Hard to know what to trust when it comes to climate change science.

[timcsaw]

I would like to thank you guys for finally allowing me to overcome the guilt I felt for existing (or was led to believe I was supposed to feel). I have come to realize that I live a carbon neutral lifestyle, more so than even Algore who buys carbon credits and sells them to his company. Every watt of electricity I use is produced by gravity. Not coal, or other hydrocarbon fuels, but by the flow of the Tennessee River through the turbines at Pickwick lock and dam. So it is you guys who are the problem, not me. Heck, even my vehicles are recycled. One is 50 years old and still gets 28 mpg. Another is 20 y.o. and gets 15 mpg but is used only for work. I think I will fire up the BBQ grille this weekend to celebrate!

Tofu burgers?

[quietmike]

You would have to look beyond solar panels. That statement isn't really true. Green tech isn't so much about saving the planet, it is the outdoor low impact philosphy put to work in suburbia/ ubania.

Agreed. Been thinking about building a rocket mass heater to see if it works as well as I've read.

So to simply say Green Tech isn't there yet, is not a good stance. Green Tech is a mixed bag of tricks, some work over there, and yet in other locations it won't work at all. My personal favorite is a power generation facility, that uses a hermetic Rankine cycle fueled by isobutane (not burned). It is self sustaining once started (needs motive force and energy to bring online from cold iron), and powers 100% of the facilities in it's region. Mammoth Pacific Green Tech is here, and it does work very well.

On it's face that would seem to defy physics.

[ron_m80]

On it's face that would seem to defy physics.

Not at all. It is a simple matter of energy conversion. Mammoth has a ton of Geo-thermal heat sources, the turbines use a heat exchanger rather than the typical combustor section found in gas fired turbines.

[quietmike]

Not at all. It is a simple matter of energy conversion. Mammoth has a ton of Geo-thermal heat sources, the turbines use a heat exchanger rather than the typical combustor section found in gas fired turbines.

Gotcha.

[555]

I would like to thank you guys for finally allowing me to overcome the guilt I felt for existing (or was led to believe I was supposed to feel). I have come to realize that I live a carbon neutral lifestyle, more so than even Algore who buys carbon credits and sells them to his company. Every watt of electricity I use is produced by gravity. Not coal, or other hydrocarbon fuels, but by the flow of the Tennessee River through the turbines at Pickwick lock and dam. So it is you guys who are the problem, not me. Heck, even my vehicles are recycled. One is 50 years old and still gets 28 mpg. Another is 20 y.o. and gets 15 mpg but is used only for work. I think I will fire up the BBQ grille this weekend to celebrate!

Not enough Carbon, a Campfire would be more fitting.

[Codger_64]

Tofu burgers?

No, Angus burgers and pork ribs. Both critters produce methane, a greenhouse gas. By eating them, I stop them from producing methane. If I ate tofu, I would be producing methane.

[Codger_64]

Not enough Carbon, a Campfire would be more fitting.

But by using charcoal, I help provide jobs for the timber cutters, the charcoal burners, the paper mill workers and package producers, the truckers, the merchant and his employees. I use charcoal because it creates jobs in a job-poor economy while using sustainable, biodegradable materials. Nothing winds up in the landfill.

[555]

But by using charcoal, I help provide jobs for the timber cutters, the charcoal burners, the paper mill workers and package producers, the truckers, the merchant and his employees. I use charcoal because it creates jobs in a job-poor economy while using sustainable, biodegradable materials. Nothing winds up in the landfill.

I see your point, just don't forget to use large quantities of Jet Fuel/charcoal lighter fluid to start it with. I'll know that you're doing it right when I see the cloud of smoke in the sky to South of me. I thought Tim was cooking outside today, but that was a storm rolling in from the North.

[Codger_64]

I use natural firestarter fluid... bacon grease... more carbon neutral fuel.

[UffDa]

But by using charcoal, I help provide jobs for the timber cutters, the charcoal burners, the paper mill workers and package producers, the truckers, the merchant and his employees. I use charcoal because it creates jobs in a job-poor economy while using sustainable, biodegradable materials. Nothing winds up in the landfill.

Is it safe to assume that you are using chunk charcoal and not that stuff made with petroleum products?

