skeptics
<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/04/convincing_the_climate_change_skeptics/>
* Climate change skeptics/common claims and rebuttal
<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics/common_claims_and_rebuttal>
* Global Warming Skeptics: A Primer,
Guess who's funding the global warming doubt shops?
<http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentid=4870&source=ggad&gclid=CIKu3J7K45cCFQsQagodYlCDBw>
Alan Browne
I'm not wasting my time with red herring searches. Point 1 is that you
have no accademic standing v. the scientists who are making
observations, measurements and correlations.
If you take a thousand pH readings from different places at a resolution
of 0.1, the resolution of the average is much finer than 0.1.
Further, the observations by the scientists are not limited to pH
readings alone, but correlated with behaviour, oxygen, temperature,
depth, etc. measurements.
EOD for me. You're really not worth my time.
John Navas
wrote in <gjamt...@news7.newsguy.com>:
>But look at the projections. They're talking 2 degrees in the next
>100 years. That's not going to melt Antarctica or Greenland and so
>the flooding scenario isn't in the cards. ...
Dead wrong. See links I've previously posted.
Alan Browne
Ideally it would go deeply under Yucca Mountain (US) or deep into the
Canadian Shield. Yucca has started and is a mere 20 or so years behind
schedule.
Canada is screwed (at present). Each reactor keeps its waste on site.
Canadian HW reactors could also take the uranium waste from US LW
reactors and use it as fuel and pull an additional 30 - 35% of energy
(v. the US LW reactor use) from the U-235 "waste".
I've suggested that Canadian operators should "rent" US LW reactor
waste, get the energy out and then return it to the US for them to
store. No excitement on that one of course, the regulatory process of
moving US waste to CDN reactors for a few years and then shipping it
back would be crazy at least.
Further, Canadian HW reactors are ideal for mixed fuel use. They can be
used to use weapon Pu-239 as a fuel and thereby reduce the immense
stockpile of Pu that has been removed from US/Russian (and other) nuke
weapons.
The whole nuclear industry is beset with over regulation (or rather too
many authorities regulating the same thing in slightly different terms
and ways). Today's materials, designs (fail passive) and software are
far more robust than 30 years ago.
The new nuclear energy age is about to blossom. But it will require
rational thought on waste control rather than the shrill of the extreme
anti-nuke people.
Cynicor
> In message <SN-dnR95OqrObcXU...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> So let's see, there's going to be widespread flooding but there's
>>> going to be a water shortage.
>>
>> Salt water ain't too good for drinking.
>
> Nor water containing sewage or other waste
Nor is Evian. But that's another tangent.
Keith nuttle
simple physical properties, simple ACS and USP tests, Gas and Liquid
chromatograph, IR/UV, Atomic Absorption and others on products for the
chemical and pharmaceutical industry. What are your qualifications?
John Navas
<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<My76l.11993$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>:
>Alan Browne wrote:
>> EOD for me. You're really not worth my time.
>>
>I have spent 40 years working in a laboratories testing ph and other
>simple physical properties, simple ACS and USP tests, Gas and Liquid
>chromatograph, IR/UV, Atomic Absorption and others on products for the
>chemical and pharmaceutical industry. What are your qualifications?
* Convincing the climate-change skeptics
<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/04/convincing_the_climate_change_skeptics/>
* Climate change skeptics/common claims and rebuttal
<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics/common_claims_and_rebuttal>
* Global Warming Skeptics: A Primer,
Guess who's funding the global warming doubt shops?
<http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentid=4870&source=ggad&gclid=CIKu3J7K45cCFQsQagodYlCDBw>
--
Keith nuttle
John Navas
<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<M586l.9891$as4....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>:
The scientific journals are overwhelmingly on my side, The piece in the
Boston Globe was written by John P. Holdren, professor in the Kennedy
School of Government and the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
at Harvard and the director of the Woods Hole Research Center. Your
credentials again? ;)
J. Clarke
> Chris H wrote:
>>>
>>> But look at the projections. They're talking 2 degrees in the
>>> next
>>> 100 years. That's not going to melt Antarctica or Greenland and
>>> so
>>> the flooding scenario isn't in the cards. They want you to
>>> _think_
>>> that it is though.
>>
>> The ICE caps ARE melting though it is happening. The 2degrees is an
>> Average figure.
>
> Arctic ice is melting a lot faster than Antarctic.
So what?
> But it's a simple
> fact that the Arctic ice cover is quickly retreating. Which, in
> turn,
> leads to lessened reflectivity and more heat absorption, which leads
> to faster warming.
So what?
> It's just amazingly specious for people to say "but it's only 20
> degrees there, so 2 degrees isn't going to melt anything."
So what's going to melt in the Antarctic?
> And no, 2 degrees doesn't cause flooding. It's the effects of the 2
> degrees that will cause more frequent "100 year" flooding. If people
> don't think that human activity has any effect on habitability, I
> invite them to compare maps of southern Louisiana 50 years ago
> versus
> today.
How about comparing them 200 years ago vs today?
>>>> How is a world which can't cope with local rice shortages
>>>> going to cope with local water shortages?
>>>
>>> So let's see, there's going to be widespread flooding but there's
>>> going to be a water shortage.
>>
>> That's right. Some areas will be flooded (and have a shortage of
>> drinking water) Other areas will have droughts
>
> Other areas will get invasive plants that don't die when there's no
> longer a hard frost. And they will lose species that need a frost to
> properly germinate the next year.
And gain species that don't survive the frost. Which would you rather
have, tulips or oranges?
J. Clarke
> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> But look at the projections. They're talking 2 degrees in the next
>> 100 years. That's not going to melt Antarctica or Greenland and so
>> the flooding scenario isn't in the cards. They want you to _think_
>> that it is though.
>
> Er...I don't think you understand what a 2 degree average increase
> in
> 100 years would cause.
So tell us what it would cause. And tell us how you know this.
>>> How is a world which can't cope with local rice shortages
>>> going to cope with local water shortages?
>>
>> So let's see, there's going to be widespread flooding but there's
>> going to be a water shortage.
>
> Er...I don't think you understand the difference between flood water
> and potable water.
What's the difference, you have to filter all of it. Even the Greeks
4000 years ago knew this.
