A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

3 feet in 50 years?!?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old December 25th 16, 12:48 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 824
Default 3 feet in 50 years?!?

On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 3:33:46 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/23/2016 8:23 PM, Phil Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016
16:15:16 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/22/2016 3:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 12/22/2016 10:54 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 10:29:46 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:


Well, a genuinely proportional representation system would be a start.
For all it's faults, the European Parliament (elected using PR) is far
more responsive to well argued concerns of the electorate than most
others I know of - because they know that every vote counts.


Hilarious!
If that's true please explain Brexit, the upcoming NLexit etc.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


NLexit? Did I miss something?

Lou
Ads
  #302  
Old December 25th 16, 12:48 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,202
Default 3 feet in 50 years?!?

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 11:13:39 +0000, Phil Lee
wrote:

Radey Shouman considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016
22:31:11 -0500 the perfect time to write:

Phil Lee writes:

Radey Shouman considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016
15:39:15 -0500 the perfect time to write:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 12/22/2016 10:54 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 10:29:46 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:


But CO2 is not tobacco, there are no CO2 non-smokers, unless they live
deep in the jungle and shoot all strangers with poison arrows. The sad
fact is that CO2 regulations are probably good for Exxon's business,
trying to cut CO2 has led to an *increase* in natural gas use, for
peaking power plants, at the expense of coal, which is used for base
load. Coal is still needed, of course, to make steel for all those huge
offshore wind turbines. It's quite likely that they have led to a net
increase in total CO2 emmissions.

Very doubtful, at least in the U.S.

If you want to restrict your measurement to one country it's easy to
reduce CO2 -- Germany has no doubt reduced its emissions for electric
generation, but by putting a lot of the burden of power peaking on its
neighbors. But I thought it was *global* warming we were worried about.

The UK now uses very little coal - much has been replaced with carbon
neutral woodchip fuel for the same generating stations,


That "carbon neutral" woodchip fuel is a massive and unconscionable
scam. A lot of it is logged in the US, and would otherwise be lumber or
left as trees, then it is shipped across the Atlantic in fossil-fueled
vessels. It's as pointlessly destructive to the environment as the
ethanol subsidies in the US.

I'd understood that most of it came from the by-product of lumber -
all the bits of wood that are too small or otherwise unsuitable for
traditional uses.
That said, conversion to woodchip is only an interim measure to keep
the lights on while genuinely (local) renewables are developed.


When I worked in Indonesia there were freighter load after freighter
load of wood chips leaving on every tide. Straight from the forest to
the freighter.

I didn't work in that field but my understanding was that economically
it was cheaper to chip the lower grades of timber rather than milling
it.

and wind and
solar are still growing fast. We haven't even really started on the
carbon neutral source with the greatest and most predictable capacity
of all - tidal power - although several experiments are underway to
find the most efficient way of using it without damaging the very
environment we are trying to protect. All that stands in the way are
the puppets of the fossil fuel industry, who will be brought down in
time, when their funding runs out, and they lose the ability to buy
governments and "news" programming (like faux news and the Murderoch
rags)


Good luck with the tidal power (really). Running equipment in the ocean
is tough, and no one has made much of a success of tidal power yet. If
they do, I have to wonder what sort of damage the alteration of ocean
currents will cause.


The scale would never be large enough to damage the big ocean
currents.
As for running equipment in a hostile environment, we've been doing
that for millennia. It's not hard, it's just different.
The biggest source of delay is the endless arguments over the most
efficient way to convert water movement into electrical power.
To which of course the answer is "who cares, as long as you get on and
build some" The energy available from even a very slow tidal current
is enormous - it's proportional to the weight that's in motion, and
that is over a tonne per cubic metre (sal****er being more dense than
fresh). Comparing it with wind power is like comparing a solid fuel
stove to a nuclear power plant!

The first step of any rational divestment campaign, is boycott. A
few million people boycotting fossil fuels would really get the
attention of those greasy plutocrats. The fossil fuel industry will be
brought down when people stop buying their products, not before.


Some are doing that already, far more are avoiding investments in
them, which may be the more effective lever. Collapsing share prices
tend to make them sit up and take notice, and if the big companies in
the fossil fuel sector would just redirect their huge investment
potential towards renewables instead of yet more fossil fuels, we may
yet be able to let them survive.


First, the steel used for wind
turbines is a tiny portion of total steel production. Second, the
steel industry in the U.S. is mostly using mini-mills with electric
furnaces to re-melt scrap. Less than a third of U.S. made steel comes
from ore, and that industry uses only a tiny portion of the U.S. coal
production. Of course, like anything else electric, those electric
furnaces are ultimately powered more and more by natural gas.

Unfortunately, converting from one fossil fuel to another doesn't
change the carbon use much, if at all, despite being cleaner in terms
of other pollutants.
At least the natural gas plants can be run on bio-methane just as
easily as fossil gas, so can be converted with the addition of a
bio-gas digester. But you still need to get the gas to the generator,
so the digester needs to be somewhere on the existing pipeline network
and not too far from the sources of digestible raw materials (which
would mostly be farm waste).

Sure, much of the production of steel from ore has been offshored to
China, but it still requires large quantities of coal. Once again, the
*global* effect is what's alleged to be important.

Yet China is increasing it's use of carbon neutral power sources
faster than anywhere else on earth. Which may be why they can produce
the stuff cheaper!
The great thing about renewables is that they produce far cheaper
energy, once you get the infrastructure built.


That's actually true, the problem is availability. Under a rational
pricing regime you would have to install several times the expected
demand in solar or wind facilities in order to have a chance of not
falling short some of the time.

Only if you attempt to rely on the unreliable.
That's why funding a replacement for baseload is essential, and I
don't know anything that comes even close to tidal power in that
respect.

I'll believe in a renewable energy economy when I see renewable
infrastructure built with it.

Already happening.


Where? Give an example, please. Are wind turbines being installed
using electric vehicles?


Electric vehicles are becoming more and more common, and are used for
maintenance on quite a few solar farms, and our panels were installed
(although admittedly not delivered) without any use of infernal
combustion engines.

as well as Universities around the world. The pro-DDT writings (yes,
I'm changing pollutants) cited by Andre were done by a professor at my
alma matter while he was a professor (along with other notable
antics). EPA regulations, some of which implicate the global warming
"hoax" (e.g. the methane regulation) are the products of endless
public input, typically from industry-hired scientists and
environmental groups. There are legions of qualified scientists who
are capable of determining what is or is not a hoax.

To get way back to the original question, who determines who the
"qualified scientists" are? At some point, if we're going to have any
approximation to a democracy, the public have to have enough
understanding to make some guess as to who is trustworthy and who is
not.

the problem is, the vast majority of "the public" will always be
incapable of telling which scientists are trustworthy and which are
not. Most will not even try.

I guess that's an argument against democracy, then?

Well, it's certainly against the corrupt versions practiced in both
the UK and US at the moment, which seem to be designed to give the
appearance of democracy without actually following it's basic
principles.


Democracy has eventually failed every time it's been tried. As long as
that is remembered it might have a chance. Oddly it's not emphasized
much any more.


Another thing that is widely missed is just how many better (as well
as less destructive) uses crude oil has. It is a soup of very useful
chemicals, with an even wider variety of uses.

I wonder what future generations will think when they look back at the
late 20th and early 21st centuries and ask "what, you mean they just
BURNED it?"
I suspect their reaction will be like that of our current view of
ancient tribes just destroying things they didn't understand, and
we'll be the ones viewed as savages.

--
cheers,

John B.

  #303  
Old December 25th 16, 07:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default 3 feet in 50 years?!?