[Codger_64]

But of course. And locally produced. And mixed with oak hardwood cast offs from a local saw mill. I bought that "self-lighting" stuff once years ago when it first came out. Never again.

[555]

While Social Scientists and Politicians look for new ways to herd human caused LOL Cats on earth........

Nevermind the Asteroid Threat in 2040? Scientists Watch 2011 AG5

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ast...ry?id=15809386

Blast it or paint it: Asteroid to threaten Earth in 2013

To avert a possible catastrophe – this time set for February 2013 – scientists suggest confronting asteroid 2012 DA14 with either paint or big guns. The stickler is that time has long run out to build a spaceship to carry out the operation.
*NASA's data shows the 60-meter asteroid, spotted by Spanish stargazers in February, will whistle by Earth in 11 months. Its trajectory will bring it within a hair’s breadth of our planet, raising fears of a possible collision.

The asteroid, known as DA14, will pass by our planet in February 2013 at a distance of under 27,000 km (16,700 miles). This is closer than the geosynchronous orbit of some satellites.

http://rt.com/news/paint-asteroid-earth-nasa-767/

Someone needs to find the source of these space rocks and how we humans need to live to prevent these rocks from occurring.

Our best Sociologists have been hard at work on this one and we have a consensus and there is no debating the data. Because after all this is science and we are saving the World. You on the other hand are only to give up free will and freedom for yourself and your offspring. We know better, we're the expects and rarely make mistakes. Trust us.


What our studies have found, these rocks are formed from man made Carbon particles that have escaped the Earth's atmosphere that then fly through space and achieve what we call the Snowball Effect. This phenomena is directly caused by man's carelessness on Earth. People need to stop what they are doing before it is too late.

Put a stop to Man Made Extraterrestrial Bodies.

[UffDa]

[Triton]

If green technology really catches on a few people will get rich, the run of the mill tree hugger isn't going to get any richer. In fact the run of the mill tree hugger will often spend more to purchase organic foods for example.

So what's stopping them? I don't really care about someone who wants to buy organic brussels sprouts or skateboard to work. If that's what they want great! What I do object to is those in power that want to tell me that I MUST buy organic brussel sprouts and skateboard to work while they drive past me in the Suburban chewing on a steak.

I am not a true tree hugger but I do cloth diapers for my children, not because of the small amount of money it saves but because I don't want all that plastic in the landfills of my relatively small island.

A laudable goal... but consider... where does all that detergent go that you wash your diapers with? How about all that organic pollution that comes out of the diapers and what are you doing to your water table?

Look, again, I've got no beef with folks that want to generate less pollution, clean things up and leave this place better than they found it. I think that's great. Heck I AM one of those people. What I've got a problem with is people that want to tell me that I have to give up freedom in an effort to create their ideal... and somehow they don't have to give up those same freedoms.

If every tree hugger were going to get rich then yeah I could see an alterior motive but they wont. Shop at a organic market and you will see a lot of them actually care about the environment not just caring about money.

On the other hand everyone that thinks that man made global warming might be a bunch of bunk is being well paid by the oil companies? Rat's someone must not have put my check in the mail...

You mean the ones that ride bicycles, carpool, and refuse to buy a tv? Whatever environmentalist you are mentioning represent a very small percentage of the tree huggers. You are probably hinting at Al Gore I would guess? Other actual environmentalists will accept that a certain amount of fossil fuel usage is necessary. It would be impossible for them to spread their message without actually traveling.

The people I'm pointing out are those that actually wish to infringe upon our liberties, sure algore is one of them but he's hardly the only one.

As opposed to subsidies for all the other companies around?

I didn't say that. Instead I am pointing out that if there is really a market then let it work.

The desire for solar panels, for example, still had to exist before the market could be realized. Whether they could be made at a price most would buy without needing a subsidy is a different issue. A market can exist even if it is more expensive than most are willing to pay.

No it can't. There's no market for a product no one can afford. By definition a market needs both a producer creating a product and a consumer willing to pay for it.

No it is not. Yes green energy has the potential to provide for billions of dollars in profit whether a hoax or not. What I am saying is that I do not find it feasible that such an elaborate and long term hoax would be made all in hopes that it would pay off, especially when a lot of the people who would have to do the lying would not even be making the big bucks.

