rushmc 23
Recommended Posts
QuoteQuote
That's what car companies said 30 years ago about CAFE. Wrong then, wrong now.Yes, you areQuoteWrong then, wrong now
Wow, the devastating "I know you are but what am I?" argument.
Why does anyone bother responding to this guy?
rushmc 23
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what car companies said 30 years ago about CAFE. Wrong then, wrong now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong then, wrong now
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you are
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, the killing "I know you are but what am I?" argument.
Why does anyone bother responding to this guy?
QuoteWhy did you not use this post?
Anyway, I understand it only works one way. (for you) Maybe someday you will understand
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
jcd11235 0
QuotePut it plainly - jcd - wtf do you propose?
Human powered transportation (e.g. bicycles, skateboards, LPCs, etc.) for travel over short distances.
Park instead of using the drive through.
Don't drive a gas guzzling vehicle on trips for which a more fuel efficient vehicle will suffice.
When replacing household (or business, if one makes such purchasing decisions) appliances, place a value on energy efficiency.
Don't use the same 2x four core Xeon with 4TB of internal RAID storage and four high end video cards work station intended for Photoshop, video editing, etc. if all you need to do is get online and check your email. A low-end Core 2 Duo mobile processor equipped machine is much more energy efficient and will work just as well for such non-processor intensive tasks.
Replace MS Windows with less resource intensive UNIX®/*nix operating systems whenever possible.
Use surge protectors that allow you to easily shut off power to unused electronic equipment instead of leaving the equipment on or in standby mode. Don't leave phone chargers plugged in when not in use. More information here and here.
Turn off lights and televisions when not in the room.
Don't heat a litre of water if all you want to do is make a cup of tea.
It doesn't require installation of solar arrays or a windmill in one's backyard to make a difference. People can make small, easy decisions in their lives to reduce their energy consumption. Certainly, it's not practical for everyone to take every possible step, but if everyone made an effort to take some steps, it would help.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>then stop pushing for legislation
"Education" is different than "legislation."
>You (and I know you hope for this) will never get less demand for energy . . .
Nonsense! Gasoline demand dropped sharply when CAFE standards were implemented - even though more people were buying cars. It's a proven solution.
>So, let the free market and the people take care of it. They will do
>the right thing despite your doubts.
They did the "wrong thing" in Donora. They did the "wrong thing" in the 1970's with fuel economy. They are doing the "wrong thing" in Salem and Brayton. Time and time again, industry has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the future. They always claim that the new regulations/rules will destroy them - and they are always wrong.
Keep in mind that the "free market" cares about one thing - profit. If an industry kills thousands of people, and makes an extra two percent profit, they consider it a job well done. Laws and regulations help keep companies from making such evil tradeoffs.
So from a myopic perspective of profit for individual companies only, you can trust the free market to do the right thing. If you take a wider perspective, and see the economy as a group of companies (not just one company) that has to live in the same environment as the rest of us, then you need regulation. That's been proven time and time again in areas as diverse as worker safety, pollution and monopolistic practices.
> Yes, you are
What's with the third-grade crap?
"Education" is different than "legislation."
>You (and I know you hope for this) will never get less demand for energy . . .
Nonsense! Gasoline demand dropped sharply when CAFE standards were implemented - even though more people were buying cars. It's a proven solution.
>So, let the free market and the people take care of it. They will do
>the right thing despite your doubts.
They did the "wrong thing" in Donora. They did the "wrong thing" in the 1970's with fuel economy. They are doing the "wrong thing" in Salem and Brayton. Time and time again, industry has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the future. They always claim that the new regulations/rules will destroy them - and they are always wrong.
Keep in mind that the "free market" cares about one thing - profit. If an industry kills thousands of people, and makes an extra two percent profit, they consider it a job well done. Laws and regulations help keep companies from making such evil tradeoffs.
So from a myopic perspective of profit for individual companies only, you can trust the free market to do the right thing. If you take a wider perspective, and see the economy as a group of companies (not just one company) that has to live in the same environment as the rest of us, then you need regulation. That's been proven time and time again in areas as diverse as worker safety, pollution and monopolistic practices.
> Yes, you are
What's with the third-grade crap?
Quote
Replace MS Windows with less resource intensive UNIX®/*nix operating systems whenever possible.
heh - a microsoft dig in a discussion about global warming - priceless.
