OT: BP - The tip of the iceberg

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> GROVER wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 4:28 am, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> This is a human centric view of the first casualties of the blowout.
>>> There will likely be many more and it's good that this is recorded
>>> before the deluge:
>>>
>>> http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201007/oil-spill-rig-worke...
>>
>> Thank you for posting this article to our NG. It read like a Raymond
>> Chandler novel. We probably wont see the end of this calamity for more
>> than a generation. Man is the only creature which fouls his own nest.
>> I hope this horrible event may cause us to do something about
>> generating our energy needs with cleaner technology.
>>
>
> Not true. You're exaggerating and making false claims.
>
> The Harpy Eagle BUILDS its nest out of harpy eagle shit.
>

Closer to home. dogs shit in their own back yard, where they run and play.

I'm not bothering with attributes to quotes...

> >I have only one objection to what you said, and would agree with you if
> >you can answer one question. =A0Once you capture the CO2, what are you
> >going to do with it?
>
> >As a chemist and per government papers I received from Senator Lugar
> >there are a couple of solutions:
>
> I'd look at combining it with H (catalytically?) and using it as a
> feedstock for plastics production.
>
> I wonder how much energy it takes to break the C from the O2?

1) the ethylene-polyethylene process is reversible. This means that
there is an untapped resource for fuel we're just burying in the
ground where it will take forever to degrade/decompose.

2) the Fischer-Tropsh process has been used to make fuel from "almost
nothing" (syngas) since before WW1. Apartheid South Africa was cut
off from world crude feedstocks and make (literally) all its POL this
way.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_Tropsch

On Jun 17, 3:10=A0pm, lektric dan <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not bothering with attributes to quotes...
>
> > >I have only one objection to what you said, and would agree with you i=
f
> > >you can answer one question. =A0Once you capture the CO2, what are you
> > >going to do with it?
>
> > >As a chemist and per government papers I received from Senator Lugar
> > >there are a couple of solutions:
>
> > I'd look at combining it with H (catalytically?) and using it as a
> > feedstock for plastics production.
>
> > I wonder how much energy it takes to break the C from the O2?
>
> 1) the ethylene-polyethylene process is reversible. =A0This means that
> there is an untapped resource for fuel we're just burying in the
> ground where it will take forever to degrade/decompose.

What good does that do? It takes more energy to reverse the process
than you get out of it. Might just as well bury money.

> 2) the Fischer-Tropsh process has been used to make fuel from "almost
> nothing" (syngas) since before WW1. =A0Apartheid South Africa was cut
> off from world crude feedstocks and make (literally) all its POL this
> way.
> see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_Tropsch

On Jun 16, 12:03=A0pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/16/2010 12:51 PM, GROVER wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 11:37 am, "Josepi"<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> The world will be watching as you demonstrate the first source of abso=
lutely
> >> green energy.
>
> >> Nobody else can find one.
>
> >> "GROVER"<[email protected]> =A0wrote in message
>
> >> news:47b0c440-df7d-466b-acbe-
> >> Thank =A0you for posting this article to our NG. It read like a Raymon=
d
> >> Chandler novel. We probably wont see the end of this calamity for more
> >> than a generation. Man is the only creature which fouls his own nest.
> >> I hope this horrible event may cause us to do something about
> >> generating our energy needs with cleaner technology.
>
> >> Joe G
>
> >> [email protected]...
> >> On Jun 16, 4:28 am, "Lobby Dosser"<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
>
> >>> This is a human centric view of the first casualties of the blowout. =
There
> >>> will likely be many more and it's good that this is recorded before t=
he
> >>> deluge:
>
> >>>http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201007/oil-spill-rig-worke.=
..Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I didn't claim I personaly knew the answers to the problems caused by
> > the current mix of our energy generating technologies but rather hoped
> > that this tragedy would spur people to accept newer and cleaner ways
> > than we are presently employing. Robatoy understood what I was trying
> > to say.
> > Joe G
>
> The only solution to change energy production from fossil fuels to other
> means is to push for all nuclear generation.

Huh? If nukes generated 100% of our electricity it wouldn't make a
dent in our need for oil.

> Solar energy is will never be available more than have of the time.
> Suns only shines for about 12 hours per day unless you are in Alaska.
> No energy when it gets dark.

Yep. ...and storage sucks.

> As any sailor known the wind is fluky, and cannot be depended on for a
> constant source of energy. Most of the time it will be blowing too hard
> for the system to use, or not hard enough. =A0If it was dependable, all o=
f
> our ocean travel would still be done under sail, and the Dutch windmill
> would not have disappeared.
>
> At some point we are going to have to accept facts and build nuclear
> power generation facilities, or give up anything that uses energy
> directly or indirectly. =A0Also you cannot change the laws of chemistry o=
r
> physics just because the will not allow what you think should be.
> Batteries are limited by physics and chemistry obama and the social
> democrats cannot change that.

That still doesn't solve the transportation needs.

[email protected] wrote:
>>> Man is the only creature that knowingly fouls his own nest.
>>
>> Never seen a pig sty, eh?
>>
>> Pig food goes into pen #1. Waste from pen #1 is cycled to pen#2 for
>> those pigs to eat. And so on.
>
> Only because the pigs don't get a vote. Left on their own, pigs are
> very clean animals.

Right. All animals are equal - except pigs, who are more equal.

On Jun 16, 4:39=A0pm, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:

> [*] the idea that one must store waste for 10,000 years is quite
> silly. =A0 Anything that highly radioactive is a fuel source itself,
> and reprocessing is perfectly viable. =A0 Not to mention thorium
> fuel cycles which don't create high-level waste with long half-lives.

Clarification: Anything that has a half-life of 10,000 years is not
all that dangerous. Anything that is (dangerous) has a half-life far
shorter and is a fuel source itself. Thorium is also quite plentiful;
enough for our needs for thousands of years. Another source usually
forgotten is Plutonium. There's enough highly enriched Plutonium,
now, to meet our electricity needs for a couple of centuries. That
still doesn't get us transportation.

On Jun 16, 4:28=A0am, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is a human centric view of the first casualties of the blowout. Ther=
e
> will likely be many more and it's good that this is recorded before the
> deluge:
>
> http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201007/oil-spill-rig-worke...

Thank you for posting this article to our NG. It read like a Raymond
Chandler novel. We probably wont see the end of this calamity for more
than a generation. Man is the only creature which fouls his own nest.
I hope this horrible event may cause us to do something about
generating our energy needs with cleaner technology.

Joe G

Man is one of the only animal that tends to it's wounded instead of clensing
the flock by assassination.


"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Not true. You're exaggerating and making false claims.

The Harpy Eagle BUILDS its nest out of harpy eagle shit.

And, as an aside, we can't run this country off of sunbeams. Or California
from Moonbeams

GROVER wrote:
Man is the only creature which fouls his own nest.
> I hope this horrible event may cause us to do something about
> generating our energy needs with cleaner technology.
>

.

Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> writes:
>On 6/16/2010 5:31 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Larry Blanchard<[email protected]> writes:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:03:26 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>
>>>> Solar energy is will never be available more than have of the time. Suns
>>>> only shines for about 12 hours per day unless you are in Alaska. No
>>>> energy when it gets dark.
>>>>
>>>> As any sailor known the wind is fluky, and cannot be depended on for a
>>>> constant source of energy. Most of the time it will be blowing too hard
>>>> for the system to use, or not hard enough. If it was dependable, all of
>>>> our ocean travel would still be done under sail, and the Dutch windmill
>>>> would not have disappeared.
>>>
>>> Agreed on the above. But a few options you didn't mention are
>>> hydropower, tides and geothermal. They are pretty reliable :-).
>>
>> Were you aware that all the Hydro in California are peakers,
>> not baseload? There are two reasons for that:
>>
>> 1) Hydro can crank up and shut down quickly. That's not the
>> case for thermal plants (gas, coal, nuclear).
>>
>> 2) Due to seasonal fluctuations and limited storage capacity
>> (Shasta's 4.5m acre-feet wouldn't last the dry season at full
>> 24x7 drawdown and it generates about a 1000 Mwatt running full-out,
>> assuming it had enough rain during the wet season to fill it, which
>> happened this year, but is quite unusual).
>>
>> Any sane energy policy would include nuclear[*], natural gas, coal with
>> carbon sequestration and river-based hydro for baseload augmented by
>> wind and solar (both of which are unpredictable sources); with
>> gas and hydro peakers.
>>
>> scott
>>
>> [*] the idea that one must store waste for 10,000 years is quite
>> silly. Anything that highly radioactive is a fuel source itself,
>> and reprocessing is perfectly viable. Not to mention thorium
>> fuel cycles which don't create high-level waste with long half-lives.
>>
>I have only one objection to what you said, and would agree with you if
>you can answer one question. Once you capture the CO2, what are you
>going to do with it?
>
>As a chemist and per government papers I received from Senator Lugar
>there are a couple of solutions:

I'd look at combining it with H (catalytically?) and using it as a
feedstock for plastics production.

