# Green Irony



## webbie (Jun 13, 2008)

Is it "green" or is it Green ($$)? That is the question of our age......

If you have found a product, an advertisement or another "green" effort to be both ironic and humorous, list it in this thread.

My first attempts:

1. Radio commercials for BYOB- Bring your own Bag
Irony: It's the stuff you put INSIDE THE BAG that creates the problem, not the tiny bit of paper or plastic!

2. REAL SIMPLE - a magazine devoted to making your life simpler
Irony: Last monthly issue (and most issues) have almost 400 pages - with hundreds of pages of ads selling everything from cosmetics to beef to SUVs. The only thing Real Simple about this mag is that it makes a giant profit.


----------



## tkirk22 (Jun 13, 2008)

I wonder how many hybrid cars will wind up in the junkyard early because the batteries cost more to replace than the car is worth and the greenies may as well buy a newer even more efficient hybrid car.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jun 13, 2008)

How about the whole hybrid battery requiring huge amounts of energy to produce.  You remember the Prius/Hummer comparisaon?

You know those gas stations that have run free gas promos, and people wait in line for hours to get it- many with their cars running...


----------



## begreen (Jun 13, 2008)

The computers we are using all take a lot of energy to produce. But the internet and and server farms put up by competing corporations like Microsoft, Google, etc. consumes cities worth of power. And they keep growing. 

FWIW, the Hummer/Prius debate was started by a nutcase wannabe authority acting as a shill for American car corps. His comparison was quite flawed and had massively erroneous data. For example it had the Prius going to the crusher after just 100k mile and yet had gave the Hummer a whopping 300k miles. The CNW report was immediately dis-proven as bogus. If you caught the guy's website right after the article you would have seen his other hobby, pimping up American muscle cars.  The guy is working out of his home in Bandon, OR culling select facts from the internet and phone into what he hoped would be a noteworthy report. He cleaned up the website quickly and removed the personal links once he became an urban legend.

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf
http://www.thecarconnection.com/article/1010861_prius-versus-hummer-exploding-the-myth

On the battery issue alone, they are recyclable and there is an extensive recycling program in place for them.

PS: Craig, you are so right. My wife got a subscription to Real Simple as a Christmas present from her sister. What a waste of paper.


----------



## webbie (Jun 13, 2008)

Well, BG, I was gonna mention that Hummer thing, but wanted to keep the thread ironic.....

In that vein, it is ironic that any person would think a Hummer is greener than a Prius! I guess as ironic as saying that Ethanol will save us.

Oh, and Rupert Murdock......"well, one good thing about the Iraq war is that soon oil will be at $20 a bbl" (It was $39 when he said that)......


----------



## begreen (Jun 13, 2008)

On topic, one controversial subject for me is compact fluorescents. While I don't dispute the energy savings. They cost a lot more environmentally to manufacture, ship from China, and have a higher impact on landfills. And then there are the claims of longer life which IMHO just aren't so. I date all the lamps I put in on the base. The CFLs are getting almost exactly 2 yrs in our kitchen which is about the same as the halogens I replaced. But the CFLs cost over twice as much.


----------



## begreen (Jun 13, 2008)

I'd rather have real science. We'll recycle them cuz that's what we do. But I think a lot will not. And if the recycling program turns out like one local one, they may end up in the landfill anyway.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jun 13, 2008)

Irony? Driving to rallies to protest pollution.


----------



## Marty (Jun 13, 2008)

Mandatory ethanol production to fuel 19 mpg trucks and SUV's that can only get 16 mpg on ethanol.


----------



## begreen (Jun 13, 2008)

Good ones BB and Marty. How about Fed mandating environmental standards while the military continues to be one of the largest single entity polluters.


----------



## Highbeam (Jun 13, 2008)

Burning down new homes as a way to protest damage to the environment. Air pollution from smoke, waste of drinking water through hydrants, cut more trees down to make more wood to rebuild, dig more strip mines for replacement copper, increase insurance premiums for all of us, etc.


----------



## myzamboni (Jun 13, 2008)

just got piece of junk mail from Verisign in a see-through green plastic (non-recyclable) envelope.  The thick cardstock inside (readable through the envelope) asked:  What does green men to your site security and to your customers?  

So I'm thinking, what is an internet security company doing for the environment (of course I'm already pissed off about the envelope)? So I open the folded card stock.  It's a farking advertisement that if you use some version of Verisign security, the address bar in your browser will have a green background.

Suffice it to say that their corporate headquarters just received a email from me explaining the bad choice of marketing and how customers will feel misled (and to terminate the employment of the H2 driving marketing yahoo the created this).  Yes the H2 part is a wild assumption, but I ran with it.

Update:   The URL in the junkmail doesn't even work: http://www.verisign/com/center/6229


----------



## Redox (Jun 14, 2008)

Good thread, Craig!

I like the "green" suggestion that we all go out and buy a bunch of those solar lights for your yard.  After they realise that most of them don't emit much light and accidentally run one over with a mower or car, most people are going to just throw the whole thing, NI-CD battery and all, in the trash!  Thanks for letting me vent...

BG:  I have some older CFLs that are hitting 7 years old and are used regularly.  I have also had some cheaper ones that don't make it a year.  Anyone know of a site that ranks these things?  I have a few opinions on certain brands...

Chris


----------



## Telco (Jun 14, 2008)

No idea if there's a website for rating CFLs, but I've had the best luck with the Home Despot CFLs, while the China-Mart CFLs lasted about as long as incandescents, about 8 months.  These are my favorites, they make a nice, bright white light without being blue.

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs...angId;=-1&catalogId=10053&productId=100527335


----------



## erikdhafaB (Jun 17, 2008)

Saw this from Consumer Reports (hope they don't mind the cut and paste):

Illuminating update on CFLs

After thousands of hours, most of the 13- to 15-watt compact fluorescent lightbulbs we are testing still work. That's good news, considering that equivalent 60-watt incandescents typically last only 1,000 hours. All of the CFLs are Energy Star-qualified.

But the light went out early on seven of nine Feit Ecobulb ESL13T bulbs, which cost about $2.25 apiece. Most of these failed between 3,300 to 3,900 hours of lighting in our tests, which cycle them on and off. The package claimed 8,000 hours average life. A better choice was the Feit Ecobulb Plus ESL13T/Eco ($2.66). All 10 samples of that model passed a 5,000-hour preliminary test, and they are being tested further, along with other brands. So far, here are some other good choices: GE 8,000 Hour Long Life 41525, and N:Vision 423-599, (sold at Home Depot) were still on after 7,600 hours. We paid about $2 to $4.50 a bulb.

All of the bulbs we are testing claim to have less than 5 milligrams of mercury. Ecobulb Plus claims less than 2.5 mg; N:Vision, 2.3 to 3.5 mg. You should recycle dead CFLs so that mercury isn't released into the environment. Most municipalities don't have programs to collect CFLs, and neither do most stores that sell them. Learn how to recycle your CFLs.

Although not all CFLs will last their claimed life, our testing has shown that most should last much longer than incandescent bulbs and pay for themselves in energy savings. Even the Feit bulbs that quit at 3,300 hours could save about $13 over their short life span.


----------



## webbie (Jun 17, 2008)

An interesting irony is that many states don't even have bottle bills yet! Considering the amount if energy it take to make aluminum...as compared to recycling it, this seems like a no-brainer! We have to walk before we can run!


----------



## Redox (Jun 17, 2008)

Anyone seen the aluminum "Collector" bottles sold by Anheuser-Busch?  Same size as a regular glass bottle, but made of aluminum.  Sheesh; what a waste...

Gotta start a thread about CFLs I have known...

Chris


----------



## Turbozcs2003 (Jun 18, 2008)

.5a/B said:
			
		

> Saw this from Consumer Reports (hope they don't mind the cut and paste):
> 
> Illuminating update on CFLs
> 
> ...




IES Lamp Life ratings are based on a 3 hr on 20 min off cycle.   Life is calculated on sample lot when 50% have failed meaning for ex a lamp with 10000 hr rating means the median lamp lasted that long with half failing before and half lasting longer.

In theory the lamps should last that long provided the filament isnt damaged during the process. I suspect most failures are due to the very cheap components used in the ballast portion of the lamp versu the lamp itslef.

Myself I have some old sylvania lamps made where I used to work which are sill burning after 12 years but we used good components, where as the Chinese knock off junk I have been forced to buy recently(my old supply long gone) are lucky to get a couple years and I am sure not many hours since I turn off lights.

FWIW I ran tests on some T8 32W 4 ft FO32Octron lamps we were working on and got over 25K hours on them on the filaments I designed.
We also had electrodless lamps which in theory would last over 100K hours, but I left before the tests on those were very far along. I have one in my garage and works great.