Come on - your suggestions yield minimal reductions for Americans - I'd be shocked if it were even 20%, and that's someone trying to follow, and you have nothing forcing them to do so. Americans use substantially more energy than the norm, so small voluntary reductions will make one feel good, but be no better than Al Gore and his massive house. This isn't a "solution," it's akin to slapping a bumper sticker on your car. If you believe the threat is real, more than this must be done.
Quote
Why does anyone bother responding to this guy?
Same reason you can't turn away from watching a train wreck.
speedy 0
It is your attitude that results in nothing being done to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Let's all install linux and the world is saved!
I think not.
Let's all install linux and the world is saved!
I think not.
Dave
Fallschirmsport Marl
Fallschirmsport Marl
nerdgirl 0
I can find a lot of wisdom in what Marc writes.
Energy demands are going to go up.
Where is that increasing demand likely to be the largest?
Not the US (by far). Not even China.
India & Africa.
Where’s the largest deficiency of infrastructure for meeting energy demands?
Africa.
Where are the highest growth rates expected to be in the next 25 years?
Africa.
Where is the largest change in demography expected?
Africa & the developing world.
By 2015, there will be 23 mega cities with populations in excess of 10 million. Of these, 19 will be in developing countries.
By 2020, Africa will have 11 cities having more than 5 million inhabitants and more than 3000 cities with populations in excess of 20 000 (an increase of almost 300% from 1990)
What’s the age demographics in those areas (& the Middle East, i.e., Tom Barnett’s “non-integrating gap”)?
While most of the developed world gets older (US is an exception partially due to immigration), Africa and the Middle east have a youth bulge.
All this combined is a recipe for instability. Recognition of that is one reason behind the DoD’s creation of a dedicated AFRICOM combatant command.
I hope you’re right. I’m not sure history or situations in other parts of the world support that assertion. I will be hopeful nonetheless.
Historically, as the price of oil increase from 1970 to 1982 (~$2/bbl in 1973 to nearly $40/bbl in 1982), there was no increase in production in response to price as economic theory would presume. Price had no effect at all. Production merely dropped. This was true even when there were nearly 5000 drilling rigs searching for oil in 1982.
In order for patterns of consumption to change, something is going to have to happen to make maintenance of those patterns severely onerous. The market might drive to that end. People’s behavior will change then, especially in lieu of the reality that …
The global requirement for power is ~13 trillion watts (or terawatts/TW). By 2050, the world’s energy needs are estimated to be ~28 TW. If every acre of arable land on the planet was converted to biofuel production, only 7 TW would be generated. (Nevermind, no food to eat, no crops to feed livestock, no natural fibers {sans silk}.) Even with the addition of 5,000 new nuclear power plants, thousands of additional wind turbines, and using every available flowing water source for hydroelectric power, it still will not approach 28 TW.
Conservative estimates put the US reserve of coal to be enough for the next 200 years; some estimates suggest 250 or 300 years. We are going to use coal. From an economic perspective and limiting dependence on foreign energy sources, we should use coal. It’s on the table and should stay there. Invest in technology for cleaner burning and CO2 storage. Politically, also have to deal with liability issues for CO2 sequestration.
165,000 TW of sunlight hit the Earth every day. Invest in photovoltaics.
Don’t take my word for it: to quote Steve Forbes from Dec07’s Forbes/Wolfe Nanotechnology Forum: w/r/t dealing with energy and climate change. “technology is the critical piece.” One of his prime concerns is that America’s declining investment in science and decline in training of new scientists and engineers is creating a situation in which America will be “buying” new ideas and innovation from foreign sources (like China) and becoming clients rather than selling them on the global marketplace. That’s what the view of the market.
Algae – first commercial plant.
Actively solicit ideas: For example, there need to be more Dennis Bushnell’s provoking some brilliant and some near-heretical ideas.
So yes, lots behind what Marc notes.
VR/Marg
---- ----- -----
Sources of data on which my conclusions are based:
-- US Dept of Energy’s International Energy Outlook 2004
-- National Intelligence Council – “Global Trends 2015” & “Mapping the Global Future 2020”
Attachments:
(1) Regional Stability - “This map indicates the relative stability of the countries within EUCOM [i.e., one of the US DoD Combatant Commands; prior to the stand-up of AFRICOM late 2007, EUCOM included Europe and Africa - nerdgirl]. The stability of a country was determined by studying the political pressures within a country and the succession of power over the last decade. The data used is from the CIA World Fact Book. Areas marked in red indicate significant opposition to the current regime or a recent history of conflict in the succession of power. Areas marked in amber indicate countries that have political problems, but no armed conflict. Areas marked in green are considered relatively stable, with little opposition to the current government.”
