|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > August 2005 > worth reading....
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rlsusenet@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org 2005-08-19, 1:21 pm |
| Paul wrote:[color=darkred]
> Good article. Now if we can just start down that path... 
>
> "Martin Riddle" <martinriddle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:JS6Ne.3014$zb.2006@trndny04...
>
Puhleez! Yes, you can make quite a dent with conservation -- and we
should be doing so. (Although I think we've gone off the track by
giving incentives for employing particular technologies -- e.g., hybrids
-- instead of end goals -- e.g. improved fleet fuel efficiency. This
just gives tax incentives for people to buy a 15 mpg hybrid Hummer when
they could get around just as well in a 50 mpg car!)
However, you are NOT going to eliminate the need for fossil fuels by
switching to biofuels. That's absurd. It totally ignores the way most
crops are grown today -- using fertilizers derived from petrochemicals.
This is the reason why the tax-subsidized ethanol fuel program is
such an obscene waste of money. Drop the petrochemical-derived
fertilizers and you're left with what? Manure? Derived from what
inefficient animal fed with what crop fed with what source of fertilizer?
We ought to just bite the bullet and make public the real destination of
these hydrogen fuel programs: Nuclear power is our only realistic
option. We have to develop nuclear technologies that are safe to use
and safe to dispose of. And the public has to be made comfortable with
it, starting right now.
Solar and wind power are wonderful. Biodiesel is a cute niche. But get
real. We aren't going to conserve our way out of this problem, and the
"alternative" energy options are not going to make up the difference --
unless you shutter the cities and return the world to an agrarian economy.
And, for the record, I have 3kW of PVs and a solar water heater on my
roof, and I drive a 13-year-old 35 mpg car.
| |
| barry@sme-online.com 2005-08-19, 3:21 pm |
| Please don't be absurd. There's only so much fossil fuel. The
production rate, in the ground is way less than the consumption rate.
So, unless some extraterrestrial is going to deliver more (and damn the
oxygen availability), we will run out.
What we, and the idiots in D.C., are addicted to is the most rapid
depletion possible of hydrocarbons on the planet, and to hell with
succeeding generations.
Nuclear (fission) is _the_ way? Insane.
Hydrogen? You've got some studying to do.
Our waste, laziness, and arrogance are amazing. But we're worth it.
Dinosaurs reportedly were slow to adapt.
TTFN,
J
| |
| Mike Swift 2005-08-27, 8:22 pm |
| In article <1124474715.414129.179490@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
barry@sme-online.com wrote:
> Nuclear (fission) is _the_ way? Insane.
>
> Hydrogen? You've got some studying to do.
>
> Our waste, laziness, and arrogance are amazing. But we're worth it.
>
> Dinosaurs reportedly were slow to adapt.
>
> TTFN,
> J
Im sorry Barry, but the "N" word is the only way engineers have found
that will reduce global warming, and produce the power needed to raise
the standard of living of China and India to close to that of the U.S.
Many social engineers would like to change human nature to have people
go back to the family farm with goats in the yard, but that will not
happen unless they can get rid of about 3/4 of the population.
Mike Swift
| |
|
| "Mike Swift" <tomswift@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:tomswift-0C143A.12445726082005@news.corenews.com...
> In article <1124474715.414129.179490@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> barry@sme-online.com wrote:
>
>
> Im sorry Barry, but the "N" word is the only way engineers have found
> that will reduce global warming, and produce the power needed to raise
> the standard of living of China and India to close to that of the U.S.
> Many social engineers would like to change human nature to have people
> go back to the family farm with goats in the yard, but that will not
> happen unless they can get rid of about 3/4 of the population.
What balls!