----------



## mikeathens (Jun 18, 2008)

I bought one of those reusable bags from Wild Oats a few months ago, touted as "green" (they tend to fall apart pretty quickly with reasonable use).  Not only are they made of plastic fibers that, as far as I know, are not recyclable, but they are made in China!

I also love the whole biofuels thing and how it's supposed to give the US energy independence - GREEN FUEL.  Check out National Geographic from a year or so ago documenting the increased slash and burn practices in the Amazon to make room for more soybean farms.  Awesome!


----------



## Nofossil (Jun 19, 2008)

Seems to me that any time a subsidy makes the apparent cost of something much less than the actual resources consumed in producing it, then we are encouraging excessive or perhaps even reckless consumption of that item and by extension the resources that go into its production.

I've heard the argument (not in the past few months so much) that subsidies of the oil industry have created artificially low oil prices that have encouraged excessive use of oil.

How about when the subsidy is for something that's 'green'? Do massive subsidies of photovoltaic system lead to their use in situations where they consume more resources than the value of the electricity that they produce?

We can perhaps agree that the McMansion on the hill is not green - it consumes more resources than necessary, merely to make the owner feel good about themselves.

Is a subsidized photovoltaic system different? I will argue that many of them consume more resources than necessary, and in fact more resources than would be consumed to provide the same electricity by conventional means. This seems like unnecessary consumption of resources to make the owner feel good.

If programs designed to encourage 'green' projects lead to wasteful consumption of resources, that's pretty ironic.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jun 19, 2008)

nofossil said:
			
		

> If programs designed to encourage 'green' projects lead to wasteful consumption of resources, that's pretty ironic.



It has been known for centuries as "chasing your tail".


----------



## offroadaudio (Jun 20, 2008)

Not drilling domestically so that we have to burn massive amounts of fossil fuel to get the fossil fuel here, and risk spilling, and or spill, the fossil fuel in the ocean while burning fossil fuel to get the fossil fuel here!


----------



## begreen (Jun 20, 2008)

Burning up millions of gallons of oil to fight a war to assure our access to ..oil.

Idling cars in a traffic jam. 

_sounds of the Talking Heads 'Burning Down the House' filling my head. _
Burning up the furniture and the house for fuel instead of putting on a sweater and closing off a few rooms to reduce heating needs.


----------



## Redox (Jun 20, 2008)

I saw a guy putting $5 worth of gas in his car the other day!  I wanted to ask, but I bit my tongue...

Chris


----------



## jebatty (Jun 20, 2008)

Irony? driving to the health club to exercise.

CFL's -- agree on variable life, but most last a long time and we have some now over 10 years in use, estimate average of 4 hours "on" per day, that's nearly 15000 hours.

REAL SIMPLE - my sister gave me a subscription for Christmas, looked at the first issue, and this is a women's magazine through and through, nothing but ads for expensive and useless stuff, and any environmental info or advice (if you can find it) is very elementary and also worthless. I gave the first issue to my wife, and I haven't looked at any subsequent issues since.

Not a Green saving, but a money saving, is the magazine More. My wife's "trial" one-year subscription ran out over a year ago, and they keep sending us the magazine, along with urgent request to renew. But this is another magazine full of ads for expensive and useless stuff. I suspect they keep sending it to keep subscription numbers up so they get "more" money from their advertisers.


----------



## jebatty (Jun 20, 2008)

Irony? - buying "green" products to be green when the best course for being "green" is simply consuming less.


----------



## Redox (Jun 20, 2008)

jebatty said:
			
		

> Irony? - buying "green" products to be green when the best course for being "green" is simply consuming less.



I think that's called being "cheap" in which case, I've been very "green" for years...

RECYCLE those magazines when you get done laughing at them!!

Chris


----------



## jebatty (Jun 20, 2008)

Redox said:
			
		

> jebatty said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Kudos forever, Chris.


----------



## webbie (Jun 20, 2008)

So cheap is the new "green"? Probably........

I have some scotch irish friends that could probably save the world - problem is when they take me out to lunch, it's fast food and I have to pay my own way....AND, they complain to the clerk about the prices (even if they have coupons).


----------



## mainemac (Jun 20, 2008)

Kirk 22 re Hummer vs Pruis

Please..
I have had a 2005 Prius for 3 years ($24K)
My MPG on this tank is 57 mpg, lifetime 45 mpg (lots of snow up here)
Once Plug ins come online it will be sold  ($17K)
I think I can find a few people interested in 50 mpg car with gas at $4.00 per gallon
I wonder what the trade in value of a Hummer is?

Tom


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jun 20, 2008)

What is the green angle on plug ins?  Is there still a big efficiency gain on having the power generated by whatever means elsewhere and the transmission losses getting it to your house?  I haven't heard that much on them.


----------



## webbie (Jun 20, 2008)

I'm going to write a story showing how the Space Shuttle is more energy efficient than a Prius. It will probably get a lot of press. 

In fact, an F-15 with afterburners on is probably better on fuel than a Prius. This is because the F-15 allows us to secure (steal) more oil, and therefore we can fuel the Hummer. Makes some sense....at least as much as koop-pook does.......

As the MIT study showed, a Homeless person is the most green in America. Therefore the current economic situation here is really a gov. policy to make our nation more energy efficient.


----------



## mainemac (Jun 20, 2008)

They have calculated that even with coal fired plants it is much more efficient ( and cheaper to Joe average you and me)
to use electricity to power your car. Hopefully we can use wind tidal solar etc to power more of the grid.

Most Americans have a 30 mile or less commute
Overnight charge (for $2-3)  can charge the battery full give you 30 miles all electric
Gas is there for longer trips

Slap a solar panel on your garage and you have a genuine solar car.


Off Topic:

In Germany the govt has mandated that electrons generated by sun commands  a price twice that by
coal or fossil fuels . This is for many decades so investors know they can get  a ROI.

Tom


----------



## webbie (Jun 20, 2008)

Adios Pantalones said:
			
		

> What is the green angle on plug ins?  Is there still a big efficiency gain on having the power generated by whatever means elsewhere and the transmission losses getting it to your house?  I haven't heard that much on them.



The idea, which does have some truth to it, is that the future is largely going to depend on the grid - whatever the fuel...hopefully solar PV, wind, etc....also hydro, biomass, nat gas, geothermal......and for the foreseeable future, also coal. But, in general, it is much easier to clean up one giant central grid than 100 million separate engines. 

Even the economics has some logic - plugs in's get 2 to 3x the MPG as conventional cars, so even if PV Solar was twice the price of coal (right now it is 4x or more), things will work out. 

Although no one really knows where technology is headed, my best guess is that the Grid will provide a lot of the solution...


----------



## velvetfoot (Jun 20, 2008)

Interesting that you don't mention nuclear power.


----------



## Nofossil (Jun 20, 2008)

There you go - more irony. The group of folks who are most gung-ho about being green overlap quite considerably with the group of folks who are most adamantly against the energy source that has the best chance of providing a good standard of living with the least possible environmental and aesthetic impact: next-generation breeder reactors.

The theory is well understood and the technological problems are being solved by France, Germany, and Japan. Not by us, though. If this trend continues, we'll be hobbled by expensive, unsightly, and ineffective sources of power while the rest of the world moves forward with plentiful, cheap, and truly clean energy.

We idolize Europe for their foresight on the green issues that we like, but most folks miss the part that nuclear plays in their energy portfolio.


----------



## Redox (Jun 21, 2008)

Velvet; I think you may have hit on the greatest "green" irony of them all...

Chris


----------



## webbie (Jun 21, 2008)

velvetfoot said:
			
		

> Interesting that you don't mention nuclear power.



I'm for Nuke power if they can truly solve the disposal situation and THEN come up with a true life cycle cost. The fact is, they cannot do this now...and if they would come up with the actual cost, it would be too high! Even the existing plants can only be there because the government has agreed to indemnify them against their actions (pollution, waste, etc.). If they had to buy insurance on the "free market", they could not get it.

So all I would ask is the same standards be applied - life cycle cost. If they can store stuff for 10-20,000 years and show me the low KWH cost for doing so, I'm all ears.

Even so, the experts say that it will be 2030 before we'd be able to have any decent quantity of nuke power anyway.....so it certainly is not gonna help within the decade or two (or my lifetime, in that case).


----------



## webbie (Jun 21, 2008)

nofossil said:
			
		

> We idolize Europe for their foresight on the green issues that we like, but most folks miss the part that nuclear plays in their energy portfolio.


NF, I have to call you out on this one!
We all know the crazy Frenchies went all-out nuke, but they are certainly not the ones you hear me talking about re: Alt energy. 
Here are the facts......


"Denmark has no nuclear power plants"
"In 2000, the German government, officially announced its intention to phase out nuclear power in Germany - The power plants in Stade and Obrigheim were turned off on November 14, 2003, and May 11, 2005, respectively"
"Ireland presently has no nuclear power plants."
"Voters decided to shut down Italy's four nuclear power plants. The last was closed in 1990".
"In 1994, the Netherland's parliament voted to phase out nuclear power "
"No nuclear power plant has ever been established in Norway"
"n 1979, the Swedish Government decided, after a referendum, that no further nuclear power plants should be built and that a nuclear power phase-out should be completed by 2010."

Specifically, Norway, Germany and Denmark are the folks I often talk about as to green initiatives.


----------



## Dix (Jun 21, 2008)

Nuclear power scares people here (Long Island).

Anyone remember this debacle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant

No wonder we pay so much for electric, we're still paying for Shoreham !

10 minutes from my home, and 5 minutes from my home is Brookhaven Lab

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookhaven_National_Laboratory


----------



## Nofossil (Jun 21, 2008)

The Germans may be phasing them out at home, but they're still developing the technology. Fourth generation breeder reactors should be able to utilize better than 95% of the available energy in the fuel that they consume, rather than the 1% that current plants accomplish. They also should produce virtually no high level waste, and in fact use some of the existing waste as fuel. 

The barrier is fear, not a rational decision making process based on comparative risks and benefits.

We've never built a plant as dangerous as Chernobyl, and even with that disaster the safety of nuclear power far and away better than any other energy source. Chernobyl killed about 40 people. I wonder how many people you would lose just falling off of roofs to install the equivalent capacity in PV arrays? How about coal mines, or the little squabbles that are carried out in oil producing regions? I think you'd expect to lose a few people on any large-scale civil engineering project as well.

Nuclear is certainly not zero risk, but it has the ability to give us large amounts of much less expensive and safer energy with virtually zero environmental impact. There really isn't anything else that comes close. We just need to invest the money to bring the next generation from proof of concept (done) to full-scale production. The technical challenges are totally solvable. The political challenges will require someone with a spine. Someone will do it, and they'll be the next economic superpower.

Basic facts of life: Conservation is good, and there's no virtue in using a wasteful approach if there's a more efficient way to accomplish the same thing. However, at any level of conservation, the more energy you can afford, the better your standard of living. Energy multiplies your ability to accomplish work. It keeps you comfortable. It allows you to travel, and it allows you to do things more quickly.

We've been spoiled by cheap energy, and we have a choice. We can use our brains and our ingenuity to figure out ways to enjoy the same comforts while using less scarce or nonrenewable resources, or we can retreat and accept a more impoverished lifestyle.

Many of the 'green' crowd seem to prefer the second option, perhaps feeling that we need to be punished for our sins. I'm firmly in the first camp. I want to be just as warm and comfortable, with just as much convenience as when I heated with oil. I don't want to huddle in a small, dark and cold house. I want to figure out transportation options that get me where I want to go at my convenience without taking any more of my time.

It doesn't appear to me or anyone else that there's any prospect that wind/PV/tidal will be able to replace any sizable fraction of our current coal/gas/nuclear power base load generation mix. If carbon induced global warming is a real threat, then there are exactly two options:

1) Learn to live with a LOT less energy. See 'huddling in small, dark, cold houses' above. Forget long trips - once in a lifetime, like it was for out ancestors.

2) Develop next generation nuclear and have plentiful energy. We need this especially if we're going to pursue pure electric, hydrogen, or plug-in hybrids.

I'll stick with my irony: Folks promoting green and simultaneously stopping progress on the only viable environmentally friendly large scale energy alternative out there.


----------



## webbie (Jun 21, 2008)

I'll let you stick with the irony, but consider that you eat the words about the progressive green European countries pushing nukes....they simply are not.

It's not much of an irony. Tell me when and where the nuke breeder is going to be, what it will cost to build, the life cycle and the actual fuel cycle from start to finish. Can you honestly expect people to just "trust you" about how good it is going to be? What happened to facts and proof? 

Based on your analysis above, we can suppose that all those "green" countries in Northern Europe are stupid and that they will be living in dark and squalid conditions soon. Meantime, they are eating our lunch as far as installed wind and solar %. 

Lastly, speaking of irony, what happened to the brilliant folks who told us - told us 100% - that they were going to solve the CURRENT waste disposal problems with reactors. Well, it appears they underestimated the problems.

To top is all off, lot of worldwide nukes means lots of worldwide nuclear proliferation. There may already be no way to stop it, but this will definitely speed it along.

Heck, a perfect nuclear reactor - or even one close to perfect with low total life cycle costs - would solve a vast percentage of our energy problems. But my guess is that other technologies will appear first which will win in the marketplace.....if not, I will be more than willing to plug my electric car into the breeder.


----------



## Redox (Jun 21, 2008)

velvetfoot said:
			
		

> Interesting that you don't mention nuclear power.



You HAD to ask, didn't you?

Chris


----------



## Nofossil (Jun 21, 2008)

> It’s not much of an irony. Tell me when and where the nuke breeder is going to be, what it will cost to build, the life cycle and the actual fuel cycle from start to finish. Can you honestly expect people to just “trust you” about how good it is going to be? What happened to facts and proof?



Good thing my wife didn't hold me to that standard before I bought our gasifier. Small-scale proof of concept reactors have been built, but political opposition has prevented progress, at least here. As I said, the science is understood at this point, while the technical and political problems need to be resolved. Your questions arguably have more to do with the effectiveness of political problem resolution rather than the technology. As to proof - google 'generation IV nuclear'. There's a huge body of literature and research out there. Believe it or not, there has been a lot of progress in the 30 years since we built our last reactor.

I suspect that the 2030 date that's kicked around for these is a recognition of the current lack of political will. We built an entire space program from scratch and put a man on the moon in ten years. This isn't anywhere near as hard.

For my part. I see that my mission is to attempt to educate people about technology that can improve quality of life for all of us. Just as a gasifier is a more sophisticated and vastly better solution than an OWB, so a generation IV reactor is better than burning coal.

I'll grant that the Scandinavian countries aren't doing anything with nuclear. Of course, they've got plenty of oil......



> Based on your analysis above, we can suppose that all those “green” countries in Northern Europe are stupid and that they will be living in dark and squalid conditions soon. Meantime, they are eating our lunch as far as installed wind and solar %.



Last time I went to Europe, I was struck by how small the average house and car were, and that people seem to keep their travel much closer to home. Energy costs seemed to be a major factor in those differences. Installed wind and solar isn't automatically a virtue, by the way. If PV consumes more resources than the value of the electricity it produces, then it's wasteful.



> Lastly, speaking of irony, what happened to the brilliant folks who told us - told us 100% - that they were going to solve the CURRENT waste disposal problems with reactors. Well, it appears they underestimated the problems.



Scientists and engineers often underestimate political problems. There are plenty of solutions for the technical problem. Fourth generation breeder reactors can reprocess spent nuclear fuel from conventional reactors, vastly reducing the amount of high level waste. It's those pesky trans-uranic elements that are the real problem, especially when it comes to proliferation. Unlike current designs, generation IV reactors can reprocess all such byproducts on-site. For other waste, there are technically sound solutions - deep sea subduction zone disposal would be one example: encase it in glass, and drop it into the seabottom mud in a plate subduction zone, where it will be recycled under the earth's crust, not to be seen for many millenia.



> To top is all off, lot of worldwide nukes means lots of worldwide nuclear proliferation. There may already be no way to stop it, but this will definitely speed it along.



One of the benefits of generation IV reactors is that they don't have to generate any fissionable material as part of their waste stream. That would be a big step forward from where we are now. The vastly improved efficiency also means much less demand for uranium enrichment - not a bad thing.

The US and China are both sitting on enormous quantities of coal. Here's a political reality for you: Before people resign themselves to shivering in the dark, they're going to demand that we use the coal that we have, as they're currently doing in China. We need to develop an attractive alternative.

The only way we're going to make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is to have a safe alternative that can provide similar quantities of energy at a similar price to coal. We need to finish the development of those alternatives, and we're not doing it.


----------



## Redox (Jun 21, 2008)

I wanna plug into nofo's breeder.     Wait, that didn't come out right...

Chris


----------



## webbie (Jun 21, 2008)

I'm all for research........just don't build civilian plants until the industry can be self-insured and not hide behind the government or shell corporations. 

As to that Shoreham debacle, when you read it now you see that it seems like just a fear factor! There was a bunch of shoddy work....I remember the 60 minutes program on the inspectors signing off on faulty welding, but the idea that an evacuation plan for the entire end of Long Island has to be drawn up was just a bit drastic! 

NF, I understand about political will - but, right or wrong, that is a part of the process. In the end, it is the same "body political" that the plants are being built for. The opposition may be right or they may be wrong, but they must be dealt with....and they include a number of well informed engineers and scientists also. 

There is a good chance that you are correct...in that these technologies may be brought into focus in the future. But it seems highly unlikely that anything resembling a Space Program will be brought into play on a grand scale. 

The games have begun and we'll see which technologies pan out. I suspect it will be a combination of many.


----------



## Nofossil (Jun 21, 2008)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> I'm all for research........just don't build civilian plants until the industry can be self-insured and not hide behind the government or shell corporations.



Fair enough. Get the government out of subsidizing / protecting power generation, or dedicate the same dollars per kilowatt subsidizing nuclear that we spend subsidizing PV. I'm happy either way.

I agree very much with the idea that people should choose the solutions that they want. However, I would prefer that to be an informed decision. Without context and knowledge of options, a lot of folks would choose an OWB instead of something that would serve them and their neighbors better. Sometimes, conventional opinion and the majority opinion is wrong. 

This site is dedicated in part to informing people about options, and I think in general that's a better approach than legislating choices away from people or having the government decide. I believe that decisions based on facts and data are typically better than decisions based on emotion. Unfortunately, appealing to emotions is more efficient. For that reason, a disturbing percentage of public discourse is essentially manipulation of emotions.

Nice to have a forum where that's not the default behavior.


----------



## webbie (Jun 21, 2008)

We would be remiss in not mentioning GM's championing of their yellow 85 cars, which can burn almost straight corn ethanol.........might be a great idea is:

1. The cars were fuel efficient
2. The ethanol was available
3. The cost in fuel input for ethanol wasn't a problem....

Oh, the new name for this is called "Greenwashing", and as you can imagine it is green combined with brainwashing! I might throw up soon if I see anything else that is eco-friendly. I just opened the cabinet and the aluminum foil box now trumpets that is is an "eco box" because it is 20% smaller!

The truth is in the overall picture. If we have these millions of green products....and our energy use per capita (especially our fossil fuel use) is not headed downward, then I question whether that green is anything but more paper green ($$$$$).

BTW, Google.org is attacking the PV situation in trying to make it cheaper than coal - period. That's a tall order, but is what it might take for it to really make a difference. In all fairness, the price of coal is drastically subsidized by the complete dismissal of government and people to account for the entire tops being cut off mountains, the pollution at the mining source and the pollution at the burning end. If we added in those costs.....who knows? What would it take to remove coal with complete restoration and no surface runoff? I suspect that the cost of coal electric, usually given at 3-4 cents a KWH, is closer to double than if we cared about the mountains and air. That type of pricing......7-8 cents wholesale, would be very doable given advances in technology. We might not use it for heat, but for plug-in cars, heat-pumps/AC and many other uses, 18 cents retail a KWH would be acceptable.


----------



## jebatty (Jun 22, 2008)

I think it's a bit ironic that most people seem so addicted to energy consumption that they will do anything to get their fix, including burning coal, even if the outcome is a change in climate that no longer supports human life as we know it.


----------



## velvetfoot (Jun 23, 2008)

Man made global warming is a crock.
Just a way to take some more money out of your wallet.


----------



## jebatty (Jun 23, 2008)

That's what the lemmings said as they rushed towards the cliff -- it's all a crock.


----------



## webbie (Jun 23, 2008)

Same thing the people being flooded out now and from Katrina are saying......maybe natural? Maybe not....who really cares unless it is YOU that is being flooded out? After all, we can't really see them.....just another news story.

According to those in the scientific community, GW is not even a theory any more. Of course, the exact cause and effects are still being studied. 

In a country where more people believe in the Devil than in Evolution, anything is possible.....heck, I give up!


----------



## jebatty (Jun 23, 2008)

Could it be a bit ironic that in not drilling now for possible oil, and using other available foreign oil, we are better positioning ourselves for the future when oil will be far more valuable? and of course, stimulating alternative energy sources that no on denies we need? In our life we often have not accessed available savings to meet a current want, and got by on alternatives, the benefit being that the savings were there when something really important came up, and also that we modified our life style for the better.


----------



## Redox (Jun 23, 2008)

jebatty said:
			
		

> Could it be a bit ironic that in not drilling now for possible oil, and using other available foreign oil, we are better positioning ourselves for the future when oil will be far more valuable? and of course, stimulating alternative energy sources that no on denies we need? In our life we often have not accessed available savings to meet a current want, and got by on alternatives, the benefit being that the savings were there when something really important came up, and also that we modified our life style for the better.



I like that thinking.  Save those valuable deposits for when oil is $8/gal, like the rest of the world is currently...

Chris


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jun 23, 2008)

"According to those in the scientific community, GW is not even a theory any more."

I think that you mean "hypothesis".  It could never go beyond "theory".  

A theory is a hypothesis that is tested.  It generally has several "moving parts"- it's not a simple relationship that can be easily described in mathmatical terms (a proven law).  Evolution, for instance, is well accepted but is a theory.  Parts may change as new evidence is uncovered, but the underlying principle theory (change over time) is the same.

Man-made global warming is very disputed back and forth.  One side says "it's proven".  The other says "it's unproveable" because of the records of climate change before industrialization.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jun 23, 2008)

"That’s what the lemmings said as they rushed towards the cliff—it’s all a crock. "

LOL- well, since lemmings don't actually jump off cliffs and swim to their deaths as we've been led to believe... this statement is sort of ironic, ya?


----------



## TMonter (Jun 23, 2008)

> They have calculated that even with coal fired plants it is much more efficient ( and cheaper to Joe average you and me)
> to use electricity to power your car. Hopefully we can use wind tidal solar etc to power more of the grid.



Actually on a per energy input basis, electric cars have almost 0 advantage on gasoline cars. On a per dollar basis they are cheaper to drive but that is because of the scale of electric generating plants.


----------



## TMonter (Jun 23, 2008)

AGW effects on climate are also very disputed amongst the scientific community, not to mention that no one has come up with a reasonable model that can be used from one year to the next to predict changes in climate.



> According to those in the scientific community, GW is not even a theory any more. Of course, the exact cause and effects are still being studied.



It's not a theory, it's a fact. However the same can not be said for the cause of the warming. The whole alarmist crowd doesn't seem to want to pay attention to the actual science.


----------



## mainemac (Jun 24, 2008)

1) global warming

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/nasas-hansen-humans-still-loading-climate-dice/

It appears that James Hansen has been testifying about this stuff for longer than I realized.
I was not aware that this was known so far back.

That being said, I always wonder why is it we we are able to accept and act on acid rain but not global warming.
There really is no controversy that GW exists or that we are the cause of this.

I remember there were 'experts' from the tobacco industry that swore that there was no cause effect  to lung cancer and smoking...............
It seems there are now 'experts' from the oil/coal fossil fuel industry who feel there is no cause effect from CO2 and melting glaciers in CO MT Europe Asia etc.

2) Evolution

With regard to evolution just because there is "theory of" before a word does not mean it is not a fact.
Einstein came up with the theory of relativity and it was proven a few years later to be true. Evolution has been proven over and over again not 
just in botany and fossil record but also in molecular genetics. 
Of course when you come to the hospital you can choose to be treated with Penicillin even though your pneumonia was caused by a bacteria that mutated evolving 
into a penicillin resistant bacteria if you like!

Tom


----------



## jebatty (Jun 24, 2008)

Lemmings - as most myths have some basis in fact, Wikipedia states:

"On occasion, and particularly in the case of the Norway lemmings in Scandinavia, large migrating groups will reach a cliff overlooking the ocean. They will stop until the urge to press on causes them to jump off the cliff and start swimming, sometimes to exhaustion and death. Lemmings are also often pushed into the sea as more and more lemmings arrive at the shore."


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jun 24, 2008)

"It’s not a theory, it’s a fact. However the same can not be said for the cause of the warming. "

When you talk to a scientist, "theory" means something very different than what you think it does.  It doesn't mean "hypothesis", as you seem to suggest.

On lemmings- yes, I had "herd" that, but calling people lemmings is a tad off base in purpose, IMO:  http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp
Disney herded them off a cliff to make the popular film that gave the impression that they commit "suicide", or follow others to their deaths purposely.  That some die accidentally during mishap in migration is certainly possible, but calling others "lemmings" because they follow blindly to catastrophy is a bit of blind belief in Disney stories (Yes- I'm on a mission to dispel the myth)   
I think the ones in front get to the edge, and a bit of "Festival Seating" hysteria ensues.  Wacky rodents- LOL


----------



## Redox (Jun 24, 2008)

Kinda like a European soccer match...

Chris


----------

