America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 3 months ago by MACS. 186 replies replies.
4 Pages<1234>
The Green Dream...
Speyside Offline
#101 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,633
Tail, I am pointing out 2 items from one of your previous posts that I think are invalid. The concept behind her bill is not completely erroneous. It is reaching beyond our present capabilities. Please keep in mind I am only talking about the energy portion of the bill. I pointed out where green energy does make sense. Also, using less energy is green. The second statement that is invalid is that green energy is unreliable, here also, I pointed out in basic terms why. Green energy is an area where I have extensive experience. I am simply pointing out where and why green energy is viable as a business proposal, and that our goals should always outreach our existing technology.
DrafterX Offline
#102 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
It has it's place... But I heard electric cars don't perform well in cold weather... How's a plane suppose to fly... Think
Phil222 Offline
#103 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,445
Does the GND mention banning air travel or cars? I'm guessing that people who enjoy gasoline vehicles will be able to keep them, right? And I would imagine that air travel would need to stay the same until technology improves, correct?

I was under the impression that part of the GND's purpose was to make “greener” options more available and financially viable to the masses, not take Joe Bob's favorite 4x4 away...guess I need to read this thing.
DrafterX Offline
#104 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
It's all gotta go by 2030... No more car shows or air travel.. except by balloon.. well, even that would be banned too... Think
Speyside Offline
#105 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,633
Electric cars are not particularly viable. The longest driving distance is about 330 miles on a single charge and that is the very expensive Tesla. I think for electric cars to ever be viable and make economic sense super capacitors will need to replace batteries. Nissan worked on super capacitors for about 10 years I think, with no real success. I don't think any company is perusing that technology at this time. A much more viable option is natural gas. It burns much cleaner than gasoline. Also there is a pretty decent refueling grid already in place, many utilities and bus terminals have stations to refuel natural gas cars. There is an issue with the cohesiveness of natural gas.
DrafterX Offline
#106 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
I considered converting my burb to CNG but a 2003 was to old.. I've traded it off tho... But that's still a fossil fuel.. Mellow
Speyside Offline
#107 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,633
True, to me the concept of green certainly can use fossil fuel. Green is about less pollution. Green also needs to make economic sense. Plus, you can make biofuel from garbage, it's about 50% methane, same percentage as natural gas. There is another fuel source in its infancy as far as research, using blue-green algae to generate electricity.
Phil222 Offline
#108 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,445
GND was pretty short. It was a bit vague on some stuff and used the phrase “as much as technologically feasible” many times when discussing its goals. That leaves a ton of wiggle room for actual policy and results which will most likely need some bipartisan support anyways...guess maybe someone could declare a national emergency and try to get some of it done that way, but I don't agree with that method.

I didn’t see anything about banning vehicles or cow farts, but maybe I missed it. Also didn’t see anything about universal basic income.

I would probably care if there was a resolution out there gaining support full of right-wing talking points that I thought were stupid, so I can understand the hyperbole on this one. I wonder what the “Right-Wing New Deal” would be like?
ZRX1200 Offline
#109 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 48,931
Yet.....hydro is BAAAAAAAAAD.....
RMAN4443 Offline
#110 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 5,228
If you like your gasoline powered vehicles, you can keep your gasoline powered vehicles....I also heard she wanted to ban cow farts...aren't cow farts a source of methane?Think
MACS Offline
#111 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 64,816
RMAN4443 wrote:
If you like your gasoline powered vehicles, you can keep your gasoline powered vehicles....I also heard she wanted to ban cow farts...aren't cow farts a source of methane?Think