(2) Rate of Natural Increase (birth rates) – “The Rate of Natural Increase is defined as the Crude Birth Rate subtracted by the Crude Death Rate. The resulting number gives the population based on how fast the population is multiplying, and not how fast it is growing or reducing based upon other factors such as immigration and emigration. This is important because it shows which countries are growing rapidly. A rapidly growing population is difficult to handle, and a country can quickly be overwhelmed by an explosion in people.”
(3) Electricity deprivation – Areas of the world in which populations do not have access to electricity. North America, Europe, Australia, and Japan do not appear on the map.
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
QuoteYou (and I know you hope for this) will never get less demand for energy unless you price it out of reach. Conservation can not fill the tottal need
Energy demands are going to go up.
Where is that increasing demand likely to be the largest?
Not the US (by far). Not even China.
India & Africa.
Where’s the largest deficiency of infrastructure for meeting energy demands?
Africa.
Where are the highest growth rates expected to be in the next 25 years?
Africa.
Where is the largest change in demography expected?
Africa & the developing world.
By 2015, there will be 23 mega cities with populations in excess of 10 million. Of these, 19 will be in developing countries.
By 2020, Africa will have 11 cities having more than 5 million inhabitants and more than 3000 cities with populations in excess of 20 000 (an increase of almost 300% from 1990)
What’s the age demographics in those areas (& the Middle East, i.e., Tom Barnett’s “non-integrating gap”)?
While most of the developed world gets older (US is an exception partially due to immigration), Africa and the Middle east have a youth bulge.
All this combined is a recipe for instability. Recognition of that is one reason behind the DoD’s creation of a dedicated AFRICOM combatant command.
QuoteSo, let the free market and the people take care of it. They will do the right thing despite your doubts
I hope you’re right. I’m not sure history or situations in other parts of the world support that assertion. I will be hopeful nonetheless.
Historically, as the price of oil increase from 1970 to 1982 (~$2/bbl in 1973 to nearly $40/bbl in 1982), there was no increase in production in response to price as economic theory would presume. Price had no effect at all. Production merely dropped. This was true even when there were nearly 5000 drilling rigs searching for oil in 1982.
In order for patterns of consumption to change, something is going to have to happen to make maintenance of those patterns severely onerous. The market might drive to that end. People’s behavior will change then, especially in lieu of the reality that …
QuoteAs is being done today. It will never, with todays tech, solve the need for energy
The global requirement for power is ~13 trillion watts (or terawatts/TW). By 2050, the world’s energy needs are estimated to be ~28 TW. If every acre of arable land on the planet was converted to biofuel production, only 7 TW would be generated. (Nevermind, no food to eat, no crops to feed livestock, no natural fibers {sans silk}.) Even with the addition of 5,000 new nuclear power plants, thousands of additional wind turbines, and using every available flowing water source for hydroelectric power, it still will not approach 28 TW.
Conservative estimates put the US reserve of coal to be enough for the next 200 years; some estimates suggest 250 or 300 years. We are going to use coal. From an economic perspective and limiting dependence on foreign energy sources, we should use coal. It’s on the table and should stay there. Invest in technology for cleaner burning and CO2 storage. Politically, also have to deal with liability issues for CO2 sequestration.
165,000 TW of sunlight hit the Earth every day. Invest in photovoltaics.
Don’t take my word for it: to quote Steve Forbes from Dec07’s Forbes/Wolfe Nanotechnology Forum: w/r/t dealing with energy and climate change. “technology is the critical piece.” One of his prime concerns is that America’s declining investment in science and decline in training of new scientists and engineers is creating a situation in which America will be “buying” new ideas and innovation from foreign sources (like China) and becoming clients rather than selling them on the global marketplace. That’s what the view of the market.
Algae – first commercial plant.
Actively solicit ideas: For example, there need to be more Dennis Bushnell’s provoking some brilliant and some near-heretical ideas.
So yes, lots behind what Marc notes.