"hopes that it would pay off?" I've got news for you, the hoax has already paid off for thousands of people. All that money that went to Solyndra ended up in someone's pockets, and that's not even the tip of the iceberg. I don't think there is some vast conspiracy, instead I think there are a lot of socialists pushing an agenda and they have discovered that the so called "green" movement allows them to further their agenda. Inevitably there are also true believers. Lenin had them too. I think he even had a name for them.

Depends on the type of energy. Some types of alternative energy can be produced in your own back yard without much complication.

Then why aren't more people doing it?

Anyway, the point I was getting at was that the people in the best position to market energy are those already marketing energy. As such they have no real incentive to not market energy whatever the source.

Why because Al Gore has a private jet? Yes he made a movie but he isn't the spokesperson for the green movement!

Yes, also because they are using paper bags that take more energy to create than plastic ones or because they are driving coal powered cars instead of gasoline powered one or a myriad other things... and telling me that I have to do the same.

[Triton]

I don't belive is tearing down the backbone of the American electrical grid. But for those that think Green power is not efficient, you haven't read beyond solar panels. If you think solar energy cannot be used for less work intensive processes, you are again wrong.

Using resources wisely is not a fad, it is an ever growing trend in engineering. Whether you like green energy or not, utility costs are on the rise, and that will not turn around, no matter where we drill. So I do not see why people are not looking into their systems and processes that will save them money from the day they start using them.

Motor-generator sets.
Natural gas generators. (would I run my gas bill up to $100, to save my electric bill from being $230, you bet I would)
Solar panels for process's other than electrical production.
Wind turbines, which while an eyesore in some ways are VERY productive in the electrical sense.

I enjoy having these technological options available. I hope to implement some of them myself soon.

Sounds great, and I say go for it. If it works out for you then I might do the same. You see how that whole market force thing works?

[jdm61]

Natural gas may be one short term solution to a part of the geopolitical issues involved with imported oil. Coal is another one. A friend of my dad who is in the petroleum transport business says that they have drilled like 24,000 new gas wells on existing leases in the continental US in the last couple of years and as he put it "gas is cheaper than fresh air right now" The problem for non-industrial or utility usage is delivering the product say if you want to use it as truck fuel.

[eyeeatingfish]

So what's stopping them? I don't really care about someone who wants to buy organic brussels sprouts or skateboard to work. If that's what they want great! What I do object to is those in power that want to tell me that I MUST buy organic brussel sprouts and skateboard to work while they drive past me in the Suburban chewing on a steak.

I don't think that is often the case.

A laudable goal... but consider... where does all that detergent go that you wash your diapers with? How about all that organic pollution that comes out of the diapers and what are you doing to your water table?

Our sewer water is treated before eventually being pumped out to sea (I think). We buy eco friendly types of detergnets.

On the other hand everyone that thinks that man made global warming might be a bunch of bunk is being well paid by the oil companies? Rat's someone must not have put my check in the mail...

You only have to pay people who are somehow experts or authoritative. Heck we see they are paying scientists to try and debunk man made global warming when the scientist does not even specialize in climate science. They wouldn't pay you and me. But who has money to buy off scientists? The guy trying to start a solar company or the guy who owns an oil company. BP is going to pay out for the gulf oil spill in the billions of dollars. They obviously have the money and the motive.
It all just looks too fishy.
It also looks too much like people just want to oppose the liberals/tree huggers so they look for anything in conflict regardless of validity. A case of looking for science to support a theory than a theory based on the science.

The people I'm pointing out are those that actually wish to infringe upon our liberties, sure algore is one of them but he's hardly the only one.

By doing what, implementing taxes?

I didn't say that. Instead I am pointing out that if there is really a market then let it work.

I am in favor of a market working naturally but the market is sometimes controlled not just by the government but by big corporations. Chevy came out with an electric car years ago and it was a big hit. The demand was high, hollywood stars were buying them, so were your regular tree huggers. Thing was they were available for lease only and after a certain number of years or months Chevy ended the leases and everyone had to return the cars. The technology may not have been good at the time but the demand was still there so why not make and sell the cars? The electric car posed a threat to various industries including the oild industries. Electric cars have fewer moving parts, they don't need much lubricating oil as does a conventional engine, don't need coolant, etc.
Where is the free market there?

No it can't. There's no market for a product no one can afford. By definition a market needs both a producer creating a product and a consumer willing to pay for it.

I mean't that when many cannot but some can. For example solar is more viable here in Hawaii given the fact that shipping charges make our fuel more expensive than in the mainland.

"hopes that it would pay off?" I've got news for you, the hoax has already paid off for thousands of people.

You are monday morning quarterbacking. I am talking about the mindset of someone who was setting out to, but had not yet started to, create an elaborate hoax to gain money. At the time if it was a hoax then they would have been hoping that it would pay off because it would be a big gamble.

Anyway, the point I was getting at was that the people in the best position to market energy are those already marketing energy. As such they have no real incentive to not market energy whatever the source.

I understand what you were implying but I was showing examples where alternative energy sources were a potential threat to big energy distributors.

What if you had a billion dollars invested in diamonds but I developed a process to create real attractive diamonds for 1/100th of the cost? It would be a serious threat to your financial stability. Same with an energy company, I am a threat to an energy company if I can show a way that their services are no longer needed.

Yes, also because they are using paper bags that take more energy to create than plastic ones or because they are driving coal powered cars instead of gasoline powered one or a myriad other things... and telling me that I have to do the same.

I think you are looking at a few famous people who are not representitive of the majority though.

[Codger_64]

Natural gas may be one short term solution to a part of the geopolitical issues involved with imported oil. Coal is another one. A friend of my dad who is in the petroleum transport business says that they have drilled like 24,000 new gas wells on existing leases in the continental US in the last couple of years and as he put it "gas is cheaper than fresh air right now" The problem for non-industrial or utility usage is delivering the product say if you want to use it as truck fuel.

We used natural gas in our farm tractors in the mid 1960's. I used it in my service truck in the mid to late '70's. It was economically feasable whenever gasoline and diesel prices rose. On the farm, we had a 1,500 gallon tank which was filled regularly by our local gas supplier's trucks. I had to drive my service truck to the local gas supplier and have it filled from their huge tanks which were, in turn, filled from barges traveling the Arkansas River. Now here, the local gas supplier is filled from barges traveling the Tennessee River. The good thing about gas conversions is that they do not negate the use of regular gasoline in the vehicle should the natural gas tank run empty. Thus allowing further travel to reach one of the suppliers after the truck's tank is empty. When the tank ran empty, the vehicle gradually lost speed and power. I could still drive quite some distance on a near empty tank at a reduced speed. With a flip of a switch, I could change the fuel source to one of the truck's two standard factory gasoline tanks.

IMHO, it seems to me that such conversions of existing vehicles makes much more sense than requiring an entire set of new vehicles using electricity, with the limited power and range and attendant infrastructure required for refueling, and the consumption of so much carbon based electricity to recharge them. I would be quite willing to convert my current service truck if it were economically feasable to do so.

[ron_m80]

I am in favor of a market working naturally but the market is sometimes controlled not just by the government but by big corporations.

The energy markets are always regulated by the government, now done so under the guise of national security. The only person who stands to benefit from successfully implementing Green Tech, is the consumer. The Energy/ utilities will lose, and the government will lose tax revenue from the utilities.

The day people start implementing sucessful green tech strategies into their lives, the utilities will begin to lose money. And as consumers see that they are pocketing savings, the trend will continue.

I am wondering why ethanol isn't more popular right now. Forget drilling, why not brew ethanol? Bio diesel? it isn't like we need to develop that technology? What does the other side say is wrong with that technology?

[Codger_64]

The energy markets are always regulated by the government, now done so under the guise of national security. The only person who stands to benefit from successfully implementing Green Tech, is the consumer. The Energy/ utilities will lose, and the government will lose tax revenue from the utilities.

The day people start implementing sucessful green tech strategies into their lives, the utilities will begin to lose money. And as consumers see that they are pocketing savings, the trend will continue.

False. The corporations which control green tech will profit just as much as our current petro-tech corporations, many of whom are already heavily invested in green tech. And I can promise you that the government has and can figure out ways to profit from it as well.