I wonder how much energy it takes to break the C from the O2?

scott

"Keith Nuttle" wrote:

> To put it another way for every 12 rail cars of carbon going into
> the plant, 100 rail cars of waste will be coming out.
>
> As I remember a couple of years ago National Geographics said there
> was about 8 billion tons of coal burned ever year.
-------------------------------------
All of which demonstrates the necessity of getting off fossil based
fuels.

And if we don't get off our collective rear ends and get busy
developing renewable energy sources, the Chinese are going to eat our
lunch.

To illustrate the point, anybody catch the ABC evening news?

Guy from Jersey couldn't get funding in the USA to build his
manufacturing facility.

The Chinese welcomed him with open arms and MONEY.

Lew

On 2010-06-16 16:27:29 -0400, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> said:

> The best argument against nuclear power is the average nuclear plant
> worker - made me shudder.

Having family members who worked in constructing these plants
introduced me to one of the contractors who proudly described his
"in-field modification" of some piece of piping that wouldn't fit.
Seems it involved a large wrench being used as a hammer to bend
something... you know, precision engineering. <shudder>

On 2010-06-16 22:49:45 -0400, "CW" <[email protected]> said:

> Closer to home. dogs shit in their own back yard, where they run and play.

Eh, the vet said, "Think of it as a fine cheese."

"Swingman" wrote
>
> City boy, eh?
>
> You need to get away from the boob tube and out and about in the country,
> around more "creatures", where you get to take care of some litters,
> flocks, and a herd or two ... it'll quickly rid you of that touchy feely,
> hollywood, anthropomorphic BS, totally unrealistic sentimentality.
>
Yep, as a country boy myself, I often wonder how some of these city folks
have managed to survive as long as they have.

True story.

I came to the big city, fresh off of the farm. I remember getting my fitst
check and going to the grocery store to buy food for the first time in my
life. I was totally puzzled by the little old ladies who would block every
aisle with their carts. The world was moving too fast for them and they were
going to slow it down a little. I was constantly moving their carts out of
the way. And sometimes they got angry about it.

Why was this a mystery to a country boy? Simple, if you turned your back on
or in any way was an obstacle to any kind of large (or beligerant) animal,
you got mowed over. Or gored, horned, trampled or just brutally bumped. I
remember when I was 5 years old. I turned my back on an angry cow. She
charged me and got me in the lower back. She picked me up with her small
horms and tossed me into the air. She then caught me on her horns and did it
again.

She then charged me and tried to get me again. I ended up scrambling around,
avoiding her. I got to my feet and ran from her. I NEVER turned my back on
an irate animal again. Nor did I get in the way of any of them.

Fast forward 13 years later, I am trying to use my country boy skills and
vigilance in a grocery store. It didn't work. But that ever present
vigilance and acute periphial vision save my ass a few times.

Yep, I am a country boy too Karl. A tip of the hat to ya. And a little down
home ecookin' too!

J. Clarke wrote:

>> Heavy Rail.
>
> Not profitable in the US and hasn't been for decades.
------------------------------------
Somebody forgot to tell Warren Buffet.

Lew

I wrote:
>>>> Heavy Rail.
>>>
>>> Not profitable in the US and hasn't been for decades.
>> ------------------------------------
>> Somebody forgot to tell Warren Buffet.
------------------------------

J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Has he run a passenger railroad at a profit in the US? If so which
> one and for how long?
-----------------------------

For once try reading and understanding.

There was no reference to "passenger railroad" in my previous post.

Lew

On Jun 16, 11:37=A0am, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The world will be watching as you demonstrate the first source of absolut=
ely
> green energy.
>
> Nobody else can find one.
>
> "GROVER" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:47b0c440-df7d-466b-acbe-
> Thank =A0you for posting this article to our NG. It read like a Raymond
> Chandler novel. We probably wont see the end of this calamity for more
> than a generation. Man is the only creature which fouls his own nest.
> I hope this horrible event may cause us to do something about
> generating our energy needs with cleaner technology.
>
> Joe G
>
> [email protected]...
> On Jun 16, 4:28 am, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > This is a human centric view of the first casualties of the blowout. Th=
ere
> > will likely be many more and it's good that this is recorded before the
> > deluge:
>
> >http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201007/oil-spill-rig-worke...=
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I didn't claim I personaly knew the answers to the problems caused by
the current mix of our energy generating technologies but rather hoped
that this tragedy would spur people to accept newer and cleaner ways
than we are presently employing. Robatoy understood what I was trying
to say.
Joe G

On Jun 17, 11:14=A0am, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 06:28:21 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >> What's the conclusion? =A0Mine is that the days of cheap power are
> >> ending.
>
> > That's been the mantra of the Chicken Little society for a century.
>
> Says the ostrich with its head in the sand :-).
>
> --
> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

No, I know what the alternative to energy is. Poverty.

On Jun 17, 10:02=A0am, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> writes:
> >On 6/16/2010 5:31 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >> Larry Blanchard<[email protected]> =A0writes:
> >>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:03:26 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>
> >>>> Solar energy is will never be available more than have of the time. =
Suns
> >>>> only shines for about 12 hours per day unless you are in Alaska. No
> >>>> energy when it gets dark.
>
> >>>> As any sailor known the wind is fluky, and cannot be depended on for=
a
> >>>> constant source of energy. Most of the time it will be blowing too h=
ard
> >>>> for the system to use, or not hard enough. =A0If it was dependable, =
all of
> >>>> our ocean travel would still be done under sail, and the Dutch windm=
ill
> >>>> would not have disappeared.
>
> >>> Agreed on the above. =A0But a few options you didn't mention are
> >>> hydropower, tides and geothermal. =A0They are pretty reliable :-).
>
> >> Were you aware that all the Hydro in California are peakers,
> >> not baseload? =A0 There are two reasons for that:
>
> >> =A0 =A0 1) Hydro can crank up and shut down quickly. =A0That's not the
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0case for thermal plants (gas, coal, nuclear).
>
> >> =A0 =A0 2) Due to seasonal fluctuations and limited storage capacity
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(Shasta's 4.5m acre-feet wouldn't last the dry season a=
t full
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 24x7 drawdown and it generates about a 1000 Mwatt runn=
ing full-out,
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 assuming it had enough rain during the wet season to f=
ill it, which
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 happened this year, but is quite unusual).
>
> >> Any sane energy policy would include nuclear[*], natural gas, coal wit=
h
> >> carbon sequestration and river-based hydro for baseload augmented by
> >> wind and solar (both of which are unpredictable sources); with
> >> gas and hydro peakers.
>
> >> scott
>
> >> [*] the idea that one must store waste for 10,000 years is quite
> >> silly. =A0 Anything that highly radioactive is a fuel source itself,
> >> and reprocessing is perfectly viable. =A0 Not to mention thorium
> >> fuel cycles which don't create high-level waste with long half-lives.
>
> >I have only one objection to what you said, and would agree with you if
> >you can answer one question. =A0Once you capture the CO2, what are you
> >going to do with it?
>
> >As a chemist and per government papers I received from Senator Lugar
> >there are a couple of solutions:
>
> I'd look at combining it with H (catalytically?) and using it as a
> feedstock for plastics production.
>
> I wonder how much energy it takes to break the C from the O2?

More energy than was released when it got put there. TANSTAAFL.

On Jun 18, 8:58=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> Man is the only creature that knowingly fouls his own nest.
>
> >> Never seen a pig sty, eh?
>
> >> Pig food goes into pen #1. Waste from pen #1 is cycled to pen#2 for
> >> those pigs to eat. And so on.
>
> > Only because the pigs don't get a vote. =A0Left on their own, pigs are
> > very clean animals.
>
> Right. All animals are equal - except pigs, who are more equal.

4 legs. What do you expect?

On Jun 17, 12:00=A0pm, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sorry. I did not write the bottom quote.
>
> Threading is bad in in some places.

Sorry. Blame Google.

Sorry. I did not write the bottom quote.

Threading is bad in in some places.


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jun 16, 4:39 pm, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:

> [*] the idea that one must store waste for 10,000 years is quite
> silly. Anything that highly radioactive is a fuel source itself,
> and reprocessing is perfectly viable. Not to mention thorium
> fuel cycles which don't create high-level waste with long half-lives.

Clarification: Anything that has a half-life of 10,000 years is not
all that dangerous. Anything that is (dangerous) has a half-life far
shorter and is a fuel source itself. Thorium is also quite plentiful;
enough for our needs for thousands of years. Another source usually
forgotten is Plutonium. There's enough highly enriched Plutonium,
now, to meet our electricity needs for a couple of centuries. That
still doesn't get us transportation.

I agree with you there except Ontario Hydro, with all their coal smokestack
scrubbers is removing them all. I am not sure how much of this is failure to
meet emmision problems / standards or political pressure.

I know there is some political pressure, as it is part of every election's
political platform for one candidate or the other, for the last 30 years.


"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Any sane energy policy would include nuclear[*], natural gas, coal with
carbon sequestration and river-based hydro for baseload augmented by
wind and solar (both of which are unpredictable sources); with
gas and hydro peakers.

scott

[*] the idea that one must store waste for 10,000 years is quite
silly. Anything that highly radioactive is a fuel source itself,
and reprocessing is perfectly viable. Not to mention thorium
fuel cycles which don't create high-level waste with long half-lives.

Not my quoted text but...

We are learning as we go. Expecting perfection got us here.


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Clarification: Anything that has a half-life of 10,000 years is not
all that dangerous. Anything that is (dangerous) has a half-life far
shorter and is a fuel source itself. Thorium is also quite plentiful;
enough for our needs for thousands of years. Another source usually
forgotten is Plutonium. There's enough highly enriched Plutonium,
now, to meet our electricity needs for a couple of centuries. That
still doesn't get us transportation


On Jun 16, 4:39 pm, "Josepi" <[email protected]> didn't write:
> [*] the idea that one must store waste for 10,000 years is quite
> silly. Anything that highly radioactive is a fuel source itself,
> and reprocessing is perfectly viable. Not to mention thorium
> fuel cycles which don't create high-level waste with long half-lives.

.

On 6/16/2010 10:35 AM, GROVER wrote:

> Man is the only creature which fouls his own nest.

City boy, eh?

You need to get away from the boob tube and out and about in the
country, around more "creatures", where you get to take care of some
litters, flocks, and a herd or two ... it'll quickly rid you of that
touchy feely, hollywood, anthropomorphic BS, totally unrealistic
sentimentality.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

The best solution is when you stop using this fuel source you seem to
dislike, so much.

When you start using another one, let us know how you did it and how no
petroleum was used to produce it or maintain it.

The greenwashing get a little sickening with the eco-guessing crowd. They
don't like nuclear waste or hydro-electric dam dangers or the site of wind
turbines or solar panels using our our land areas or petroleum spills or the
high CO2 emmisions and food stealing of biofuels.

Back to my 102" plasma display TV in my 68 degree living room, under my
electric blanket in my massaging recliner...LOL

Most of us agree with you but solutions are already been being worked on for
30-40 years. Well at least some of us have. Shit happens as result of our
greed and laziness.


"GROVER" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4e76a8c6-ff62-4b39-8159-4f27accae21b@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
I didn't claim I personaly knew the answers to the problems caused by
the current mix of our energy generating technologies but rather hoped
that this tragedy would spur people to accept newer and cleaner ways
than we are presently employing. Robatoy understood what I was trying
to say.
Joe G

On Jun 16, 11:37 am, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The world will be watching as you demonstrate the first source of
> absolutely
> green energy.
>
> Nobody else can find one.
>
> "GROVER" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:47b0c440-df7d-466b-acbe-
> Thank you for posting this article to our NG. It read like a Raymond
> Chandler novel. We probably wont see the end of this calamity for more
> than a generation. Man is the only creature which fouls his own nest.
> I hope this horrible event may cause us to do something about
> generating our energy needs with cleaner technology.
>
> Joe G

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Keith Nuttle" wrote:
>
>> To put it another way for every 12 rail cars of carbon going into
>> the plant, 100 rail cars of waste will be coming out.
>>
>> As I remember a couple of years ago National Geographics said there
>> was about 8 billion tons of coal burned ever year.
> -------------------------------------
> All of which demonstrates the necessity of getting off fossil based
> fuels.
>
> And if we don't get off our collective rear ends and get busy
> developing renewable energy sources, the Chinese are going to eat our
> lunch.

Whale oil for lighting is a "renewable energy source."

Kerosene, however, proved to be (much) cheaper, more versatile, easier to
store, transport, and use than whale oil. Kerosene was also not susceptible
to the vagaries of the whaling season.

All of these reasons, except maybe the whaling season, are still in play
when comparing other "renewable" energy sources with petroleum and coal.


>
> To illustrate the point, anybody catch the ABC evening news?

To illustrate another point, does anybody watch ABC News?

Upscale wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:23:45 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Man is the only creature which fouls his own nest.
>
>> You need to get away from the boob tube and out and about in the
>> country, around more "creatures", where you get to take care of some
>> litters, flocks, and a herd or two ... it'll quickly rid you of that
>> touchy feely, hollywood, anthropomorphic BS, totally unrealistic
>> sentimentality.
>
> Let me help with a rephrase.
>
> Man is the only creature that knowingly fouls his own nest.

Never seen a pig sty, eh?

Pig food goes into pen #1. Waste from pen #1 is cycled to pen#2 for those
pigs to eat. And so on.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > "Keith Nuttle" wrote:
> >
> >> To put it another way for every 12 rail cars of carbon going into
> >> the plant, 100 rail cars of waste will be coming out.
> >>
> >> As I remember a couple of years ago National Geographics said there
> >> was about 8 billion tons of coal burned ever year.
> > -------------------------------------
> > All of which demonstrates the necessity of getting off fossil based
> > fuels.
> >
> > And if we don't get off our collective rear ends and get busy
> > developing renewable energy sources, the Chinese are going to eat our
> > lunch.
>
> Whale oil for lighting is a "renewable energy source."

With a very small human population.

[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> The only solution to change energy production from fossil fuels to
>> other means is to push for all nuclear generation.
>
> Huh? If nukes generated 100% of our electricity it wouldn't make a
> dent in our need for oil.
>

You best tell him why.

Almost all of the oil, both domestic and imported, is used for
transportation. Some is used for heating, lubricants, and plastics, but the
amount so used is minuscule.

There are none, or almost none, oil-fired power plants.

GROVER wrote:
> On Jun 16, 4:28 am, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This is a human centric view of the first casualties of the blowout.
>> There will likely be many more and it's good that this is recorded
>> before the deluge:
>>
>> http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201007/oil-spill-rig-worke...
>
> Thank you for posting this article to our NG. It read like a Raymond
> Chandler novel. We probably wont see the end of this calamity for more
> than a generation. Man is the only creature which fouls his own nest.
> I hope this horrible event may cause us to do something about
> generating our energy needs with cleaner technology.
>

Not true. You're exaggerating and making false claims.

The Harpy Eagle BUILDS its nest out of harpy eagle shit.

And, as an aside, we can't run this country off of sunbeams. Or California
from Moonbeams.

Our current electricity demands will take 2.5 systems and it is gonna' cost
big bucks!


"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
Not true. You're exaggerating and making false claims.

The Harpy Eagle BUILDS its nest out of harpy eagle shit.

And, as an aside, we can't run this country off of sunbeams. Or California
from Moonbeams.



news:[email protected]...
GROVER wrote:
> On Jun 16, 4:28 am, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This is a human centric view of the first casualties of the blowout.
>> There will likely be many more and it's good that this is recorded
>> before the deluge:
>>
>> http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201007/oil-spill-rig-worke...
>
> Thank you for posting this article to our NG. It read like a Raymond
> Chandler novel. We probably wont see the end of this calamity for more
> than a generation. Man is the only creature which fouls his own nest.
> I hope this horrible event may cause us to do something about
> generating our energy needs with cleaner technology.
>

Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> writes:
>On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:03:26 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>
>> Solar energy is will never be available more than have of the time. Suns
>> only shines for about 12 hours per day unless you are in Alaska. No
>> energy when it gets dark.
>>
>> As any sailor known the wind is fluky, and cannot be depended on for a
>> constant source of energy. Most of the time it will be blowing too hard
>> for the system to use, or not hard enough. If it was dependable, all of
>> our ocean travel would still be done under sail, and the Dutch windmill
>> would not have disappeared.
>
>Agreed on the above. But a few options you didn't mention are
>hydropower, tides and geothermal. They are pretty reliable :-).

Were you aware that all the Hydro in California are peakers,
not baseload? There are two reasons for that:

1) Hydro can crank up and shut down quickly. That's not the
case for thermal plants (gas, coal, nuclear).

2) Due to seasonal fluctuations and limited storage capacity
(Shasta's 4.5m acre-feet wouldn't last the dry season at full
24x7 drawdown and it generates about a 1000 Mwatt running full-out,
assuming it had enough rain during the wet season to fill it, which
happened this year, but is quite unusual).

Any sane energy policy would include nuclear[*], natural gas, coal with
carbon sequestration and river-based hydro for baseload augmented by
wind and solar (both of which are unpredictable sources); with
gas and hydro peakers.

scott

[*] the idea that one must store waste for 10,000 years is quite
silly. Anything that highly radioactive is a fuel source itself,
and reprocessing is perfectly viable. Not to mention thorium
fuel cycles which don't create high-level waste with long half-lives.

On Jun 17, 1:31=A0pm, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Apply the same logic in the city. You should have gien one of the ole'
> broad's a horn and they move real quick.
>
> City handcuffs have no analogy though.
>
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> Yep, as a country boy myself, I often wonder how some of these city folks
> have managed to survive as long as they have.
>
> True story.
>
> I came to the big city, fresh off of the farm. =A0I remember getting my f=
itst
> check and going to the grocery store to buy food for the first time in my
> life. I was totally puzzled by the little old ladies who would block ever=
y
> aisle with their carts. The world was moving too fast for them and they w=
ere
> going to slow it down a little. I was constantly moving their carts out o=
f
> the way. And sometimes they got angry about it.
>
> Why was this a mystery to a country boy? =A0Simple, if you turned your ba=
ck on
> or in any way was an obstacle to any kind of large (or beligerant) animal=
,
> you got mowed over. Or gored, horned, trampled or just brutally bumped. I
> remember when I was 5 years old. I turned my back on an angry cow. She
> charged me and got me in the lower back. She picked me up with her small
> horms and tossed me into the air. She then caught me on her horns and did=
it
> again.
>
> She then charged me and tried to get me again. I ended up scrambling arou=
nd,
> avoiding her. I got to my feet and ran from her. I NEVER turned my back o=
n
> an irate animal again. Nor did I get in the way of any of them.
>
> Fast forward 13 years later, I am trying to use my country boy skills and
> vigilance in a grocery store. It didn't work. But that ever present
> vigilance and acute periphial vision save my ass a few times.
>
> Yep, I am a country boy too Karl. A tip of the hat to ya. And a little do=
wn
> home ecookin' too!
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: [email protected] ---

Y.O.U....A.R.E....T.O.P.P.O.S.T.I.N.G....A.G.A.I.N!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 08:35:48 -0700 (PDT), GROVER
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Man is the only creature which fouls his own nest.

Swallows do too.

-Zz

On Jun 16, 3:27=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:03:26 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> > Solar energy is will never be available more than have of the time. Sun=
s
> > only shines for about 12 hours per day unless you are in Alaska. No
> > energy when it gets dark.
>
> > As any sailor known the wind is fluky, and cannot be depended on for a
> > constant source of energy. Most of the time it will be blowing too hard
> > for the system to use, or not hard enough. =A0If it was dependable, all=
of
> > our ocean travel would still be done under sail, and the Dutch windmill
> > would not have disappeared.
>
> Agreed on the above. =A0But a few options you didn't mention are
> hydropower, tides and geothermal. =A0They are pretty reliable :-).
>
> But all of the above are regional in nature and would require long
> distance transmission lines, just as much of our power does today.
>
> OTOH, I was strongly in favor of nuclear power until I did some software
> work for one of them. =A0The best argument against nuclear power is the
> average nuclear plant worker - made me shudder. =A0And there's still no
> politically palatable answer to waste sorage.

Right. The problems are political. Drill baby drill.

> What's the conclusion? =A0Mine is that the days of cheap power are ending=
.

That's been the mantra of the Chicken Little society for a century.

On Jun 16, 11:37=A0am, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The world will be watching as you demonstrate the first source of absolut=
ely
> green energy.
>
> Nobody else can find one.
>
Do you even READ the posts you reply to?

Joe wrote: "I hope this horrible event may cause us to do something
about
generating our energy needs with cleaner technology. "

WhereTF does Joe claim he can demonstrate anything like that?

On Jun 18, 8:12=A0am, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Wouldn't that be "equaler"?

No, pigs don't carry Colts. Well, some carry Glocks, but that's a
whole different animal.

On Jun 16, 1:03=A0pm, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/16/2010 12:51 PM, GROVER wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 16, 11:37 am, "Josepi"<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> The world will be watching as you demonstrate the first source of abso=
lutely
> >> green energy.
>
> >> Nobody else can find one.
>
> >> "GROVER"<[email protected]> =A0wrote in message
>
> >> news:47b0c440-df7d-466b-acbe-
> >> Thank =A0you for posting this article to our NG. It read like a Raymon=
d
> >> Chandler novel. We probably wont see the end of this calamity for more
> >> than a generation. Man is the only creature which fouls his own nest.
> >> I hope this horrible event may cause us to do something about
> >> generating our energy needs with cleaner technology.
>
> >> Joe G
>
> >> [email protected]...
> >> On Jun 16, 4:28 am, "Lobby Dosser"<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
>
> >>> This is a human centric view of the first casualties of the blowout. =
There
> >>> will likely be many more and it's good that this is recorded before t=
he
> >>> deluge:
>
> >>>http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201007/oil-spill-rig-worke.=
..Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I didn't claim I personaly knew the answers to the problems caused by
> > the current mix of our energy generating technologies but rather hoped
> > that this tragedy would spur people to accept newer and cleaner ways
> > than we are presently employing. Robatoy understood what I was trying
> > to say.
> > Joe G
>
> The only solution to change energy production from fossil fuels to other
> means is to push for all nuclear generation.
>
Problem with nukes, is that they're great at base-load generation,
but don't deal with peak loads very well. To be able to meet peak
demands, you need a level of rapid response generation. Natural Gas co-
gen seems to be justabout perfect for that, although not cheap.
Mind mills and solar are okay to help out in regions where that works,
but as you can only generate what is being used, no more, no less,
makes that management difficult.
Once one accepts nukes for base-load, it is pretty cheap to run from a
fuel perspective but maintenance is expensive.

Windmills also swat the odd spotted owl out of the sky upsetting all
the tofu-sucking, Birkenstock wearing, Prius driving, Tilly-shorts
crowd.

On Jun 16, 10:53=A0pm, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Man is one of the only animal that tends to it's wounded instead of clens=
ing
> the flock by assassination.
>
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> Not true. You're exaggerating and making false claims.
>
> The Harpy Eagle BUILDS its nest out of harpy eagle shit.
>
> And, as an aside, we can't run this country off of sunbeams. Or Californi=
a
> from Moonbeams
>
> GROVER wrote:
>
> =A0Man is the only creature which fouls his own nest.
>
> > I hope this horrible event may cause us to do something about
> > generating our energy needs with cleaner technology.
>
> .

WHEN are you, Josepi, going to put your replies at the bottom of
posts, like the other polite people in here?

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:23:45 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Man is the only creature which fouls his own nest.

>You need to get away from the boob tube and out and about in the
>country, around more "creatures", where you get to take care of some
>litters, flocks, and a herd or two ... it'll quickly rid you of that
>touchy feely, hollywood, anthropomorphic BS, totally unrealistic
>sentimentality.

Let me help with a rephrase.

Man is the only creature that knowingly fouls his own nest.

On 6/16/2010 12:51 PM, GROVER wrote:
> On Jun 16, 11:37 am, "Josepi"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> The world will be watching as you demonstrate the first source of absolutely
>> green energy.
>>
>> Nobody else can find one.
>>
>> "GROVER"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:47b0c440-df7d-466b-acbe-
>> Thank you for posting this article to our NG. It read like a Raymond
>> Chandler novel. We probably wont see the end of this calamity for more
>> than a generation. Man is the only creature which fouls his own nest.
>> I hope this horrible event may cause us to do something about
>> generating our energy needs with cleaner technology.
>>
>> Joe G
>>
>> [email protected]...
>> On Jun 16, 4:28 am, "Lobby Dosser"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> This is a human centric view of the first casualties of the blowout. There
>>> will likely be many more and it's good that this is recorded before the
>>> deluge:
>>
>>> http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201007/oil-spill-rig-worke...- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I didn't claim I personaly knew the answers to the problems caused by
> the current mix of our energy generating technologies but rather hoped
> that this tragedy would spur people to accept newer and cleaner ways
> than we are presently employing. Robatoy understood what I was trying
> to say.
> Joe G
The only solution to change energy production from fossil fuels to other
means is to push for all nuclear generation.

Solar energy is will never be available more than have of the time.
Suns only shines for about 12 hours per day unless you are in Alaska.
No energy when it gets dark.

As any sailor known the wind is fluky, and cannot be depended on for a
constant source of energy. Most of the time it will be blowing too hard
for the system to use, or not hard enough. If it was dependable, all of
our ocean travel would still be done under sail, and the Dutch windmill
would not have disappeared.

At some point we are going to have to accept facts and build nuclear
power generation facilities, or give up anything that uses energy
directly or indirectly. Also you cannot change the laws of chemistry or
physics just because the will not allow what you think should be.
Batteries are limited by physics and chemistry obama and the social
democrats cannot change that.

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:03:26 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

> Solar energy is will never be available more than have of the time. Suns
> only shines for about 12 hours per day unless you are in Alaska. No
> energy when it gets dark.
>
> As any sailor known the wind is fluky, and cannot be depended on for a
> constant source of energy. Most of the time it will be blowing too hard
> for the system to use, or not hard enough. If it was dependable, all of
> our ocean travel would still be done under sail, and the Dutch windmill
> would not have disappeared.

Agreed on the above. But a few options you didn't mention are
hydropower, tides and geothermal. They are pretty reliable :-).

But all of the above are regional in nature and would require long
distance transmission lines, just as much of our power does today.

OTOH, I was strongly in favor of nuclear power until I did some software
work for one of them. The best argument against nuclear power is the
average nuclear plant worker - made me shudder. And there's still no
politically palatable answer to waste sorage.

What's the conclusion? Mine is that the days of cheap power are ending.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 6/16/2010 5:31 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Larry Blanchard<[email protected]> writes:
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:03:26 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>
>>> Solar energy is will never be available more than have of the time. Suns
>>> only shines for about 12 hours per day unless you are in Alaska. No
>>> energy when it gets dark.
>>>
>>> As any sailor known the wind is fluky, and cannot be depended on for a
>>> constant source of energy. Most of the time it will be blowing too hard
>>> for the system to use, or not hard enough. If it was dependable, all of
>>> our ocean travel would still be done under sail, and the Dutch windmill
>>> would not have disappeared.
>>
>> Agreed on the above. But a few options you didn't mention are
>> hydropower, tides and geothermal. They are pretty reliable :-).
>
> Were you aware that all the Hydro in California are peakers,
> not baseload? There are two reasons for that:
>
> 1) Hydro can crank up and shut down quickly. That's not the
> case for thermal plants (gas, coal, nuclear).
>
> 2) Due to seasonal fluctuations and limited storage capacity
> (Shasta's 4.5m acre-feet wouldn't last the dry season at full
> 24x7 drawdown and it generates about a 1000 Mwatt running full-out,
> assuming it had enough rain during the wet season to fill it, which
> happened this year, but is quite unusual).
>
> Any sane energy policy would include nuclear[*], natural gas, coal with
> carbon sequestration and river-based hydro for baseload augmented by
> wind and solar (both of which are unpredictable sources); with
> gas and hydro peakers.
>
> scott
>
> [*] the idea that one must store waste for 10,000 years is quite
> silly. Anything that highly radioactive is a fuel source itself,
> and reprocessing is perfectly viable. Not to mention thorium
> fuel cycles which don't create high-level waste with long half-lives.
>
I have only one objection to what you said, and would agree with you if
you can answer one question. Once you capture the CO2, what are you
going to do with it?

As a chemist and per government papers I received from Senator Lugar
there are a couple of solutions:

1. Put it into the depths of the ocean which per the greenhousers is
already increasing in acid.

2. Store it as a compressed liquid, which is an ecological disaster in
itself. Remember the lake in Africa that turned over releasing CO2. The
100% kill zone for that event was hundreds of square miles around the lake.

3. Store it as a salt, (Sodium, Calcium, other metal) per our
environmental laws these are hazardous waste and must be treated as
such. Which would required to be monitoring for hundreds of years in
the future.

For every 12 ton of carbon burned, 44 tons of CO2 will be produced, or
if captured as a salt, for every 12 tons of carbon burned over 100 tons
of salts will be produced (if it is run through a drying process, if it
leaves the plant wet or as a liquid the numbers go up significantly)

To put it another way for every 12 rail cars of carbon going into the
plant, 100 rail cars of waste will be coming out.

As I remember a couple of years ago National Geographics said there was
about 8 billion tons of coal burned ever year.

That will require one mammoth hazardous waste storage site.

On 6/16/2010 10:19 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Keith Nuttle" wrote:
>
>> To put it another way for every 12 rail cars of carbon going into
>> the plant, 100 rail cars of waste will be coming out.
>>
>> As I remember a couple of years ago National Geographics said there
>> was about 8 billion tons of coal burned ever year.
> -------------------------------------
> All of which demonstrates the necessity of getting off fossil based
> fuels.
>
> And if we don't get off our collective rear ends and get busy
> developing renewable energy sources, the Chinese are going to eat our
> lunch.

Uh, how is the development of "renewable energy sources" going to
prevent China from "eating our lunch"?

> To illustrate the point, anybody catch the ABC evening news?
>
> Guy from Jersey couldn't get funding in the USA to build his
> manufacturing facility.
>
> The Chinese welcomed him with open arms and MONEY.
>
> Lew
>
>

On 06/17/2010 07:43 AM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 16, 10:53 pm, "Josepi"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Man is one of the only animal that tends to it's wounded instead of clensing
>> the flock by assassination.
>>
>> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>> Not true. You're exaggerating and making false claims.
>>
>> The Harpy Eagle BUILDS its nest out of harpy eagle shit.
>>
>> And, as an aside, we can't run this country off of sunbeams. Or California
>> from Moonbeams
>>
>> GROVER wrote:
>>
>> Man is the only creature which fouls his own nest.
>>
>>> I hope this horrible event may cause us to do something about
>>> generating our energy needs with cleaner technology.
>>
>> .
>
> WHEN are you, Josepi, going to put your replies at the bottom of
> posts, like the other polite people in here?

Yes, please.

--
A. Because it makes the discussion harder to read.
Q. Why should I not top-post?
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 06:28:21 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>> What's the conclusion?  Mine is that the days of cheap power are
>> ending.
>
> That's been the mantra of the Chicken Little society for a century.

Says the ostrich with its head in the sand :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Apply the same logic in the city. You should have gien one of the ole'
broad's a horn and they move real quick.

City handcuffs have no analogy though.


"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Yep, as a country boy myself, I often wonder how some of these city folks
have managed to survive as long as they have.

True story.

I came to the big city, fresh off of the farm. I remember getting my fitst
check and going to the grocery store to buy food for the first time in my
life. I was totally puzzled by the little old ladies who would block every
aisle with their carts. The world was moving too fast for them and they were
going to slow it down a little. I was constantly moving their carts out of
the way. And sometimes they got angry about it.

Why was this a mystery to a country boy? Simple, if you turned your back on
or in any way was an obstacle to any kind of large (or beligerant) animal,
you got mowed over. Or gored, horned, trampled or just brutally bumped. I
remember when I was 5 years old. I turned my back on an angry cow. She
charged me and got me in the lower back. She picked me up with her small
horms and tossed me into the air. She then caught me on her horns and did it
again.

She then charged me and tried to get me again. I ended up scrambling around,
avoiding her. I got to my feet and ran from her. I NEVER turned my back on
an irate animal again. Nor did I get in the way of any of them.

Fast forward 13 years later, I am trying to use my country boy skills and
vigilance in a grocery store. It didn't work. But that ever present
vigilance and acute periphial vision save my ass a few times.

Yep, I am a country boy too Karl. A tip of the hat to ya. And a little down
home ecookin' too!





--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: [email protected] ---

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jun 16, 4:39 pm, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:

> [*] the idea that one must store waste for 10,000 years is quite
> silly. Anything that highly radioactive is a fuel source itself,
> and reprocessing is perfectly viable. Not to mention thorium
> fuel cycles which don't create high-level waste with long half-lives.

Clarification: Anything that has a half-life of 10,000 years is not
all that dangerous. Anything that is (dangerous) has a half-life far
shorter and is a fuel source itself. Thorium is also quite plentiful;
enough for our needs for thousands of years. Another source usually
forgotten is Plutonium. There's enough highly enriched Plutonium,
now, to meet our electricity needs for a couple of centuries. That
still doesn't get us transportation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric vehicles.

On 6/17/2010 9:48 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> On Jun 16, 4:39 pm, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [*] the idea that one must store waste for 10,000 years is quite
>> silly. Anything that highly radioactive is a fuel source itself,
>> and reprocessing is perfectly viable.
>
> Clarification: Anything that has a half-life of 10,000 years is not
> all that dangerous. Anything that is (dangerous) has a half-life far
> shorter and is a fuel source itself.

'Fraid not. To be a fuel source it has to be fissionable by neutron
capture.

Isotopes with short half lives can generate a lot of heat but they
aren't controllable--you can't use them in any application where they
could generate enough heat to melt down if the cooling failed because
there's no way to turn them off. They have been used in relatively low
powered thermionic generators but for primary power production they're
very limited.

Uranium works as a fuel because you can by controlling the neutron flux
control the reaction rate.

>> "Not to mention thorium
>> fuel cycles which don't create high-level waste with long half-lives.

Thorium captures one neutron, beta decays twice, and you get U-233, and
it's the U-233 that you burn with pretty much the same results as any
other isotope of uranium.

> Thorium is also quite plentiful;
> enough for our needs for thousands of years. Another source usually
> forgotten is Plutonium. There's enough highly enriched Plutonium,
> now, to meet our electricity needs for a couple of centuries.

(a) Uranium has to be enriched to be used in reactors, plutonium does
not--it is produced in reactors from uranium 238 and then is chemically
separated from the uranium.

(b) It is hardly "forgotten". There have been plans for decades to
produce breeder reactors to make plutonium from relatively abundant
uranium 235, but this has met with significant political resistance.


> That
> still doesn't get us transportation.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Electric vehicles.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:48:45 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>On Jun 16, 4:39 pm, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [*] the idea that one must store waste for 10,000 years is quite
>>> silly. Anything that highly radioactive is a fuel source itself,
>>> and reprocessing is perfectly viable. Not to mention thorium
>>> fuel cycles which don't create high-level waste with long half-lives.
>>
>>Clarification: Anything that has a half-life of 10,000 years is not
>>all that dangerous. Anything that is (dangerous) has a half-life far
>>shorter and is a fuel source itself. Thorium is also quite plentiful;
>>enough for our needs for thousands of years. Another source usually
>>forgotten is Plutonium. There's enough highly enriched Plutonium,
>>now, to meet our electricity needs for a couple of centuries. That
>>still doesn't get us transportation.
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Electric vehicles.
>
> Nope. Not a *chance* of a high enough energy density, by a couple of
> orders
> of magnitude.


Trams. Trolleys. Light Rail. Heavy Rail. High Speed Rail. Batteries. Fuel
Manufacture (H).

On 6/18/2010 3:53 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:48:45 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Jun 16, 4:39 pm, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [*] the idea that one must store waste for 10,000 years is quite
>>>> silly. Anything that highly radioactive is a fuel source itself,
>>>> and reprocessing is perfectly viable. Not to mention thorium
>>>> fuel cycles which don't create high-level waste with long half-lives.
>>>
>>> Clarification: Anything that has a half-life of 10,000 years is not
>>> all that dangerous. Anything that is (dangerous) has a half-life far
>>> shorter and is a fuel source itself. Thorium is also quite plentiful;
>>> enough for our needs for thousands of years. Another source usually
>>> forgotten is Plutonium. There's enough highly enriched Plutonium,
>>> now, to meet our electricity needs for a couple of centuries. That
>>> still doesn't get us transportation.
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Electric vehicles.
>>
>> Nope. Not a *chance* of a high enough energy density, by a couple of
>> orders
>> of magnitude.
>
>
> Trams.

OK in cities. Try running trams to every middlesex, village, and farm.

> Trolleys.

Same as trams.

> Light Rail.

Same limitation as trams. Many cities already have most of these,
others are considering them. Not gonna make a significant dent in fuel
consumption though.

> Heavy Rail.

Not profitable in the US and hasn't been for decades.

> High Speed Rail.

Make the "low speed rail" run as fast as it did in 1940 and get back to us.

> Batteries.

Require a new breakthrough of some kind--not something you can do by
throwing money at the problem.

> Fuel Manufacture (H).

Works fine, but won't be cost effective until fossil fuel prices are a
lot higher than they are. And not efficient in any sense.

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:04:17 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

>> Heavy Rail.
>
> Not profitable in the US and hasn't been for decades.

That depends on what costs are factored in. Most passenger trains did
run at a loss to the railroads, although IIRC a few were profitable. But
if the environmental costs are factored in, passenger trains look a lot
better.

And freight trains are still the most efficient way to move freight over
long distances. If we could eliminate 50% of current interstate trucking
by rail shipment we'd cut out quite a bit of fuel consumption. One way
to do that is to make the trucking industries pay their full share of
highway construction and maintenance costs.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 6/18/2010 4:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>> Heavy Rail.
>>
>> Not profitable in the US and hasn't been for decades.
> ------------------------------------
> Somebody forgot to tell Warren Buffet.

Has he run a passenger railroad at a profit in the US? If so which one
and for how long?

On 6/18/2010 3:46 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:04:17 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>> Heavy Rail.
>>
>> Not profitable in the US and hasn't been for decades.
>
> That depends on what costs are factored in. Most passenger trains did
> run at a loss to the railroads, although IIRC a few were profitable. But
> if the environmental costs are factored in, passenger trains look a lot
> better.

So so who is going to pay the railroads the value of "the environmental
costs"?

> And freight trains are still the most efficient way to move freight over
> long distances. If we could eliminate 50% of current interstate trucking
> by rail shipment we'd cut out quite a bit of fuel consumption. One way
> to do that is to make the trucking industries pay their full share of
> highway construction and maintenance costs.

If the tax you propose was effective then the EU would be running a
higher percentage of freight via rail than does the US. In fact the
opposite is the case and the EU has been trying for decades to get
shippers to use rail instead of truck. They have imposed the sort of
taxes you propose and the taxes don't do diddly-squat.

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:57:01 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> On 6/18/2010 3:46 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>> And freight trains are still the most efficient way to move freight
>> over long distances. If we could eliminate 50% of current interstate
>> trucking by rail shipment we'd cut out quite a bit of fuel consumption.
>> One way to do that is to make the trucking industries pay their full
>> share of highway construction and maintenance costs.
>
> If the tax you propose was effective then the EU would be running a
> higher percentage of freight via rail than does the US. In fact the
> opposite is the case and the EU has been trying for decades to get
> shippers to use rail instead of truck. They have imposed the sort of
> taxes you propose and the taxes don't do diddly-squat.

I didn't know that. I guess they just pass the costs on down the line.
Trying to change human behavior is a tough problem. I wonder if the
effective resistance is coming from a truckers union. I'm pretty sure
that would be the case here in the US.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/18/2010 3:53 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:48:45 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Jun 16, 4:39 pm, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [*] the idea that one must store waste for 10,000 years is quite
>>>>> silly. Anything that highly radioactive is a fuel source itself,
>>>>> and reprocessing is perfectly viable. Not to mention thorium
>>>>> fuel cycles which don't create high-level waste with long half-lives.
>>>>
>>>> Clarification: Anything that has a half-life of 10,000 years is not
>>>> all that dangerous. Anything that is (dangerous) has a half-life far
>>>> shorter and is a fuel source itself. Thorium is also quite plentiful;
>>>> enough for our needs for thousands of years. Another source usually
>>>> forgotten is Plutonium. There's enough highly enriched Plutonium,
>>>> now, to meet our electricity needs for a couple of centuries. That
>>>> still doesn't get us transportation.
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Electric vehicles.
>>>
>>> Nope. Not a *chance* of a high enough energy density, by a couple of
>>> orders
>>> of magnitude.
>>
>>
>> Trams.
>
> OK in cities. Try running trams to every middlesex, village, and farm.

It used to be done.

>
>> Trolleys.
>
> Same as trams.
>

Ditto.

>> Light Rail.
>
> Same limitation as trams. Many cities already have most of these, others
> are considering them. Not gonna make a significant dent in fuel
> consumption though.

If fuel prices are high enough, it will

>
>> Heavy Rail.
>
> Not profitable in the US and hasn't been for decades.

BNSF alone caies 40% of the nation's freight.

>
>> High Speed Rail.
>
> Make the "low speed rail" run as fast as it did in 1940 and get back to
> us.

Japan. Europe. China. All already do this for passenger travel. We are not
the only ones on the planet.

>
>> Batteries.
>
> Require a new breakthrough of some kind--not something you can do by
> throwing money at the problem.

Doable right now. Better batteries would make things easier. Run hybrids.

>
>> Fuel Manufacture (H).
>
> Works fine, but won't be cost effective until fossil fuel prices are a lot
> higher than they are. And not efficient in any sense.

They will be and RSN.

>

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/18/2010 3:46 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:04:17 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>> Heavy Rail.
>>>
>>> Not profitable in the US and hasn't been for decades.
>>
>> That depends on what costs are factored in. Most passenger trains did
>> run at a loss to the railroads, although IIRC a few were profitable. But
>> if the environmental costs are factored in, passenger trains look a lot
>> better.
>
> So so who is going to pay the railroads the value of "the environmental
> costs"?
>
>> And freight trains are still the most efficient way to move freight over
>> long distances. If we could eliminate 50% of current interstate trucking
>> by rail shipment we'd cut out quite a bit of fuel consumption. One way
>> to do that is to make the trucking industries pay their full share of
>> highway construction and maintenance costs.
>
> If the tax you propose was effective then the EU would be running a higher
> percentage of freight via rail than does the US. In fact the opposite is
> the case and the EU has been trying for decades to get shippers to use
> rail instead of truck. They have imposed the sort of taxes you propose
> and the taxes don't do diddly-squat.
>
>
>

Make them higher. Do you think trucks are paying anywhere near their fair
share?

On 6/19/2010 12:13 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/18/2010 3:46 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:04:17 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Heavy Rail.
>>>>
>>>> Not profitable in the US and hasn't been for decades.
>>>
>>> That depends on what costs are factored in. Most passenger trains did
>>> run at a loss to the railroads, although IIRC a few were profitable. But
>>> if the environmental costs are factored in, passenger trains look a lot
>>> better.
>>
>> So so who is going to pay the railroads the value of "the
>> environmental costs"?
>>
>>> And freight trains are still the most efficient way to move freight over
>>> long distances. If we could eliminate 50% of current interstate trucking
>>> by rail shipment we'd cut out quite a bit of fuel consumption. One way
>>> to do that is to make the trucking industries pay their full share of
>>> highway construction and maintenance costs.
>>
>> If the tax you propose was effective then the EU would be running a
>> higher percentage of freight via rail than does the US. In fact the
>> opposite is the case and the EU has been trying for decades to get
>> shippers to use rail instead of truck. They have imposed the sort of
>> taxes you propose and the taxes don't do diddly-squat.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Make them higher. Do you think trucks are paying anywhere near their
> fair share?

You've missed the point--trucks in the EU pay higher taxes than trucks
in the US, and the EU is more likely to use trucks than the US, so what
makes you think that yet more taxes will change this?

And why do you feel that it is necessary to make such a change anyway?

> "GROVER" wrote in message
> Man is the only creature which fouls his own nest.

Really?

I've seen dogs piss in their food dish, cats throw up in their food dish
and beds. Some birds build their nests with bird shit.

Man might be the only creature that makes huge efforts to keep his nest
clean, in fact, I'm pretty sure of it.

--
Jack
Got Change: And the Change SUCKS!
http://www2.nationalreview.com/video/video_homie_051410_B.html
http://jbstein.com

GROVER wrote:
>
> I didn't claim I personaly knew the answers to the problems caused by
> the current mix of our energy generating technologies but rather hoped
> that this tragedy would spur people to accept newer and cleaner ways
> than we are presently employing. Robatoy understood what I was trying
> to say.


I have an idea, lets drill on land... drill baby drill.


--
Jack
Somewhere In Kenya, a Village is Missing it's IDIOT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
http://jbstein.com

Keith Nuttle wrote:

> The only solution to change energy production from fossil fuels to other
> means is to push for all nuclear generation.

Oil is used in almost everything from aspirin to band saw bearings, not
just an efficient source of energy.

> Solar energy is will never be available more than have of the time. Suns
> only shines for about 12 hours per day unless you are in Alaska. No
> energy when it gets dark.

Batteries come to mind...

> As any sailor known the wind is fluky, and cannot be depended on for a
> constant source of energy.

Not easy to make a cell phone or paint a bridge with air, or build a
battery out of sun light either. The baby will be drilling for oil for
all foreseeable future, so might as well drill on land, or shallow water
where it's safest.

Most of the time it will be blowing too hard
> for the system to use, or not hard enough. If it was dependable, all of
> our ocean travel would still be done under sail, and the Dutch windmill
> would not have disappeared.

Nothing wrong with wind power or sun power other than it doesn't work
very well compared to oil. When it does, or if it does, no laws will be
needed to force anyone to use it, just like no laws are needed to force
people to use oil today...

> At some point we are going to have to accept facts and build nuclear
> power generation facilities, or give up anything that uses energy
> directly or indirectly.

But, we don't need to accept facts that are not facts. Right now, oil
is abundant and efficient source of energy, among a few million other
nice things, so, drill baby drill is the mantra.

--
Jack
Got Change: Global Warming ======> Global Fraud!
http://jbstein.com

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/19/2010 12:13 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/18/2010 3:46 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:04:17 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Heavy Rail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not profitable in the US and hasn't been for decades.
>>>>
>>>> That depends on what costs are factored in. Most passenger trains did
>>>> run at a loss to the railroads, although IIRC a few were profitable.
>>>> But
>>>> if the environmental costs are factored in, passenger trains look a lot
>>>> better.
>>>
>>> So so who is going to pay the railroads the value of "the
>>> environmental costs"?
>>>
>>>> And freight trains are still the most efficient way to move freight
>>>> over
>>>> long distances. If we could eliminate 50% of current interstate
>>>> trucking
>>>> by rail shipment we'd cut out quite a bit of fuel consumption. One way
>>>> to do that is to make the trucking industries pay their full share of
>>>> highway construction and maintenance costs.
>>>
>>> If the tax you propose was effective then the EU would be running a
>>> higher percentage of freight via rail than does the US. In fact the
>>> opposite is the case and the EU has been trying for decades to get
>>> shippers to use rail instead of truck. They have imposed the sort of
>>> taxes you propose and the taxes don't do diddly-squat.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Make them higher. Do you think trucks are paying anywhere near their
>> fair share?
>
> You've missed the point--trucks in the EU pay higher taxes than trucks in
> the US, and the EU is more likely to use trucks than the US, so what makes
> you think that yet more taxes will change this?
>
> And why do you feel that it is necessary to make such a change anyway?
>

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/19/2010 12:13 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/18/2010 3:46 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:04:17 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Heavy Rail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not profitable in the US and hasn't been for decades.
>>>>
>>>> That depends on what costs are factored in. Most passenger trains did
>>>> run at a loss to the railroads, although IIRC a few were profitable.
>>>> But
>>>> if the environmental costs are factored in, passenger trains look a lot
>>>> better.
>>>
>>> So so who is going to pay the railroads the value of "the
>>> environmental costs"?
>>>
>>>> And freight trains are still the most efficient way to move freight
>>>> over
>>>> long distances. If we could eliminate 50% of current interstate
>>>> trucking
>>>> by rail shipment we'd cut out quite a bit of fuel consumption. One way
>>>> to do that is to make the trucking industries pay their full share of
>>>> highway construction and maintenance costs.
>>>
>>> If the tax you propose was effective then the EU would be running a
>>> higher percentage of freight via rail than does the US. In fact the
>>> opposite is the case and the EU has been trying for decades to get
>>> shippers to use rail instead of truck. They have imposed the sort of
>>> taxes you propose and the taxes don't do diddly-squat.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Make them higher. Do you think trucks are paying anywhere near their
>> fair share?
>
> You've missed the point--trucks in the EU pay higher taxes than trucks in
> the US, and the EU is more likely to use trucks than the US, so what makes
> you think that yet more taxes will change this?

What makes you think it won't, this is not Europe.

>
> And why do you feel that it is necessary to make such a change anyway?
>
Reduce petroleum consumption.

On 6/20/2010 5:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/19/2010 12:13 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/18/2010 3:46 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:04:17 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Heavy Rail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not profitable in the US and hasn't been for decades.
>>>>>
>>>>> That depends on what costs are factored in. Most passenger trains did
>>>>> run at a loss to the railroads, although IIRC a few were
>>>>> profitable. But
>>>>> if the environmental costs are factored in, passenger trains look a
>>>>> lot
>>>>> better.
>>>>
>>>> So so who is going to pay the railroads the value of "the
>>>> environmental costs"?
>>>>
>>>>> And freight trains are still the most efficient way to move freight
>>>>> over
>>>>> long distances. If we could eliminate 50% of current interstate
>>>>> trucking
>>>>> by rail shipment we'd cut out quite a bit of fuel consumption. One way
>>>>> to do that is to make the trucking industries pay their full share of
>>>>> highway construction and maintenance costs.
>>>>
>>>> If the tax you propose was effective then the EU would be running a
>>>> higher percentage of freight via rail than does the US. In fact the
>>>> opposite is the case and the EU has been trying for decades to get
>>>> shippers to use rail instead of truck. They have imposed the sort of
>>>> taxes you propose and the taxes don't do diddly-squat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Make them higher. Do you think trucks are paying anywhere near their
>>> fair share?
>>
>> You've missed the point--trucks in the EU pay higher taxes than trucks
>> in the US, and the EU is more likely to use trucks than the US, so
>> what makes you think that yet more taxes will change this?
>
> What makes you think it won't, this is not Europe.

So Americans are more likely to respond to high taxes than are Europeans?

>> And why do you feel that it is necessary to make such a change anyway?
>>
> Reduce petroleum consumption.

To what purpose?

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/20/2010 5:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/19/2010 12:13 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/18/2010 3:46 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:04:17 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Heavy Rail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not profitable in the US and hasn't been for decades.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That depends on what costs are factored in. Most passenger trains did
>>>>>> run at a loss to the railroads, although IIRC a few were
>>>>>> profitable. But
>>>>>> if the environmental costs are factored in, passenger trains look a
>>>>>> lot
>>>>>> better.
>>>>>
>>>>> So so who is going to pay the railroads the value of "the
>>>>> environmental costs"?
>>>>>
>>>>>> And freight trains are still the most efficient way to move freight
>>>>>> over
>>>>>> long distances. If we could eliminate 50% of current interstate
>>>>>> trucking
>>>>>> by rail shipment we'd cut out quite a bit of fuel consumption. One
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> to do that is to make the trucking industries pay their full share of
>>>>>> highway construction and maintenance costs.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the tax you propose was effective then the EU would be running a
>>>>> higher percentage of freight via rail than does the US. In fact the
>>>>> opposite is the case and the EU has been trying for decades to get
>>>>> shippers to use rail instead of truck. They have imposed the sort of
>>>>> taxes you propose and the taxes don't do diddly-squat.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Make them higher. Do you think trucks are paying anywhere near their
>>>> fair share?
>>>
>>> You've missed the point--trucks in the EU pay higher taxes than trucks
>>> in the US, and the EU is more likely to use trucks than the US, so
>>> what makes you think that yet more taxes will change this?
>>
>> What makes you think it won't, this is not Europe.
>
> So Americans are more likely to respond to high taxes than are Europeans?
>
>>> And why do you feel that it is necessary to make such a change anyway?
>>>
>> Reduce petroleum consumption.
>
> To what purpose?
>

If you have to ask, you need more educating than I'm willing to do.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:25:43 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Upscale wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:23:45 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Man is the only creature which fouls his own nest.
>>
>>> You need to get away from the boob tube and out and about in the
>>> country, around more "creatures", where you get to take care of some
>>> litters, flocks, and a herd or two ... it'll quickly rid you of that
>>> touchy feely, hollywood, anthropomorphic BS, totally unrealistic
>>> sentimentality.
>>
>> Let me help with a rephrase.
>>
>> Man is the only creature that knowingly fouls his own nest.
>
>Never seen a pig sty, eh?
>
>Pig food goes into pen #1. Waste from pen #1 is cycled to pen#2 for those
>pigs to eat. And so on.

Only because the pigs don't get a vote. Left on their own, pigs are very
clean animals.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:48:45 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:

><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>On Jun 16, 4:39 pm, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [*] the idea that one must store waste for 10,000 years is quite
>> silly. Anything that highly radioactive is a fuel source itself,
>> and reprocessing is perfectly viable. Not to mention thorium
>> fuel cycles which don't create high-level waste with long half-lives.
>
>Clarification: Anything that has a half-life of 10,000 years is not
>all that dangerous. Anything that is (dangerous) has a half-life far
>shorter and is a fuel source itself. Thorium is also quite plentiful;
>enough for our needs for thousands of years. Another source usually
>forgotten is Plutonium. There's enough highly enriched Plutonium,
>now, to meet our electricity needs for a couple of centuries. That
>still doesn't get us transportation.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Electric vehicles.

Nope. Not a *chance* of a high enough energy density, by a couple of orders
of magnitude.

Wouldn't that be "equaler"?


"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Right. All animals are equal - except pigs, who are more equal.



[email protected] wrote:
>>> Man is the only creature that knowingly fouls his own nest.
>>
>> Never seen a pig sty, eh?
>>
>> Pig food goes into pen #1. Waste from pen #1 is cycled to pen#2 for
>> those pigs to eat. And so on.
>
> Only because the pigs don't get a vote. Left on their own, pigs are
> very clean animals.

The world will be watching as you demonstrate the first source of absolutely
green energy.

Nobody else can find one.


"GROVER" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:47b0c440-df7d-466b-acbe-
Thank you for posting this article to our NG. It read like a Raymond
Chandler novel. We probably wont see the end of this calamity for more
than a generation. Man is the only creature which fouls his own nest.
I hope this horrible event may cause us to do something about
generating our energy needs with cleaner technology.

Joe G

[email protected]...
On Jun 16, 4:28 am, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is a human centric view of the first casualties of the blowout. There
> will likely be many more and it's good that this is recorded before the
> deluge:
>
> http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201007/oil-spill-rig-worke...