|
7576. concerned - 7/7/2008 9:38:45 PM Re. 7574 -
President Peanut Brain was claiming peak oil before 1990.
He is an idiot. 7577. concerned - 7/7/2008 10:01:04 PM Re. 7574 -
And what were you 'telling us' about nuclear power 30 years ago?
Oh, yeah. That's a big reason why we're in such an energy bind now. 7578. concerned - 7/7/2008 10:06:02 PM The Left Wing way: Claim that there's a problem, block the best solutions for as long as possible, then try to put us on a guilt trip about their caving at the last second. 7579. jexster - 7/9/2008 1:41:54 AM The Pickens Plan
7580. jexster - 7/12/2008 5:35:03 PM ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE - Pope Benedict XVI said Saturday he wants to wake up consciences on climate change during his pilgrimage in Australia.
Concerned's immortal soul is in peril 7581. concerned - 7/17/2008 5:08:02 AM New Research Suggests that First Humans to Settle Americas were Eee-vile White Men From Europe
So, can I have my own casino? 7582. jexster - 7/17/2008 5:11:22 PM Gore sets energy goal for next president to heed
Gore wants US to produce all power through Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years
7583. jexster - 7/18/2008 3:53:49 PM California First State with Green Building Standards 7584. jexster - 7/18/2008 9:01:28 PM The Greening of America
T. Boone Heads to Capitol Hill to Meet with Democrats 7585. robertjayb - 7/19/2008 2:56:22 AM Yeah! Judge stays wolf slaughter...
BILLINGS, Mont. — A federal judge has restored endangered species protections for gray wolves in the Northern Rockies, derailing plans by three states to hold public wolf hunts this fall.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy granted a preliminary injunction late Friday restoring the protections for the wolves in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. Molloy will eventually decide whether the injunction should be permanent.
The region has an estimated 2,000 gray wolves. They were removed from the endangered species list in March, following a decade-long restoration effort.
Environmentalists sued to overturn the decision, arguing wolf numbers would plummet if hunting were allowed. They sought the injunction in the hopes of stopping the hunts and allowing the wolf population to continue expanding.
There were fall hunts scheduled that would call for perhaps as many as 500 wolves to be killed.
7586. wonkers2 - 7/19/2008 2:42:55 PM Joe Nocera "Costly Toys or New Era for Drivers?" The latest on vehicle fuel efficiency technology. 7587. jexster - 7/22/2008 4:11:49 PM I never knew this though it isn't surprising. If Calfornia were a country it would be the world's second largest consumer of gasoline.
Guess that says it all about why the State's decided to lead the Greening of America 7588. jexster - 7/22/2008 8:32:39 PM Peak Oil - LAT
Why the Oil Crunch May Grow Worse
Bush shoulda listened to T. Boone 7589. thoughtful - 7/22/2008 10:05:26 PM complete article
When it comes to global warming, extreme scare stories abound. Al Gore, for example, famously claimed that a whopping six meters (20 feet) of sea-level rise would flood major cities around the world.
Gore’s scientific advisor, Jim Hansen from NASA, has even topped his protégé. Hansen suggests that there will eventually be sea-level rises of 24 meters (80 feet), with a six-meter rise happening just this century. Little wonder that fellow environmentalist Bill McKibben states that “we are engaging in a reckless drive-by drowning of much of the rest of the planet and much of the rest of creation.”
Given all the warnings, here is a slightly inconvenient truth: over the past two years, the global sea level hasn’t increased. It has slightly decreased . Since 1992, satellites orbiting the planet have measured the global sea level every 10 days with an amazing degree of accuracy – 3-4 millimeters (0.2 inches). For two years, sea levels have declined. (All of the data are available at sealevel.colorado.edu.)...
Consider one of the most significant steps taken to respond to climate change. Adopted because of the climate panic, bio-fuels were supposed to reduce CO2 emissions. Hansen described them as part of a “brighter future for the planet.” But using bio-fuels to combat climate change must rate as one of the poorest global “solutions” to any great challenge in recent times.
Bio-fuels essentially take food from mouths and puts it into cars. The grain required to fill the tank of an SUV with ethanol is enough to feed one African for a year. Thirty percent of this year’s corn production in the United States will be burned up on America’s highways. This has been possible only through subsidies that globally will total $15 billion this year alone.
Because increased demand for bio-fuels leads to cutting down carbon-rich forests, a 2008 Science study showed that the net effect of using them is not to cut CO2 emissions, but to double them. The rush towards bio-fuels has also strongly contributed to rising food prices, which have tipped another roughly 30 million people into starvation.
Because of climate panic, our attempts to mitigate climate change have provoked an unmitigated disaster. We will waste hundreds of billions of dollars, worsen global warming, and dramatically increase starvation. 7590. alistairconnor - 7/23/2008 12:57:37 PM More spin and half-lies from Lomborg.
Biofuels (in Europe and the USA) are an unmitigated disaster. It's only in recent months that this has become obvious to nearly everyone. Hansen has been in favour of biofuels in the past? Not surprising (it would be surprising if he is now!) but anyway it's not his subject : his ideas on biofuels are about as interesting and credible as ... let's see ... Lomborg's on climate science.
In any case, the idea that the fad for biofuels is aimed at fighting climate change is pretty silly. It's driven by the price of oil. 7591. iiibbb - 7/23/2008 6:57:02 PM Any earth-friendly energy must first and foremost compete economically with oil.
The problem with biofuels right now is that the technology is still developing, and the infrastructure to support it is not in place. Certain biofuels (i.e. the ones that rely on food crops) are obviously flawed. Other biofuels (i.e. cellulosic ethanol) still may work out, but the technology isn't mature.
There's still a chance for fusion via polywells... but that is a fledgling technology. Robert Bussard claims that all of the fundamental physics issues were solved and that only engineering hurdles remain... but he says there is strong political forces preventing it's adoption. I am of the belief that if the solution is really that close, then someone would take it on because there's simply too much money to be made sitting on that kind of breakthrough. I don't care who you are... that aspect of the free-market does work. 7592. arkymalarky - 7/23/2008 8:03:18 PM What are the pro and con issues with hydrogen? I keep seeing Honda's hydrogen car commercial, and I know there are a few on the road.
I thought about buying a hybrid when I bought my car, but mine gets almost 40mpg and it was several thousand dollars cheaper. I couldn't see the advantage. But I'm figuring by the time I get around to buying another one there's no telling what non-gas options there'll be.
Our house would be a great place for solar energy and for a geothermal system, but the front-end costs are beyond our means. I keep thinking one of these days they will get within our reach, and if they do we'll hardly use any electricity at all. We're hoping to change out our CH/A systems to geothermal when we pay the house off in another seven or eight years. 7593. thoughtful - 7/23/2008 8:29:39 PM Hydrogen is largely derived from petroleum products.
If you can afford to refinance and can throw in the cost of panels or geothermal into the mortgage, the cash flow can actually be positive. By that I mean that the monthly outlay without solar on your electric bill may be greater than the additional monthly outlay on your mortgage would be with the solar added.
But all of that depends on the solar generating capacity of your location, the state subsidies, etc etc. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to ask the question. 7594. iiibbb - 7/23/2008 9:57:18 PM Hydrogen is a great energy delivery system, but you still have to generate it using electricity (where do you get the electricity), and there are obvious storage issues (which I think have been resolved to a large degree).
Basically hydrogen is something you compare to batteries in electric cars. Hydrogen has obvious benefits over batteries from a industrial waste standpoint.
The only country that's adopted hydrogen is Iceland, but they have abundant geothermal.
7595. arkymalarky - 7/23/2008 10:42:30 PM We looked into it when we built, and it was far higher than what we would have saved on our electric bill. As it is, our electric bill is about 150-200 a month. But I haven't looked into anything since then, which was about twelve years ago.
We have a 100X30' metal barn whose roof is totally exposed to sunlight. That's where we'd have panels.
|