Energy can be tackled from many angles:
- high efficiency appliances,
- off-shore wind turbines
- tidal generation,
- better, faster and cheaper communications form more home working
- better town planning to reduce car usage,
- superior superinsulated buildings
- passive solar design for buildings, that heat and cool naturally
- distributed power generation, DistrictCHP, microCHP, miniCHP,
- mass introduction of hybrids and electric cars (all feasible due to Lith
Ion and Lith Poly batteries)
- usage of air as an accumulator in cars (never wears out and free and all
around us)
- etc, etc.
All the above makes a hell of a cumulative effect. If the governments make
the regs right now, in 10 years oil demand is right down, and nothing for
the taxpayer to fork out either. It takes 10 years to get a power station
up and running. And a clean environment and global warming tackled. A win,
win, win, all the way. We can see it, and I'm sure the governments can too.
This is where organisations like Greenpeace are very useful. They can set
the agenda.
Nuclear is totally unnecessary.
| |
|
| I have been reading this on saving energy and reducing oil consumption.
I think that it has some good ideas and sites good facts.
http://www.oilendgame.com/
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:430f92ad$0$8805$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> "Mike Swift" <tomswift@cruzio.com> wrote in message
> news:tomswift-0C143A.12445726082005@news.corenews.com...
>
> What balls!
>
> Energy can be tackled from many angles:
>
> - high efficiency appliances,
> - off-shore wind turbines
> - tidal generation,
> - better, faster and cheaper communications form more home working
> - better town planning to reduce car usage,
> - superior superinsulated buildings
> - passive solar design for buildings, that heat and cool naturally
> - distributed power generation, DistrictCHP, microCHP, miniCHP,
> - mass introduction of hybrids and electric cars (all feasible due to Lith
> Ion and Lith Poly batteries)
> - usage of air as an accumulator in cars (never wears out and free and all
> around us)
> - etc, etc.
>
> All the above makes a hell of a cumulative effect. If the governments
> make
> the regs right now, in 10 years oil demand is right down, and nothing for
> the taxpayer to fork out either. It takes 10 years to get a power station
> up and running. And a clean environment and global warming tackled. A
> win,
> win, win, all the way. We can see it, and I'm sure the governments can
> too.
> This is where organisations like Greenpeace are very useful. They can set
> the agenda.
>
> Nuclear is totally unnecessary.
>
>
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-08-27, 8:22 pm |
| What if they have no appliacnes to start with?
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:430f92ad$0$8805$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> "Mike Swift" <tomswift@cruzio.com> wrote in message
> news:tomswift-0C143A.12445726082005@news.corenews.com...
>
> What balls!
>
> Energy can be tackled from many angles:
>
> - high efficiency appliances,
> - off-shore wind turbines
> - tidal generation,
> - better, faster and cheaper communications form more home working
> - better town planning to reduce car usage,
> - superior superinsulated buildings
> - passive solar design for buildings, that heat and cool naturally
> - distributed power generation, DistrictCHP, microCHP, miniCHP,
> - mass introduction of hybrids and electric cars (all feasible due to Lith
> Ion and Lith Poly batteries)
> - usage of air as an accumulator in cars (never wears out and free and all
> around us)
> - etc, etc.
>
> All the above makes a hell of a cumulative effect. If the governments
make
> the regs right now, in 10 years oil demand is right down, and nothing for
> the taxpayer to fork out either. It takes 10 years to get a power station
> up and running. And a clean environment and global warming tackled. A
win,
> win, win, all the way. We can see it, and I'm sure the governments can
too.
> This is where organisations like Greenpeace are very useful. They can set
> the agenda.
>
> Nuclear is totally unnecessary.
>
>
| |
|
|
"Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gemdneIqDuWZEo3eRVn-iA@golden.net...
> What if they have no appliacnes to start with?
You top posted, so no answer.
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-08-27, 8:22 pm |
|
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:43109614$0$34253$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
>
> "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:gemdneIqDuWZEo3eRVn-iA@golden.net...
>
>
> You top posted, so no answer.
>
I am supposed to care?
Get with the 90's Bottom posting is just plain out of date foolishness.
|
|
|
|
|