VR/Marg
---- ----- -----
Sources of data on which my conclusions are based:
-- US Dept of Energy’s International Energy Outlook 2004
-- National Intelligence Council – “Global Trends 2015” & “Mapping the Global Future 2020”
Attachments:
(1) Regional Stability - “This map indicates the relative stability of the countries within EUCOM [i.e., one of the US DoD Combatant Commands; prior to the stand-up of AFRICOM late 2007, EUCOM included Europe and Africa - nerdgirl]. The stability of a country was determined by studying the political pressures within a country and the succession of power over the last decade. The data used is from the CIA World Fact Book. Areas marked in red indicate significant opposition to the current regime or a recent history of conflict in the succession of power. Areas marked in amber indicate countries that have political problems, but no armed conflict. Areas marked in green are considered relatively stable, with little opposition to the current government.”
(2) Rate of Natural Increase (birth rates) – “The Rate of Natural Increase is defined as the Crude Birth Rate subtracted by the Crude Death Rate. The resulting number gives the population based on how fast the population is multiplying, and not how fast it is growing or reducing based upon other factors such as immigration and emigration. This is important because it shows which countries are growing rapidly. A rapidly growing population is difficult to handle, and a country can quickly be overwhelmed by an explosion in people.”
(3) Electricity deprivation – Areas of the world in which populations do not have access to electricity. North America, Europe, Australia, and Japan do not appear on the map.
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
billvon 3,120
>The global requirement for power is ~13 trillion watts (or terawatts/TW).
>By 2050, the world’s energy needs are estimated to be ~28 TW. If every
>acre of arable land on the planet was converted to biofuel production, only
>7 TW would be generated. (Nevermind, no food to eat, no crops to feed
>livestock, no natural fibers {sans silk}.) Even with the addition of 5,000
> new nuclear power plants, thousands of additional wind turbines, and
> using every available flowing water source for hydroelectric power, it still
> will not approach 28 TW.
However, 174 petawatts (174,000 terawatts) of solar energy hits the earth every day. To generate 28 terawatts, you'd need 100,000 square miles of solar collector (assuming 10% efficiency) or an area 340 by 340 miles. Think Colorado. You can put this on the ground, above the ground (as a transparent canopy) or in space.
So the energy is available, and indeed we all use this energy every day. In many ways, it's the only source of power we have (with the exception of geothermal and nuclear.)
The question becomes - what's the best answer? Is it to build tens of thousands of nuclear power plants? Is it to build massive solar collectors? Is it to increase energy efficiency dramatically? Is it to use biofuels to supplement fossil fuels until we have better electric vehicles?
I have a strong suspicion it will involve all of the above.
>By 2050, the world’s energy needs are estimated to be ~28 TW. If every
>acre of arable land on the planet was converted to biofuel production, only
>7 TW would be generated. (Nevermind, no food to eat, no crops to feed
>livestock, no natural fibers {sans silk}.) Even with the addition of 5,000
> new nuclear power plants, thousands of additional wind turbines, and
> using every available flowing water source for hydroelectric power, it still
> will not approach 28 TW.
However, 174 petawatts (174,000 terawatts) of solar energy hits the earth every day. To generate 28 terawatts, you'd need 100,000 square miles of solar collector (assuming 10% efficiency) or an area 340 by 340 miles. Think Colorado. You can put this on the ground, above the ground (as a transparent canopy) or in space.
So the energy is available, and indeed we all use this energy every day. In many ways, it's the only source of power we have (with the exception of geothermal and nuclear.)
The question becomes - what's the best answer? Is it to build tens of thousands of nuclear power plants? Is it to build massive solar collectors? Is it to increase energy efficiency dramatically? Is it to use biofuels to supplement fossil fuels until we have better electric vehicles?
I have a strong suspicion it will involve all of the above.
nerdgirl 0
Quote>The global requirement for power is ~13 trillion watts (or terawatts/TW).
>By 2050, the world’s energy needs are estimated to be ~28 TW. If every
>acre of arable land on the planet was converted to biofuel production, only
>7 TW would be generated. (Nevermind, no food to eat, no crops to feed
>livestock, no natural fibers {sans silk}.) Even with the addition of 5,000
> new nuclear power plants, thousands of additional wind turbines, and
> using every available flowing water source for hydroelectric power, it still
> will not approach 28 TW.
To generate 28 terawatts, you'd need 100,000 square miles of solar collector (assuming 10% efficiency) or an area 340 by 340 miles. Think Colorado. You can put this on the ground, above the ground (as a transparent canopy) or in space.
Not sure on what you based that assertion.
Rick Smalley (Rice), Nate Lewis (CalTech), Dan Nocera (MIT), Sam Stupp (Northwestern) & I have made some different calculations. Less than half the size of Colorado.
But more importantly, so?
VR/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites