Thoth
Sisyphus in training
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
- Messages
- 7,218
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
As for geothermal & other alternates; http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/ec...revolution.html
Evidence of Global Cooling; Global Warming is not a Consensus. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter huevonkiller
- Start date
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,945
- Points
- 113
The auto manufacturers are going to make cars that are subsidized by the govt., and they're going to make SUVs (cars people want).
We're going to need SUVs just to get around after the sky falls due to global warming. Maybe even bigger SUVs than they have now
Cold Fusion. There's another Holy Grail. If they ever do figure it out, it'd mean your car would run FOREVER on a device about the size of a D battery. Your house would run forever on a device smaller than a furnace. Unlimited energy, and forever.
A big deal is infrastructure. Going hydrogen, for example, means massive retrofitting of our existing gas stations and pipelines and that kind of thing. $trillions, literally. If they could somehow make all the ethanol we need to replace oil without using 125% of all the land in the USA, it means a similar retrofitting.
Ethanol doesn't mix with water well, so you can't really ship it around long distances. Even a small amount of condensation inside a pipe or tanker truck ruins it. You'd need to process whatever into fuel within short distance of each gas station where it'd be pumped into vehicles.
I don't want to be sounding like I'm pooh-poohing these ideas for the sake of it. I'm just not seeing a profitable venture in any of them. If we find something worthwhile, $trillions of investment are reasonable.
Last time I was at the beach, I thought about some sort of device that worked based upon the tide. The waves keep coming in, consistently. Even on calm days, there's a reasonable amount of energy to be had. Thing is, these devices would get covered with barnacles real quick, and they'd probably be a pretty bad eyesore to boot.
We're going to need SUVs just to get around after the sky falls due to global warming. Maybe even bigger SUVs than they have now
Cold Fusion. There's another Holy Grail. If they ever do figure it out, it'd mean your car would run FOREVER on a device about the size of a D battery. Your house would run forever on a device smaller than a furnace. Unlimited energy, and forever.
A big deal is infrastructure. Going hydrogen, for example, means massive retrofitting of our existing gas stations and pipelines and that kind of thing. $trillions, literally. If they could somehow make all the ethanol we need to replace oil without using 125% of all the land in the USA, it means a similar retrofitting.
Ethanol doesn't mix with water well, so you can't really ship it around long distances. Even a small amount of condensation inside a pipe or tanker truck ruins it. You'd need to process whatever into fuel within short distance of each gas station where it'd be pumped into vehicles.
I don't want to be sounding like I'm pooh-poohing these ideas for the sake of it. I'm just not seeing a profitable venture in any of them. If we find something worthwhile, $trillions of investment are reasonable.
Last time I was at the beach, I thought about some sort of device that worked based upon the tide. The waves keep coming in, consistently. Even on calm days, there's a reasonable amount of energy to be had. Thing is, these devices would get covered with barnacles real quick, and they'd probably be a pretty bad eyesore to boot.
Thoth
Sisyphus in training
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
- Messages
- 7,218
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
I completely agree that these ideas sound good in theory, but...
The infastructre in place (especially for Hydrogen) is lousy at best.
Unless its in the cellulosic form, it takes gas to convert it from corn/soybeans to sugar to ethanol. So, there will be no copying of Brazil.
I am not one of these ivory tower types who think we needed to switch now to whatever alternate energy source is flavor of the month 15 minutes ago. These types can stick w/ silly hybrids and plug in cars. Its no longer flower power though. Lol. However, if they go biodiesel....rofl.
I am all for gradual steps and a more regional approach. Ethanol from Corn may work in Iowa, Solar in Phoenix/Vegas, Hydrogen in Cali, etc.. In Utah, we could get ethanol from sugar beets, coal from Cental Utah, or geothermal is a possibility.
We all hear we are running out of oil. I'm no expert but bet its the light sweet easy to drill for & process. I'm certain there is plenty of the heavier kind i.e. oil shale in Eastern Utah is abundant as well as the Tar Sands in northern Alberta.
Bottom line, if the normal consumer has to make sacrifices then the environmentalists need to get off their high horse and let some exploration take place. Whether its Alberta, the continental shelf, or Utah.
The infastructre in place (especially for Hydrogen) is lousy at best.
Unless its in the cellulosic form, it takes gas to convert it from corn/soybeans to sugar to ethanol. So, there will be no copying of Brazil.
I am not one of these ivory tower types who think we needed to switch now to whatever alternate energy source is flavor of the month 15 minutes ago. These types can stick w/ silly hybrids and plug in cars. Its no longer flower power though. Lol. However, if they go biodiesel....rofl.
I am all for gradual steps and a more regional approach. Ethanol from Corn may work in Iowa, Solar in Phoenix/Vegas, Hydrogen in Cali, etc.. In Utah, we could get ethanol from sugar beets, coal from Cental Utah, or geothermal is a possibility.
We all hear we are running out of oil. I'm no expert but bet its the light sweet easy to drill for & process. I'm certain there is plenty of the heavier kind i.e. oil shale in Eastern Utah is abundant as well as the Tar Sands in northern Alberta.
Bottom line, if the normal consumer has to make sacrifices then the environmentalists need to get off their high horse and let some exploration take place. Whether its Alberta, the continental shelf, or Utah.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,945
- Points
- 113
Most of the USA's innovation in the past 2-3 decades has required more energy.
Homes used to have a TV. Then it was a TV and a VCR (more power). More than one TV. Then it was fax machines and 2nd phone lines. More power. Then it was a computer and a 3rd phone line (for many). Then there's the internet, which is entire buildings doing a lot of consumption of power (lots of servers). Now we have really awesome video game consoles to connect up to those servers
It's a trend that I don't think we want to change.
Lots of cheap energy would continue to fuel our growth, and it would also make it rather cheap to heat homes in winter and cool them in summer. It'd save lives, no doubt.
People whined about drilling in ANWR. "The oil won't even get to market for 10 years!" It's year 8, folks, and gas is going to be $4/gallon.
Yeah, I favored drilling there, and pretty much anywhere else we could. Not that I want to see us just continue to burn oil; it'd have bought us more time to figure out appropriate technologies.
Laugh about hybrids all you want. I own a Prius, myself. I'll be filling up once a month for about $30 at $4/gallon, while emitting near zero pollution. They're not THE answer, but they nicely do work with our existing infrastructure and conservation of energy is something people don't talk about enough.
Homes used to have a TV. Then it was a TV and a VCR (more power). More than one TV. Then it was fax machines and 2nd phone lines. More power. Then it was a computer and a 3rd phone line (for many). Then there's the internet, which is entire buildings doing a lot of consumption of power (lots of servers). Now we have really awesome video game consoles to connect up to those servers
It's a trend that I don't think we want to change.
Lots of cheap energy would continue to fuel our growth, and it would also make it rather cheap to heat homes in winter and cool them in summer. It'd save lives, no doubt.
People whined about drilling in ANWR. "The oil won't even get to market for 10 years!" It's year 8, folks, and gas is going to be $4/gallon.
Yeah, I favored drilling there, and pretty much anywhere else we could. Not that I want to see us just continue to burn oil; it'd have bought us more time to figure out appropriate technologies.
Laugh about hybrids all you want. I own a Prius, myself. I'll be filling up once a month for about $30 at $4/gallon, while emitting near zero pollution. They're not THE answer, but they nicely do work with our existing infrastructure and conservation of energy is something people don't talk about enough.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,945
- Points
- 113
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
Article published Mar 14, 2008
Climate panel on the hot seat
March 14, 2008
By H. Sterling Burnett - More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.
To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed.
In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming.
However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.
Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick.
These problems led Mr. Wegman's team to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."
The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.
Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics.
In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.
A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.
Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles.
The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However, climate predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of the IPCC is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines.
The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming — which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.
H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas.
Article published Mar 14, 2008
Climate panel on the hot seat
March 14, 2008
By H. Sterling Burnett - More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.
To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed.
In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming.
However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.
Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick.
These problems led Mr. Wegman's team to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."
The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.
Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics.
In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.
A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.
Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles.
The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However, climate predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of the IPCC is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines.
The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming — which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.
H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas.
Thoth
Sisyphus in training
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
- Messages
- 7,218
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane)</div><div class='quotemain'>Most of the USA's innovation in the past 2-3 decades has required more energy.
Homes used to have a TV. Then it was a TV and a VCR (more power). More than one TV. Then it was fax machines and 2nd phone lines. More power. Then it was a computer and a 3rd phone line (for many). Then there's the internet, which is entire buildings doing a lot of consumption of power (lots of servers). Now we have really awesome video game consoles to connect up to those servers
It's a trend that I don't think we want to change.
Laugh about hybrids all you want. I own a Prius, myself. I'll be filling up once a month for about $30 at $4/gallon, while emitting near zero pollution. They're not THE answer, but they nicely do work with our existing infrastructure and conservation of energy is something people don't talk about enough.</div>
Common sense, a sense of conservation, & moderation have gone by the wayside IMO.
South Park episode aside, Hybrids are not the be all/end all some would have us believe nor all they worth all the hype. A Prius may be practical for Vegas but it really isn't for Salt Lake City. Think weather & terrain.
I just filled my pickup approx 15 gallons @ $3.15/gallon. I get 17 mpg in primarily city driving & nearly 22 out on the highway.
Homes used to have a TV. Then it was a TV and a VCR (more power). More than one TV. Then it was fax machines and 2nd phone lines. More power. Then it was a computer and a 3rd phone line (for many). Then there's the internet, which is entire buildings doing a lot of consumption of power (lots of servers). Now we have really awesome video game consoles to connect up to those servers
It's a trend that I don't think we want to change.
Laugh about hybrids all you want. I own a Prius, myself. I'll be filling up once a month for about $30 at $4/gallon, while emitting near zero pollution. They're not THE answer, but they nicely do work with our existing infrastructure and conservation of energy is something people don't talk about enough.</div>
Common sense, a sense of conservation, & moderation have gone by the wayside IMO.
South Park episode aside, Hybrids are not the be all/end all some would have us believe nor all they worth all the hype. A Prius may be practical for Vegas but it really isn't for Salt Lake City. Think weather & terrain.
I just filled my pickup approx 15 gallons @ $3.15/gallon. I get 17 mpg in primarily city driving & nearly 22 out on the highway.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,945
- Points
- 113
The prius is rated higher in the city than on the highway, but I get better mileage on the highway with it.
Most of my driving is city. 45MPG, not bad at all, but not the ~60 advertised.
I do not see why the Prius would be bad in cold weather or certain terrains. It's not a muscle car, but it does what I need it to - get me from here to there. It has a heater that works fine
As far as terrain goes, my commute in it over 2 years is uphill one way and downhill the other. No serious grades like the Calavaras grade in No. Cal. 50 MPG downhill (to work), 40 MPG the other way (home).
Most of my driving is city. 45MPG, not bad at all, but not the ~60 advertised.
I do not see why the Prius would be bad in cold weather or certain terrains. It's not a muscle car, but it does what I need it to - get me from here to there. It has a heater that works fine
As far as terrain goes, my commute in it over 2 years is uphill one way and downhill the other. No serious grades like the Calavaras grade in No. Cal. 50 MPG downhill (to work), 40 MPG the other way (home).