She'll need a lot of butt plugs... big ones, too... Mellow
dstieger Offline
#112 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 9,870
If this thing gets any traction, I think it will actually hurt the GOP.....and not just because of childish tweets coming from Trump. It is past time for Republicans to start tacking away from reflexively dismissing anything having to do with warming global temps. I think we'd have been on much firmer ground if we acknowledged possibility of human-influenced warming, but challenge the idea that there's a response that can have any affect. I think that investment in some coastal protection and other mitigation efforts would be a far smarter use of the buttloads of money that is about to be spent with out a shred of a chance that it might have any effect. Maybe a 25 or 30 year plan to get us to 75% or better nuke power....I suspect the time is ripe to make a strong move towards nuclear.
DrafterX Offline
#113 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
I didn't realize only Republicans didn't believe in global warming... Think
tailgater Offline
#114 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
Speyside wrote:
Tail, I am pointing out 2 items from one of your previous posts that I think are invalid. The concept behind her bill is not completely erroneous. It is reaching beyond our present capabilities. Please keep in mind I am only talking about the energy portion of the bill. I pointed out where green energy does make sense. Also, using less energy is green. The second statement that is invalid is that green energy is unreliable, here also, I pointed out in basic terms why. Green energy is an area where I have extensive experience. I am simply pointing out where and why green energy is viable as a business proposal, and that our goals should always outreach our existing technology.


Most renewables are unreliable.
Here in new england we don't get the same solar energy as Arizona. For instance.
Wind is even worse in terms of reliability.
If you want to power your home with wind AND solar, you NEED another form of electrical supply.
Because if it's a cloudy, windless day you'd be f*cked.

I like the idea of tidal sources, but there are limited areas to put them.

Biofuels are considered green, but they're nothing more than diesel made from plants. It does nothing to improve the pollution aspect, just the supply.

We need new ideas. The government should encourage this. But not with their foot on our throats.
If we are forced to divert all efforts towards renewable and alternative energy, then we'd be minimizing our efforts to improve efficiencies with our existing sources.

AOC's plan is dangerous and misguided and based on fear mongering.

Don't fall for it.



For renewable energy to work we need storage.
Super conductivity would be a plus, but unless we live at zero degrees kelvin we're still a ways off.

These are good goals. But tying our hands to half the viable options is the wrong way to achieve anything.
tailgater Offline
#115 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
dstieger wrote:
....I suspect the time is ripe to make a strong move towards nuclear.



Not in my back yard.

DrafterX Offline
#116 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
A top adviser to New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has admitted that an official "Green New Deal" document posted by Ocasio-Cortez's office contained a guarantee of economic security even for those "unwilling to work" -- but not before he went viral in progressive circles for claiming the exact opposite, repeatedly, in an interview with Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

Cornell University Law School Professor Robert Hockett, who counsels Ocasio-Cortez on environmental initiatives, challenged host Tucker Carlson when he quoted from an outline and list of "frequently asked questions" (FAQ) that had been posted on Ocasio-Cortez's official website. The FAQ was also shared with NPR.


The FAQ stated that the program will provide "Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work," and also noted, "We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast."


Think
Speyside Offline
#117 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,633
Not saying to tie our hands. You miss my point. I an not saying green is a solution to everything. I AM saying it works in certain places. In certain large places it is viable.
Speyside Offline
#118 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,633
Also, I was not speaking of biodiesel, I was speaking about biomethane. It burns much cleaner than gasoline.
Speyside Offline
#119 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,633
Oh, also the big windmills you see are not the future of harnessing wind energy. Small wind turbines about 3 feet tall and conical are. They work in winds as low as 3 mph. Specifically they will be and are being used on flat roofed buildings. Payback is reasonable in most states, about 7 years. But that has to get down to 3 years before business will drive this.
DrafterX Offline
#120 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
the big windmills suck... I heard Obama made them put electronic eagle callers in them... Mellow
tailgater Offline
#121 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
Spey,
Pretty sure everybody on these boards is OK with green energy if it works efficiently, effectively, and without significant drawbacks. You sound like you're trying to convince someone.

Whistlebritches Offline
#122 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 17,324
tailgater wrote:
Spey,
Pretty sure everybody on these boards is OK with green energy if it works efficiently, effectively, and without significant drawbacks. You sound like you're trying to convince someone.