ASAAR
> How is a country which made such a mess of coping with New Orleans
> being flooded going to cope with New York under water?
By taking lots of different pictures with their weather sealed
cameras, watching reruns of Planet Of The Apes, by looting and by
having a stupendous Going Out Of Sale blowout party.
Alan Browne
Then you should know much better.
Mr.T
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:gjamt...@news7.newsguy.com...
> So let's see, there's going to be widespread flooding but there's
> going to be a water shortage.
Unless you can drink sea water, it's quite possible.
Desalinisation plants to cope with 6+ Billion users, in a time of energy
shortages, is hardly a solution.
MrT.
Mr.T
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> In the end, life will continue. But not human life.
That may be a good thing for those other species then.
MrT.
Mr.T
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> If you take a thousand pH readings from different places at a resolution
> of 0.1, the resolution of the average is much finer than 0.1.
Actually NO. The measurement uncertainty, which is *additional* to the
resolution, can be reduced, but not the resolution itself.
MrT.
SneakyP
>
> "Larry Thong" <larry...@shitstring.com> wrote in message
> news:PqudnZ45zbHrmcXU...@supernews.com...
>> Just ask the folks in Tennessee about it. It seems the dumb bastards
>> that thought of "Clean Coal Technology" haven't yet found a way to
>> dispose of the
>> millions of tons of solid waste it generates.
>
> Is this "solid waste" any worse than the coal itself? - It is coal we
> are talking about....It is in the ground right now, and it has been
> there for millions of years.....If it didn't pollute the world during
> all that time, then why would you think that the coal dust that is
> generated by mining the coal pollute the world any more than the coal
> itself?
>
...stupidity isn't your level - stick with idiot.
--
SneakyP
To reply: newsgroup only, what's posted in ng stays in ng.
Some choose to swim in the potty bowl of nan-ae rather than flush it
down :0)
Mr.T
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4959875a$0$18714$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Before someone says I'm wrong, I'll just clarify that by saying the
measurement uncertainty includes the resolution limit, plus other things
like repeatability, and is therefore greater. The repeatability error is
what can be reduced by taking a large number of measurements. The resolution
will not be reduced.
Look up Confidence Level of Measurement Uncertainty, and how it is
calculated.
MrT.
DRS
news:q1vhl4l963gb46tq2...@4ax.com
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:43:33 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
> wrote in <Eb6dnVH7HKjlyMXU...@giganews.com>:
>
>> OK, but this is the burning of the coal, and not the mining of
>> it....Two different things. Burning any fossil fuel is going to
>> produce carbon dioxide, There isn't much you can do about that. Grow
>> more plants to convert it back into carbon and oxygen is about all
>> we can do about that. I believe the other pollutants can be filtered
>> out and returned to the soil, where they will do no more harm than
>> they did when trapped in the coal. And carbon dioxide is produced by
>> many things besides human activity....Rotting vegetation on the
>> forest floor, and breathing, to name a couple....There have been
>> times during the earth's history when the carbon dioxide levels in
>> the atmosphere have been much greater than they are right now, so I
>> doubt if it's a problem. The warmer it gets, the more plant life
>> there will be, and the more carbon dioxide will be converted back
>> into carbon and oxygen. Here in Oregon, we are having the coldest
>> winter we have had in over 40 years.....I haven't heard Al Gore's
>> explanation for that. But there is a hell of a lot of hand waving
>> goin' on........
>
> Way off topic and totally bogus.
>
> * New USGS Report:
> Climate Change Occurring Faster than Previously Predicted
See also "Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic
climate change", Nature, v453 n7193 pp353-357.
It is a metastudy of over 29,000 observational studies (mostly from the
northern hemisphere). It shows the predicted impacts of global warming on
physical (glaciers melting, spring arriving earlier, etc) and biological
(species mating earlier, migrating, etc) systems is happening faster than
was predicted and unambiguously attributes this to anthropogenic global
warming.
Bill Graham
"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:XtMTd6M8...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> However these disruptions and hic-ups will get more wide spread and more
> common. Some countries will be more able to survive than others. Urban
> centres are likely to suffer most I think which means the more
> industrialised countries. So the US has just changed it's economic model
> in the nick of time :-)
>
We've changed our economic model? - News to me........Don't let a hiccup in
the Dow Jones sucker you into thinking it's the end of the world.....Go to
Google and look up the history of the Dow Jones averages over the last 100
years or so.......You need to put things in a little perspective, son.......
Bill Graham
"Cynicor" <truu...@opt.i.m.um.net> wrote in message
news:4958f131$0$14299$607e...@cv.net...
> Keith nuttle wrote:
>> Cynicor wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But look at the projections. They're talking 2 degrees in the next 100
>>>> years. That's not going to melt Antarctica or Greenland and so the
>>>> flooding scenario isn't in the cards. They want you to _think_ that it
>>>> is though.
>>>
>>> Er...I don't think you understand what a 2 degree average increase in
>>> 100 years would cause.
>>>
>>>>> going to cope with local water shortages?
>>>>
>>>> to be a water shortage.
>>>
>>> potable water.
>> can detect a 2 degree rise in the temperature of the planet with about as
>> 100 degree temperature range over the surface of the earth each day of
>> the year?
>
> Are you actually serious with this statement? You don't believe that
> measurements can detect variations in mean temperatures because some parts
> of the world are warmer than others? Or have you just never seen any
> measurements?
I've seen that the average temperature of the 100 largest cities on earth
has dropped a degree or two during the last 20 years......How this squares
with, "Global Warming" beats the hell out of me......But there are
(apparently) some people who think Al Gore is the second coming of
Christ.......
Bill Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> But look at the projections. They're talking 2 degrees in the next 100
>> years. That's not going to melt Antarctica or Greenland and so the
>> flooding scenario isn't in the cards. They want you to _think_ that it
>> is though.
>
>
> That's an average increase which means that much of the arctic/antarctic
> spends more and more time above 0 than below it. This means less freezing
> of water in the fall (freeze starts late) and more melting of ice in the
> spring (melt begins early) with a net loss of ice.
>
> It is enough that everyone is scrambling to prepare for shipping via the
> arctic (really shortens the Asia-Europe route); defending Arctic
> sovereignty claims (there may be oil down there) and that the last few
> years have seen alarming declines in ice in the arctic.
>
> This is a long term problem (decades/centuries) but most people simply
> want to shoo it away in the short term.
>
>> So let's see, there's going to be widespread flooding but there's going
>> to be a water shortage.
>
Salt water + heat = fresh water.
Bill Graham
> In message <SN-dnR95OqrObcXU...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>>J. Clarke wrote:
>>> So let's see, there's going to be widespread flooding but there's going
>>> to be a water shortage.
>>
>>Salt water ain't too good for drinking.
>
> Nor water containing sewage or other waste
>
Bill Graham
Evian water + heat = fresh water
Bill Graham
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
Right now, we don't just drink fresh water......We do everything in
it....Bathe, water our lawns, wash our cars, put out our
fires..........everything. The first step, (it seems to me) is to just drink
it, and do all that other stuff with poorer quality water.
Bill Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Larry Thong" <larry...@shitstring.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:PqudnZ45zbHrmcXU...@supernews.com...
>>>>> Just ask the folks in Tennessee about it. It seems the dumb bastards
>>>>> that
>>>>> thought of "Clean Coal Technology" haven't yet found a way to dispose
>>>>> of the
>>>>> millions of tons of solid waste it generates.
>>>>
>>>> Is this "solid waste" any worse than the coal itself? - It is coal we
>>>> are talking about....It is in the ground right now, and it has been
>>>> there for millions of years.....If it didn't pollute the world during
>>>> all that time, then why would you think that the coal dust that is
>>>> generated by mining the coal pollute the world any more than the coal
>>>> itself?
>>>
>>> (eg: Hg) and often contains uranium as well.
>>>
>>> Indeed all this crap trapped in coal does no harm - but liberated by man
>>> it becomes a pollutant. All we wanted was the joules. But released the
>>> CO2 and the rest of the crap as well into the environment.
>>>
>>> Apparently home coal burning is becoming popular again in the NE US as
>>> it is 1/2 to 1/4 the cost of oil/gas heating.
>>>
>> OK, but this is the burning of the coal, and not the mining of it....Two
>> different things. Burning any fossil fuel is going to produce carbon
>> dioxide, There isn't much you can do about that. Grow more plants to
>> convert it back into carbon and oxygen is about all we can do about that.
>> I believe the other pollutants can be filtered out and returned to the
>> soil, where they will do no more harm than they did when trapped in the
>> coal. And carbon dioxide is produced by many things besides human
>> activity....Rotting vegetation on the forest floor, and breathing, to
>> name a couple....There have been times during the earth's history when
>> the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been much greater than
>> they are right now, so I doubt if it's a problem. The warmer it gets, the
>> more plant life there will be, and the more carbon dioxide will be
>> converted back into carbon and oxygen. Here in Oregon, we are having the
>> coldest winter we have had in over 40 years.....I haven't heard Al Gore's
>> explanation for that. But there is a hell of a lot of hand waving goin'
>> on........
>
> ashes.
>
> As to mining coal, strip and mountain top mining in Virginia has
> devastated forests and disrupted streams.
>
> CO2 'tipping points' is a dangerous game. Make no assumption that it will
> self balance rapidly enough. Already higher CO2 in oceans is changing
> acidity levels and killing of speisces and driving them into narrower
> niches where there is too much competition for food or not enough oxygen.
>
> It is: sourcedCO2 - sinkedCO2 => growing CO2 concentration.
>
> And sources are beating sinks.
>
> Further tipping points include vast amounts of methane trapped in the
> tundra. If the tundra warms up enough (and the polar regions are warming
> faster than anywhere else) that methane will suddenly be released.
> Methane is a greenhouse gas.
But what about all that methane released by the millions of Bison that
covered the state of Wyoming before Buffalo bill came along and offed them
all? It's beginning to look like this guy saved humanity from global warming
for the next 100 years or so. And here all this time, I thought he was a
stupid idiot.....:^)
>
> To suggest that man is not having an effect on GW and/or that a tipping
> point won't be reached is the worst form of head-in-the-sand defense for
> the indefensible. The worst part is that for most energy requiring
> processes we use heat very inefficiently which leverages the CO2 output
> unnecessarily*.
Yeah, but an effect which way? We do put out a lot of forest fires. And
there were a lot of buffalo......Somehow, I haven't seen any cold hard
statistics that proove we are hurting more than we are helping....
> In the end, life will continue. But not human life.
Wanna bet? - I think that when the last living thing is on earth, that thing
will be a human being......And, he'll probably have cockroaches in his
kitchen........
Bill Graham
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
I doubt it....For millions of years before we came along, countless
trillions of little creatures suffered and died from starvation and exposure
every season change......It is still going on even today, and it will
continue to go on long after we no longer walk the earth.....This is the
legacy of God, for those who believe in such an entity.....I, for one,
choose to not believe in such a monster.....Far better to believe that it is
just chance. At least, I have no one to hate......
Bill Graham
"Alan Smithee" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:gMGdnYGSffY4cMXU...@pipex.net...
> "Larry Thong" <larry...@shitstring.com> wrote in message
> news:PqudnZ45zbHrmcXU...@supernews.com...
>
>> Just ask the folks in Tennessee about it. It seems the dumb bastards
>> that
>> thought of "Clean Coal Technology" haven't yet found a way to dispose of
>> the
>> fifty
>> year supply of coal that will break our addiction to Middle Eastern oil.
>> I
>> hope that disaster isn't near Spike's home.
>
> What about the waste from nuclear power plants? Where does that go?
Sometime when you've got nothing else to do, drive from Wendover, Nevada to
Salt Lake City, Utah. And then think about where you might bury some waste
material.....Like nuclear waste, or coal dust, or whatever......
Mr.T
"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:P5udncIVW55PNsTU...@giganews.com...
> Wanna bet? - I think that when the last living thing is on earth, that
thing
> will be a human being......And, he'll probably have cockroaches in his
> kitchen........
So which is it, humans or cockroaches as the last living thing?
My money is on the cockroaches!
Actually I bet plant life and microbes will last even longer, and you did
say "living thing". There is NO possibility that *any* animal or insect life
can outlast all other plants, animals, and microbes. What would they eat?
Only each other? Doesn't seem like a survival strategy to me.
MrT.
Bill Graham
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
the first.....Microbes of some type.....These are the most adaptable, since
their generation is a matter of hours or less. But, because of our ability
to control the environment, we humans would last considerably longer than
one might expect of the higher order animals.......We might even be able to
colonize other planets and begin destroying them.........:^)
Chris H
<MrT@home.?.invalid> writes
According to the idiot Bill it is simple
salt water + heat = fresh water..
Bit light on detail though
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Chris H
<we...@comcast.net> writes
If you say so. SO how do you do that in a flood situation?
I note that In New Orleans the one thing they were taking in was large
quantities was bottled water...
Clearly the authorities have not heard of your simple remedy.
Chris H
<inv...@invalid.invalid> writes
>"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:uoOdndGaArbFi8XU...@giganews.com:
>
>>
>> "Larry Thong" <larry...@shitstring.com> wrote in message
>> news:PqudnZ45zbHrmcXU...@supernews.com...
>>> Just ask the folks in Tennessee about it. It seems the dumb bastards
>>> that thought of "Clean Coal Technology" haven't yet found a way to
>>> dispose of the
>>> millions of tons of solid waste it generates.
>>
>> Is this "solid waste" any worse than the coal itself? - It is coal we
>> are talking about....It is in the ground right now, and it has been
>> there for millions of years.....If it didn't pollute the world during
>> all that time, then why would you think that the coal dust that is
>> generated by mining the coal pollute the world any more than the coal
>> itself?
>>
>
>...stupidity isn't your level - stick with idiot.
I came to the same conclusion about Bill a while back. Seems to be very
poorly informed about his favourite subjects.
Ron Hunter
> In message <49598516$0$32004$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Mr.T
> <MrT@home.?.invalid> writes
>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:gjamt...@news7.newsguy.com...
>>> So let's see, there's going to be widespread flooding but there's
>>> going to be a water shortage.
>> Unless you can drink sea water, it's quite possible.
>> Desalinisation plants to cope with 6+ Billion users, in a time of energy
>> shortages, is hardly a solution.
>
> According to the idiot Bill it is simple
> salt water + heat = fresh water..
>
> Bit light on detail though
>
subs, and aircraft carriers get their fresh water when at sea for 6
months or more?
Alan Browne
I take your point, but it is not out of the question that humans find
the way.
Alan Browne
As an average, you certainly can. The random instrument error (eg:
except bias, if any) would be reduced along with the average. And
certainly the resolution is likewise increased.
I just wrote a quick Monte Carlo to simulate the average of real
conditions and the average of a sensor with a resolution of 0.1 reading
those data over 1000 samples. Sample range = neutral +/- 1.
Not surprisingly, the average of the 0.1 resolution data at the end,
matched the average "real world" data to 3 digits after the decimal
point for 1000 samples (the 3rd digit could be off by 1 either way, here
it just hit right).
Here are the first and last "real" and "sampled" data for 1000 points:
"real world" "sensor reading"
1 6.230 6.200
2 7.885 7.900
3 6.036 6.000
4 7.715 7.700
5 6.914 6.900
.. .. ..
996 7.204 7.200
997 7.284 7.300
998 7.507 7.500
999 7.258 7.300
1000 7.800 7.800
"average real "average of the 0.1 resolution
world" sensor"
6.99074 6.99030
Alan Browne
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:SN-dnR95OqrObcXU...@giganews.com...
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> But look at the projections. They're talking 2 degrees in the next
>>> 100 years. That's not going to melt Antarctica or Greenland and so
>>> the flooding scenario isn't in the cards. They want you to _think_
>>> that it is though.
>>
>> It is the boundary conditions that are important.
>>
>> That's an average increase which means that much of the
>> arctic/antarctic spends more and more time above 0 than below it.
>> This means less freezing of water in the fall (freeze starts late) and
>> more melting of ice in the spring (melt begins early) with a net loss
>> of ice.
>>
>> It is enough that everyone is scrambling to prepare for shipping via
>> the arctic (really shortens the Asia-Europe route); defending Arctic
>> sovereignty claims (there may be oil down there) and that the last few
>> years have seen alarming declines in ice in the arctic.
>>
>> This is a long term problem (decades/centuries) but most people simply
>> want to shoo it away in the short term.
>>
>>> So let's see, there's going to be widespread flooding but there's
>>> going to be a water shortage.
>>
>> Salt water ain't too good for drinking.
>
> Salt water + heat = fresh water.
In the "right" world, one avoids the problem.
In the wrong world, one abuses fossil energy creates a problem, then
solves the problem with more energy use. Dumb and avoidable.
Desalinization is very energy intensive even in the most "efficient" plants.
Alan Browne
Bison methane production has been replaced by humans, their pigs and
cattle, etc. many times over and even all that is not a small fraction
of the methane under the millions of square km's of the arctic tundra.
>> To suggest that man is not having an effect on GW and/or that a
>> tipping point won't be reached is the worst form of head-in-the-sand
>> defense for the indefensible. The worst part is that for most energy
>> requiring processes we use heat very inefficiently which leverages the
>> CO2 output unnecessarily*.
>
> Yeah, but an effect which way? We do put out a lot of forest fires. And
> there were a lot of buffalo......Somehow, I haven't seen any cold hard
> statistics that proove we are hurting more than we are helping....
There are models out there that show the total sinking v. the total
sourcing. And those show a continuous increase in the sourcing.
The forest fires we put out are nothing compared to those we (should)
let burn. Forest fires are an essential part of forest renewal.
The atmospheric concentration of AGW gases is well measured over time
and increasing.
The arctic/antarctic ice melts over the last 20 years are not only
convincing but quite dramatic.
>> In the end, life will continue. But not human life.
>
> Wanna bet? - I think that when the last living thing is on earth, that
> thing will be a human being.
Hardly. We're so out of touch with the food chain and the conditions
that support it that we have little chance of surviving a worldwide
drought. Many fish will survive; many animals, insects, birds, etc...
It pains me that so many people are determined to undermine research
that shows these painful things. There is a low probability that the
collective research of environmental sciences is wrong. But politics
and the truth do not mix very well.
Alan Browne
> I've seen that the average temperature of the 100 largest cities on
> earth has dropped a degree or two during the last 20 years......How this
> squares with, "Global Warming" beats the hell out of me.
Because "Global warming" is global, not limited to any area or kind of area.
Temperatures in the near-polar and polar regions had increased
significantly. And that is the most worrying area for average
temperatures to rise as it means later freezing and earlier thawing.
The "easy" consequences include rising sea levels;
the "hard" consequences include a shutting down the Gulf Stream (when
the cold arctic "conveyor belt" submarine stream shuts down) meaning
heavy drought in the US (heat from the Gulf of Mexico is not carried
away) and severe winters and cold summers in Europe (heat not carried to
Europe).
Alan Browne
> Chris H wrote:
>> In message <49598516$0$32004$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Mr.T
>> <MrT@home.?.invalid> writes
>>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:gjamt...@news7.newsguy.com...
>>>> So let's see, there's going to be widespread flooding but there's
>>>> going to be a water shortage.
>>> Unless you can drink sea water, it's quite possible.
>>> Desalinisation plants to cope with 6+ Billion users, in a time of energy
>>> shortages, is hardly a solution.
>>
>> According to the idiot Bill it is simple
>> salt water + heat = fresh water..
>>
>> Bit light on detail though
>>
> De-salinazation plants are common on islands.
True, but it is also a byproduct of electrical generation, so at least
not a total energy drain.
> How do you think nuclear
> subs, and aircraft carriers get their fresh water when at sea for 6
> months or more?
Again, de-sal on these vessels is almost a free byproduct of the
propulsion plant. Further, as the vessel plows through cool water the
condensation side of the system requires very little transport energy
(v. a land system with fans and vacuum pumps).
It makes for a very poor general solution as the energy required per
unit of water is quite high. Bad enough that we misuse energy as it is;
but then to have to use it generally for water production is compound
insanity.
The #1 culprit is farmers who use 100's x more water than actually gets
to the plants. Most is lost through drainage and evaporation. The
depletion of the Olagalla (sp?) aquifer is a US national disgrace.
Cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas (to name a very few) should not even
exist ... and as Lake Meade continues its inexorable draining, LV might
not be able to exist in 20 years.
The basic equation that nobody wants to face is that the working
solutions all involve less.
Less energy (more efficiency).
Less water (more efficiency).
Less material (more efficiency).
and so on.
It has been demonstrated that a vehicle built from carbon fibre has
compounding weight weight reduction effects that drastically reduce
energy requirements. Further, such a vehicle would last 50 years or
more requiring only that the engine and drive train be replaced ... not
1000's of pounds of steel.
eg: lighter body = smaller engine = lighter drive drain = lighter wheels
= lighter brakes = even smaller engine = smaller fuel tank = smaller
car, etc. etc. etc.
No. Despite the clear warning of the 70's we built Hummers.
Rol_Lei Nut
Amazing.... Homer Simpson himself just posted to this NG!
Bill Graham
> In message <RpydnWnGdc-JOsTU...@giganews.com>, Bill Graham
> <we...@comcast.net> writes
>>
>>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>news:+JdZE6S6...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <SN-dnR95OqrObcXU...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>>>>J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> So let's see, there's going to be widespread flooding but there's
>>>>> going to be a water shortage.
>>>>
>>>>Salt water ain't too good for drinking.
>>>
>>> Nor water containing sewage or other waste
>>>
>>Sewer water + heat = fresh water
>
> If you say so. SO how do you do that in a flood situation?
>
> I note that In New Orleans the one thing they were taking in was large
> quantities was bottled water...
>
> Clearly the authorities have not heard of your simple remedy.
>
The remedy may be simple, but it isn't cheap.....Desalination plants are
expensive to build and operate......It is a solution only if power is cheap,
and that pretty well means nuclear plants to create the electricity.....The
quality of the water is, however, wonderful.....We drank it in the US Navy,
because the ship had to have very pure water for it's steam turbines or they
would get crudded up with salt deposits......I believe the ultimate solution
is to have two separate water systems....A drinking water plant, that makes
good drinking water in limited quantities, and other plants that just purify
the water with a primary treatment process that is adequate for feeding to
plants and washing cars and the like, but not of drinkable quality.....
Bill Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> I've seen that the average temperature of the 100 largest cities on earth
>> has dropped a degree or two during the last 20 years......How this
>> squares with, "Global Warming" beats the hell out of me.
>
>
> Because "Global warming" is global, not limited to any area or kind of
> area.
Well, the cities are convenient places because they have the thermometers
and keep the records, and not because they differ from anywhere else on
earth....We don't have many thermometer recording stations in the middle of
the forest and/or desert.....I just can't understand how the mean
temperature of a hundred places spread all over both hemispheres of the
Earth can be falling if we are undergoing a global rise in temperatures due
to "global warming"......I count it as part of the evidence that global
warming is a myth, or a figment of Al Gore's imagination. Whenever I ask
more searching questions about it, I don't get any good answers....Like my
question about the undersea plants and their contribution.....The idea that
cold water holds more dissolved gas than warm water does, so what is this
"reverse feedback" effect, and how does it figure into the mix? I have sent
letters about this to some of your learned University professors and they
don't have any reasonable answers for me. They say, in effect, "We don't
know". And there are a lot of other questions, too, that go unanswered. The
model isn't complete yet.....Not by a long shot. So people are guessing
around in the dark, and it is not a "done deal" yet.......I'm not saying
that global warming doesn't exist. I'm only saying that we don't really know
enough about it to become panic stricken yet...... The Earth has been a lot
warmer in the past, and had a lot more CO2 in its atmosphere in the past,
too. But it has recovered to get cold again, and I don't see the evidence
that says it won't recover and get cold again this time, too. It's not true
that "all the scientists say it won't" I have met quite a few scientists who
aren't particularly concerned, or who aren't afraid to say, "We don't know".
Bill Graham
"Rol_Lei Nut" <Speleo_Ka...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6rv64dF...@mid.individual.net...
Homer, like Archie Bunker, has some pretty good insights. (To those people
who actually listen to what they say, instead of just exhibiting some
jerk-knee reaction because of the source.) Maybe you can explain to me why
they buried some nuclear waste in canisters in the ocean, where the salt
water and sea action caused the canisters to spring leaks after several
years, when they have a million or more square miles of the driest, most
useless land on earth to put it.......
Paul Furman
> Chris H wrote in message
>> Clearly the authorities have not heard of your simple remedy.
> The remedy may be simple, but it isn't cheap.....Desalination plants are
> expensive to build and operate......It is a solution only if power is
> cheap, and that pretty well means nuclear plants to create the
> electricity.....The quality of the water is, however, wonderful.....We
> drank it in the US Navy, because the ship had to have very pure water
> for it's steam turbines or they would get crudded up with salt
> deposits......I believe the ultimate solution is to have two separate
> water systems....A drinking water plant, that makes good drinking water
> in limited quantities, and other plants that just purify the water with
> a primary treatment process that is adequate for feeding to plants and
> washing cars and the like, but not of drinkable quality.....
'Purple pipe' gray water is used for irrigation in some places. You can
install a gray water system in your home to drain to the garden but
nobody installs a complete dual plumbing system to every sink in the
house & no municipality has installed dual supply lines to residences.
That would be a lot of tearing up streets.
John Navas
wrote in <ac6dnV4pc9u7OcTU...@giganews.com>:
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:XtMTd6M8...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
>> However these disruptions and hic-ups will get more wide spread and more
>> common. Some countries will be more able to survive than others. Urban
>> centres are likely to suffer most I think which means the more
>> industrialised countries. So the US has just changed it's economic model
>> in the nick of time :-)
>>
>We've changed our economic model? - News to me........Don't let a hiccup in
>the Dow Jones sucker you into thinking it's the end of the world.....Go to
>Google and look up the history of the Dow Jones averages over the last 100
>years or so.......You need to put things in a little perspective, son.......
I think it's pretty clear the pendulum is in the process of swinging
back to more sensible regulation, that the end of this last laissez
faire era is thankfully here at last.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
John Navas
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in
<XLydncOOQIk32sfU...@giganews.com>:
>The basic equation that nobody wants to face is that the working
>solutions all involve less.
>
>Less energy (more efficiency).
>Less water (more efficiency).
>Less material (more efficiency).
>
>and so on.
Yep.
>It has been demonstrated that a vehicle built from carbon fibre has
>compounding weight weight reduction effects that drastically reduce
>energy requirements. Further, such a vehicle would last 50 years or
>more requiring only that the engine and drive train be replaced ... not
>1000's of pounds of steel.
>
>eg: lighter body = smaller engine = lighter drive drain = lighter wheels
>= lighter brakes = even smaller engine = smaller fuel tank = smaller
>car, etc. etc. etc.
>
>No. Despite the clear warning of the 70's we built Hummers.
Even better, a carbon fiber vehicle is way stronger and safer than
current vehicles. Those interested can learn much at the Rocky Mountain
Institute website.
John Navas
wrote in <_5adncUmcOs1M8TU...@giganews.com>:
>"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>news:49598641$0$7111$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:tc6dnY6WZu57cMXU...@giganews.com...
>>> In the end, life will continue. But not human life.
>>
>> That may be a good thing for those other species then.
>
>I doubt it....For millions of years before we came along, countless
>trillions of little creatures suffered and died from starvation and exposure
>every season change......It is still going on even today, and it will
>continue to go on long after we no longer walk the earth.....This is the
>legacy of God, for those who believe in such an entity.....I, for one,
>choose to not believe in such a monster.....Far better to believe that it is
>just chance. At least, I have no one to hate......
What you're missing is that we humans have been responsible for a
massive spike in extinctions of species, which would presumably return
to a much lower level without us.
Alan Browne
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:JbGdneD446XO2cfU...@giganews.com...
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>> I've seen that the average temperature of the 100 largest cities on
>>> earth has dropped a degree or two during the last 20 years......How
>>> this squares with, "Global Warming" beats the hell out of me.
>>
>>
>> Because "Global warming" is global, not limited to any area or kind of
>> area.
>
> Well, the cities are convenient places because they have the
Gee, snip out everything having to do with global warming to support the
non issue of city only temperatures
(gee: you don't think decreased smog because of improved fuel efficiency
and emissions requirements had anything to do with that? No you
wouldn't because that's the government interfering with industry and
that it actually had a positive effect is a bit ... inconvenient, isn't
it?).
So, 'cause you have no apparent interest in photography, never mind the
plain truth, you are:
*PLONKED*.
Bill Graham
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:D%v6l.9979$as4....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
True, but you gotta do what you gotta do....Tearing up streets has been done
before, and it will be done again.....Right now, a lot of people drink
strictly bottled water.....I know a lot of transplanted East Europeans, for
example, who wouldn't drink our tap water on a bet.....They know better
after living under people like Khrushchev and Andropov......I have even
driven them to Hetchy-Hetchy, and followed the aqueduct down to crystal
springs and showed them how good the water is, and they still insist on
drinking bottled water.......
Bill Graham
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:733ll49lqsk29c0p5...@4ax.com...
Well, I sure hope you're right, but I haven't seen it....The stupid
government is just giving my money away to the crooked bankers who stole it
to begin with......Republicans and Democrats.....It don't make no never-mind
to either of them,,,,,,Just give Bill Graham's money away as fast as
possible.......And I know it won't work.....It didn't work for FDR, and it
ain't gonna work for Barak Obama........
Alan Browne
That's precisely the source (via PBS-Nova, one of the best programs the
general public ignores.)
Bill Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:JbGdneD446XO2cfU...@giganews.com...
>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've seen that the average temperature of the 100 largest cities on
>>>> earth has dropped a degree or two during the last 20 years......How
>>>> this squares with, "Global Warming" beats the hell out of me.
>>>
>>>
>>> Because "Global warming" is global, not limited to any area or kind of
>>> area.
>>
>> Well, the cities are convenient places because they have the
>
> Gee, snip out everything having to do with global warming to support the
> non issue of city only temperatures
>
> (gee: you don't think decreased smog because of improved fuel efficiency
> and emissions requirements had anything to do with that? No you wouldn't
> because that's the government interfering with industry and that it
> actually had a positive effect is a bit ... inconvenient, isn't it?).
What has that got to do with average temperatures? - As a matter of fact, I
have read that particulate matter in the air (smog) causes a decrease in
temperature, because it blocks the sun.....That would seem to me to say that
cleaning up the city air would increase the average temperatures, wouldn't
it? -- As I say, the model is far from complete....But, I am plonked,
aren't I....So you'll never get the benefit of my brilliant logic, will
you? - Oh well........
Bill Graham
Yes.....I do tend to worry about the individual, rather than the whole,
"species". But then, when one is suffering, and dying from exposure and
hunger, one doesn't usually care, (or even know about) the rest of one's
species......
HEMI - Powered
...
>> I think it's pretty clear the pendulum is in the process of
>> swinging back to more sensible regulation, that the end of this
>> last laissez faire era is thankfully here at last.
>
> Well, I sure hope you're right, but I haven't seen it....The
> stupid government is just giving my money away to the crooked
> bankers who stole it to begin with......Republicans and
> Democrats.....It don't make no never-mind to either of
> them,,,,,,Just give Bill Graham's money away as fast as
> possible.......And I know it won't work.....It didn't work for
> FDR, and it ain't gonna work for Barak Obama........
>
Sure agree with that! The Kalyfornia Far Left Loons and Green Nazis
are about to start running things for the next few years. Their gig
isn't the environment, it is raw power - called social engineering,
which means forcing you and I to do what they want. With morons like
Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Barbara Boxer, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer
and many, many others pushing the agenda of the Far Left, the
pendulum is hardly swinging toward resposible regulation.
--
Jerry, aka HP
"If you are out of work and hungry, eat an environmentalist" -
Florida billboard
HEMI - Powered
...
>>> It has been demonstrated that a vehicle built from carbon
>>> fibre has compounding weight weight reduction effects that
>>> drastically reduce energy requirements. Further, such a
>>> vehicle would last 50 years or more requiring only that the
>>> engine and drive train be replaced ... not 1000's of pounds of
>>> steel.
>>>
>>> eg: lighter body = smaller engine = lighter drive drain =
>>> lighter wheels = lighter brakes = even smaller engine =
>>> smaller fuel tank = smaller car, etc. etc. etc.
>>>
>>> No. Despite the clear warning of the 70's we built Hummers.
>>
>> Even better, a carbon fiber vehicle is way stronger and safer
>> than current vehicles. Those interested can learn much at the
>> Rocky Mountain Institute website.
>
> That's precisely the source (via PBS-Nova, one of the best
> programs the general public ignores.)
>
That's all swell, except the carbon fiber is many times more
expensive to build cars from than sheet steel, is many times more
difficult to mold into complex shapes, and has a nasty habit of
exploding into sharp shards when crashed IF not properly reinforced
with steel. The notion of reducing weight enough with any
structural material, including carbon fiber, to reduce engine size
and hp enough to make any real difference is both absurd and
irresponsible and shows that people advocating such extreme
measures know nothing at all about the automobile industry.
HEMI - Powered
...
> What has that got to do with average temperatures? - As a matter
> of fact, I have read that particulate matter in the air (smog)
> causes a decrease in temperature, because it blocks the
> sun.....That would seem to me to say that cleaning up the city
> air would increase the average temperatures, wouldn't it? --
> As I say, the model is far from complete....But, I am plonked,
> aren't I....So you'll never get the benefit of my brilliant
> logic, will you? - Oh well........
>
The Earth's orbit around the sun is ellipital and the orbin itself
precesses as it moves around giving rise to very high and very cold
mean temperatures all by itself. Investigate The Little Ice Age which
ran from the early 1400s to the mid-1600s or the time about 10,000
years ago when mean temps rose some 29 deg and killed off the mega
mammals. Gee, ya think it was dem nasty carbon emitting powerplants
and cars that did all that back then? Worse, suppose people actually
succeed in cooling the planet and SEND us to another Little Ice Age
prematurely? Thankfully, all of us will be dead but that is a SAD
legacy for the Far Left Loon Green Nazis to leave to our children.
RichA
> Just ask the folks in Tennessee about it. It seems the dumb bastards
> that thought of "Clean Coal Technology" haven't yet found a way to
> dispose of the millions of tons of solid waste it generates. And to
> think we have a fifty year supply of coal that will break our
> addiction to Middle Eastern oil. I hope that disaster isn't near
> Spike's home.
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html>
>
>
Boo hoo. Outfit your home with solar panels, grow your own food and do
whatever it is you need to. Otherwise, enviroKOOKs crowing about the myth
of man-made global warming should be FORCED to pay with their money for any
silly initiatives the Obama crew decides to undertake to "fight" the myth.
Alan Browne
Funny, with a much more difficult environment than the automobile
industry (in all respects) aircraft builders have continuously increased
the carbon fibre content v. aluminum (already lighter than steel) in
aircraft despite equally hard concerns over cost and maintenance after
damage. The A-380 and 787's depend highly on it.
(787: 50% composite, 20% aluminum, 15% titanium, 10% steel, 5% other).
While a CF car will certainly be more expensive than a rust-in-waiting
mobile, the point is that it will last a hell of a lot longer than the
rust-in-waiting mobile and therefore payoff over the long term while
saving immense amounts of fuel for the same function. As I said
earlier, it will likely require an engine and drive train replacement
long before the body gives out. (And the need for the replacement cycle
can be designed-in to make it cost effective, before you protest that).
Of course with a moniker like HEMI-powered your whole mindset is that of
an industry that has gone hand in hand with big oil against all attempts
to lead fuel consumption reductions since the 1970's. Now the big-3 are
on the ropes (with Chrysler deepest in the hole) and big oil are not
around with their immense profits to bail Detroit out. .
Instead the taxpayers will have to put up the risk money for the most
braindead industry in the world. This is the price of re-electing
uber-idiot Dingell over and over again
As to your last sentence, the real culprit is always weight. This is
inescapable truth.
But the Detroit marketing machine goes against that. More car means
more engine means more transmission weight, more drivetrain weight, more
wheel weight, more brake weight, more structural weight. And then the
American "over power" penchant compounds the above all over again.
The very second place to reduce weight is the engine. And the very
first is the weight of the vehicle the engine has to push around.
The goal of a vehicle is to move a person around, not the vehicle. Yet
Detroit (and other luxury brands) persist in selling monster vehicles
that spend most of their driving life with a single occupant. 4000 lbs
to move a 185 lb man. IOW, for every 100 gallons burned, only 4.6
gallons went to moving the occupant. (never mind that the engines are
only 25% efficient in the first place).
Regarding power, aside from racing there are very few places in North
America where driving over 85 mph or so is tolerated (never mind legal),
therefore there is absolutely no need for cars that will cruise happily
at 115 and higher. More specifically there is no need to accelerate
from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds (or even 10 seconds). It serves no useful
purpose other than bragging.
In a world with energy and pollution challenges, such is insane hubris.
I am utterly sick and tired of auto industry people like yourself with
the no-can-do attitude. Not so much because it is biased but because it
is so frigging stupid. It's really "don't-want-to-do".
I watched my father go nuts over stupid problems on Ford's and GM's. I
watched my hapless father in law and brother in law with endless
problems on their Chryslers.
I've always bought Honda. No regrets. Next may be Toyota.
The big 3 simply do not deserve consideration. And the free market has
proven it.
Alan Browne
> The Earth's orbit around the sun is ellipital and the orbin itself
> precesses as it moves around giving rise to very high and very cold
> mean temperatures all by itself. Investigate The Little Ice Age which
> ran from the early 1400s to the mid-1600s or the time about 10,000
> years ago when mean temps rose some 29 deg and killed off the mega
> mammals. Gee, ya think it was dem nasty carbon emitting powerplants
> and cars that did all that back then? Worse, suppose people actually
> succeed in cooling the planet and SEND us to another Little Ice Age
> prematurely? Thankfully, all of us will be dead but that is a SAD
> legacy for the Far Left Loon Green Nazis to leave to our children.
It's very funny how people who are determined to disavow AGW go to such
lengths to find evidence so far from the problem in time.
The point is that the current slope in temperature changes (esp. towards
the poles) cannot be explained by cyclic factors.
We spew tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere daily. Most of it
stays there and has increasing effect. The carbon sinks cannot keep up
with the sources.
It's convenient for you to not like this, I know, but the evidence has
been piling up for decades.
Alan Browne
>
> Boo hoo. Outfit your home with solar panels, grow your own food and do
> whatever it is you need to. Otherwise, enviroKOOKs crowing about the myth
> of man-made global warming should be FORCED to pay with their money for any
> silly initiatives the Obama crew decides to undertake to "fight" the myth.
The biggest myth makers have been the oil and auto industries fighting
against the immense volume of work showing AGW.
Ironic that one has creamed immense profits of late and not offered to
bail out the other. Nah, let the taxpayers do that.
Esp. as the US oil industry does its utmost to avoid paying taxes and
oil/gasfield royalties.
It's such an openly corrupt system that it makes one want to cry.
John Navas
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in
<kc-dnc3GOu2pO8fU...@giganews.com>:
>HEMI - Powered wrote:
Excellent summary. Worth repeating.
mj
"HEMI - Powered" <no...@none.giganews> wrote in message
news:Xns9B84ABF4497...@216.196.97.131...
Alan Browne
> Not to mention most all steel car parts are made from RE-cycled car bodies.
Except for the energy input to re-cycle it which is avoided with a car
body that lasts 25 - 50 or more years.
You have to think through the WHOLE cycle.
Jürgen Exner
>Funny, with a much more difficult environment than the automobile
>industry (in all respects) aircraft builders have continuously increased
>the carbon fibre content v. aluminum (already lighter than steel) in
>aircraft despite equally hard concerns over cost and maintenance after
>damage. The A-380 and 787's depend highly on it.
>(787: 50% composite, 20% aluminum, 15% titanium, 10% steel, 5% other).
>
>While a CF car will certainly be more expensive than a rust-in-waiting
>mobile, the point is that it will last a hell of a lot longer than the
>rust-in-waiting mobile and therefore payoff over the long term while
>saving immense amounts of fuel for the same function.
You are right but you are forgetting about peoples vanity.
While there are many aircraft which are 30 and 40 years old and are
still doing a very fine job nobody _WANTS_ to drive a 30 year old car,
no matter if it is rusty or not.
When neighbours get a new car then you have to get the latest model,
too. If you don't replace your car every 2-3 years with the latest model
then you are not "in" and you become an outcast.
It has nothing to do with logic but everything with vanity and showing
off. How would want to be seen in a 10 year old model?
jue
mj
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:kc-dnc3GOu2pO8fU...@giganews.com...
> HEMI - Powered wrote:
>> Alan Browne added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>> ...
>>>>> It has been demonstrated that a vehicle built from carbon
>>>>> fibre has compounding weight weight reduction effects that
>>>>> drastically reduce energy requirements. Further, such a
>>>>> vehicle would last 50 years or more requiring only that the
>>>>> engine and drive train be replaced ... not 1000's of pounds of
>>>>> steel.
>>>>> eg: lighter body = smaller engine = lighter drive drain =
>>>>> lighter wheels = lighter brakes = even smaller engine =
>>>>> smaller fuel tank = smaller car, etc. etc. etc.
> I am utterly sick and tired of auto industry people like yourself with the
> no-can-do attitude. Not so much because it is biased but because it is so
> frigging stupid. It's really "don't-want-to-do".
>
> I watched my father go nuts over stupid problems on Ford's and GM's. I
> watched my hapless father in law and brother in law with endless problems
> on their Chryslers.
>
> I've always bought Honda. No regrets. Next may be Toyota.
>
> The big 3 simply do not deserve consideration. And the free market has
> proven it.
>
I have owned several Fords, a conversion van while my daughters were growing
up and a Ranger extended cab when I didn't need the big van. The ranger had
190,000 miles on the original engine and transmission.
At the point of the trade in the rear main seal was starting to leak and the
entire brake system needed to be overhauled and a new transmission would
follow. Yes I could have rebuilt the entire pickup at a cost of
$5,000-$6,000 whoever I would still have a $500 vehicle.
I would love to see smaller light weight electric vehicles, which in
themselves will bring on environmental problems, as well hydrogen powered. I
have no doubt these will come along in time.
Nissan, Honda and Toyota are also having their problems as they too jumped
on the SUV train though not to the same extent as the "Big 3". As for lack
of credit I had no problem qualifying for a $25,000 from Ford credit, in
fact the dealer sold 10 vehicles the day I bought mine.