DITTO!!!
Speyside Offline
#123 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,633
Nah, I'm telling you what is reasonable and what is not IMHO. I think you have a misunderstanding about green based on a few things you wrote. Green is reliable when properly applied. In high sunshine states solar is economically viable, in many states it is not. And so on.
So I disagree when you state green is unreliable as a generality. Perhaps I am trying to convince that there are forms of green that are economically efficient enough that business will drive them. Legislating us green is not a reasonable solution. But sufficient economic incentive is. Also, wanted to point out some outside the box ideas on green. Also, to be clear, I am not talking about elimination of fossil fuel. Also, this is something I am passionate about. The amounts of energy that can be save using high efficiency lighting, high efficiency heating and cooling, high efficiency motors, VFD'S and so on is staggering.
frankj1 Offline
#124 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 26,940
DrafterX wrote:
the big windmills suck... I heard Obama made them put electronic eagle callers in them... Mellow

nice!
ZRX1200 Offline
#125 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 48,931
https://www.scribd.com/document/399147612/Green-New-Deal

Original doc
Abrignac Offline
#126 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 14,299
Ask our European brethren about “cheap” renewable energy.
Mr. Jones Offline
#127 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 10,735
I say....

Put a WIND MILL IN FRONT OF

A.O.C.' s yak and that could power all of lower Manhattan...

Then,

Put a heat and L.O.A.D. EXCHANGE ON HER TIGHT SWEET DANCING AZZ...AND THAT CAN POWER
UPPER MANHATTAN.
tailgater Offline
#128 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
Speyside wrote:
Nah, I'm telling you what is reasonable and what is not IMHO. I think you have a misunderstanding about green based on a few things you wrote. Green is reliable when properly applied. In high sunshine states solar is economically viable, in many states it is not. And so on.
So I disagree when you state green is unreliable as a generality. Perhaps I am trying to convince that there are forms of green that are economically efficient enough that business will drive them. Legislating us green is not a reasonable solution. But sufficient economic incentive is. Also, wanted to point out some outside the box ideas on green. Also, to be clear, I am not talking about elimination of fossil fuel. Also, this is something I am passionate about. The amounts of energy that can be save using high efficiency lighting, high efficiency heating and cooling, high efficiency motors, VFD'S and so on is staggering.


It's not me who misunderstands renewable energy.

Solar is great. We both agree. It works best in areas like Arizona. We both agree.
But it still isn't, and can't be, considered reliable until we have a proper means for storage.
100 sunny days in a row means nothing if you get a 4 day storm with cloud cover.

Ditto for wind power.
Generate all you want, but with no long term storage capacity it means nothing.

Wind and solar power will not, can not, replace the need for more traditional power generation.
And it takes days for a coal or nuclear plant to reach operating efficiency, so you can't keep one nearby to fill the gaps. No. You have to keep it running for when (not if) the sun doesn't shine and the wind stops blowing.

That's not opinion.

Renewable energy is unreliable.


Speyside Offline
#129 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,633
Um, sorry, you are wrong. I am speaking about lowering energy usage. This can be done anywhere. I am speaking about using renewable energy sources where it is feasible. As far as your misconception about power plant usage, peaker power plants would be used when needed, they are up to speed almost immediately.
dstieger Offline
#130 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 9,870
I'm not sure 'traditional' batteries will ever get us large scale storage solutions, but I'm intrigued by water storage, hydro solutions. Imagine a lake dammed in the middle...water is pumped up to high side during excess power production, but flows back through generators when its cloudy or too calm for wind power. Not sure what cost is compared to other storage options, but sounds good as basic theory
DrafterX Offline
#131 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
We just gotta hire some dudes to spin the windmills when the wind is slow... Mellow
tailgater Offline
#132 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
Speyside wrote:
Um, sorry, you are wrong. I am speaking about lowering energy usage. This can be done anywhere. I am speaking about using renewable energy sources where it is feasible. As far as your misconception about power plant usage, peaker power plants would be used when needed, they are up to speed almost immediately.


Dude.
Peakers are not used to compensate for an inconsistent base load power plant.
They are used to boost kwh's when load is at it's PEAK.
Hence the name.
I thought that was obvious.







Speyside Offline
#133 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,633
Expand your concept of peakers, they can and are used in this manner. Dave's example is a way of storing electric for future use. It has been done in a few of places, though at this point in time they are experiments. The eventual answer is super capacitors, but we aren't there yet. But let's get off of reliable energy. The real savings at this point in time is energy efficiency. LED lighting, daylighing, motion controls, high efficiency boilers, high efficiency motors, variable frequency drives, clean power systems for electric entering a building, capacitor systems for electric in a building, and energy control systems.
ZRX1200 Offline
#134 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 48,931
DrafterX wrote:
We just gotta hire some dudes to spin the windmills when the wind is slow... Mellow



Maybe we should make the “Dreamers” and their POS parents do a 2 year residency spinning the windmills. They could even sell tamales out the back if they want to.
tailgater Offline
#135 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
Speyside wrote:
Expand your concept of peakers, they can and are used in this manner. Dave's example is a way of storing electric for future use. It has been done in a few of places, though at this point in time they are experiments. The eventual answer is super capacitors, but we aren't there yet. But let's get off of reliable energy. The real savings at this point in time is energy efficiency. LED lighting, daylighing, motion controls, high efficiency boilers, high efficiency motors, variable frequency drives, clean power systems for electric entering a building, capacitor systems for electric in a building, and energy control systems.



My concept of peakers is based on their intended function.

Meanwhile, there is not any area of our country that would be OK without a traditional base load power plant.
I think we'll get there, but in the meantime it's short sighted to ignore the benefits of higher efficiency gains from ALL power sources. Hence my distaste for the Green New Deal.

Tell us again about high efficiency lighting.
Nobody has refuted you, but it's fun to hear anyhow.

Herfing
delta1 Offline
#136 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 16,681
we're dammed if we do...and dammed if we don't...


at some point, even the most persistent doubters realized the Titanic was in trouble...we're not there yet, but continued reliance on fossil fuels will get us there sooner rather than later...
tailgater Offline
#137 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
delta1 wrote:
we're dammed if we do...and dammed if we don't...


at some point, even the most persistent doubters realized the Titanic was in trouble...we're not there yet, but continued reliance on fossil fuels will get us there sooner rather than later...


For arguments sake, let's assume burning fossil fuels is warming our earth.

Why is that akin to the Titanic sinking?

It's called "Climate CHANGE".

It's not called "Climate DANGER"

Although our politicians and MSM have run with that assumption.



Our grand kids' grand kids aren't going to be drowning in a world full of weekly hurricanes.
But we'll still continue to be taxed to death to stop IT.
Whatever "it" may be, it's worth taxing.

Just don't "deny" it.


victor809 Offline
#138 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 18,026
Tail is right... (Ugh I feel dirty)
It isn't necessarily a disaster. We don't know the full extent of what the changes might do.

But, to temper all that, change does mean change. So we may see things like loss of towns in Florida (not a disaster) a move of crop growing land from where it is, to some other latitude (possibly a whole new country)... Not a disaster, unless your livelihood is growing crops and you don't happen to own property all around the globe to grow on... Or if you're set on your particular country being able to grow all the crops...

Climate change will cause changes (duh). Some will adapt. Some will die. Some countries may become much more globally significant than others (one of the US's strengths is agriculture production... We may lose this advantage). But that's not necessarily a disaster, from a humanity as a whole's perspective.

delta1 Offline
#139 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 16,681
for one thing, climate change has brought more severe and more frequent hurricanes spread over a wider area...death toll and monetary damages continue to rise...

another thing...here on the left coast, we've had more frequent, larger and more deadly wild fires...and there is now a year round "fire season"...attributed to climate change ...

which has been blamed for more frequent and longer lasting droughts, followed by wild-fires, followed by mud slides...
victor809 Offline
#140 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 18,026
I wouldn't attribute all of that to climate change.
A large amount also has to do with human changes to the local environment (tree removal, or growing of different species which dont have the same ability to fight erosion, movement of water from one location to another for irrigation, building building and more building)...

It's still human caused... And can be solved by getting rid of people, but not specifically all related to global climate.
delta1 Offline
#141 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 16,681
true...it has been shown that electrical power-lines and related equipment have been the source of sparks that ignited many of the largest fires in the past few years....PGE is declaring bankruptcy as a defense to the civil suits being planned because the deadly Camp Fire has been attributed to sparks from their equipment...

but the speed and size of the fire was deemed to be exacerbated by climate change drought conditions that dried out huge swaths of forest in the area...
Ewok126 Offline
#142 Posted:
Joined: 06-25-2017
Posts: 4,330
Sounds like it is time to burn more tires. fog
deadeyedick Offline
#143 Posted:
Joined: 03-13-2003
Posts: 9,953
delta1 wrote:
for one thing, climate change has brought more severe and more frequent hurricanes spread over a wider area...death toll and monetary damages continue to rise...

another thing...here on the left coast, we've had more frequent, larger and more deadly wild fires...and there is now a year round "fire season"...attributed to climate change ...

which has been blamed for more frequent and longer lasting droughts, followed by wild-fires, followed by mud slides...


From a study cited in the Washington Post:

"Global warming is a real issue, but the claims of ever worse hurricanes are wrong.

The UN Climate Panel found in its latest report that hurricanes (aka tropical cyclones) haven’t increased: “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.”

For the United States, the trend of all land-falling hurricanes has been falling since 1900, as has that of major hurricanes. In the 51 years from 1915, Florida and the Atlantic coast were hit by 19 major hurricanes. In the 51 years to 2016, just seven. In the last 11 years, only two hurricanes greater than category 3 hit the continental USA — a record low since 1900. From 1915 to 1926, 12 hit.

We’re not seeing an increase of hurricanes. Yes, hurricane costs keep escalating. But this is not due to climate change. Rather, more people with more wealth live in harm’s way."
Speyside Offline
#144 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,633
Hurricane quantity has not increased. Hurricane severity has increased.
DrafterX Offline
#145 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
Maybe we're just returning to normal after a hundred years of mild... Mellow
opelmanta1900 Offline
#146 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 9,127
Gentleman, if you will indulge me, I do believe I can get us all in on the ground floor investment of the power source of the future...

Hamsters... That's right, hamsters...

Cute and cuddly playmate for the kids, sure... But twenty years from now, hamsters will be powering everything from the lights in your house to the engine in your car...

With minimal nutritional needs and an insatiable appetite for reproduction matched only by the Jack rabbit, hamsters are a perfect, near self-sustaining source of universal power... And they burn twice as clean as coal...
DrafterX Offline
#147 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
Why not mate the jack rabbit with the hamsters..?? Mellow
opelmanta1900 Offline
#148 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 9,127
We tried.... We got those hybrids halfway into the furnace and they just jumped right off the shovel, tore up and down the hallways half-aflame... It was a disaster but we learned from it...
DrafterX Offline
#149 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
Some would call that progress... Mellow
tailgater Offline
#150 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
victor809 wrote:
I wouldn't attribute all of that to climate change.
A large amount also has to do with human changes to the local environment (tree removal, or growing of different species which dont have the same ability to fight erosion, movement of water from one location to another for irrigation, building building and more building)...

It's still human caused... And can be solved by getting rid of people, but not specifically all related to global climate.


I agree with victor.

(I just wanted to feel dirty, too.)

Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234>