On 12/25/2016 4:42 AM, Phil Lee wrote:
AMuzi considered Sat, 24 Dec 2016 08:33:41 -0600
the perfect time to write:

On 12/23/2016 8:23 PM, Phil Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016
16:15:16 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/22/2016 3:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 12/22/2016 10:54 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 10:29:46 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:


Well, a genuinely proportional representation system would be a start.
For all it's faults, the European Parliament (elected using PR) is far
more responsive to well argued concerns of the electorate than most
others I know of - because they know that every vote counts.


Hilarious!
If that's true please explain Brexit, the upcoming NLexit etc.


In a word, ignorance.


I believe the accepted term is 'basket of deplorables'.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #305  
Old December 25th 16, 07:24 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default 3 feet in 50 years?!?

On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 2:20:26 AM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote:

Most people know it already (at least in the form we know now), but
are equally aware that it will happen very slowly, not overnight.
Which works well for recycling the vehicles, as well as allowing
people to become accustomed to the change in circumstances by moving
to live nearer to where they work (or work to move nearer to their
workforce). public transport to be developed back to it's former
scale, and so on.


Phil, being where the sun doesn't shine perhaps you're unfamiliar with US culture but believe me - the motor vehicle will NOT go away no matter what they have to do. In the US distances are simply too far and loads being carried too large and the age and health of people not in a category to allow them to use either public transit or bicycles. Not that I don't think it a good idea.

Employers WILL NOT relocate closer to their workers - already in some businesses in San Francisco half of their workers are coming in from Sacramento and the numbers of available workers in Sacramento would easily make up for the loses.

Silicon Valley is situated in a very small area in San Jose, Sunnyvale and Mountain View. I live 30 miles away but the commute would be two hours in each direction. Most of their employees do not live anywhere NEAR Silicon Valley but you don't see them moving to the MUCH cheaper areas with vast amounts of open industrial buildings.

Relieving the traffic along these corridor would allow those laid off in San Francisco to find jobs closer to their own homes. Industrial growth could have a GIANT kick in the pants and start afresh but instead they remain fixed in areas that are so traffic bound that people spend as much time commuting as working.

If people are so stupid to put up with this they sure aren't going to get rid of cars as long as there is one single gallon of petrol available.
  #306  
Old December 25th 16, 07:25 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default 3 feet in 50 years?!?

On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 2:41:43 AM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote:
Radey Shouman considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016
22:35:43 -0500 the perfect time to write:

Phil Lee writes:

Frank Krygowski considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016
16:15:16 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/22/2016 3:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 12/22/2016 10:54 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 10:29:46 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:


But CO2 is not tobacco, there are no CO2 non-smokers, unless they live
deep in the jungle and shoot all strangers with poison arrows. The sad
fact is that CO2 regulations are probably good for Exxon's business,
trying to cut CO2 has led to an *increase* in natural gas use, for
peaking power plants, at the expense of coal, which is used for base
load. Coal is still needed, of course, to make steel for all those huge
offshore wind turbines. It's quite likely that they have led to a net
increase in total CO2 emmissions.

Very doubtful, at least in the U.S.

If you want to restrict your measurement to one country it's easy to
reduce CO2 -- Germany has no doubt reduced its emissions for electric
generation, but by putting a lot of the burden of power peaking on its
neighbors. But I thought it was *global* warming we were worried about.


First, the steel used for wind
turbines is a tiny portion of total steel production. Second, the
steel industry in the U.S. is mostly using mini-mills with electric
furnaces to re-melt scrap. Less than a third of U.S. made steel comes
from ore, and that industry uses only a tiny portion of the U.S. coal
production. Of course, like anything else electric, those electric
furnaces are ultimately powered more and more by natural gas.

Sure, much of the production of steel from ore has been offshored to
China, but it still requires large quantities of coal. Once again, the
*global* effect is what's alleged to be important.

You're right that the global total is what matters.

But to prove your contention that wind turbines are a net harm because
of their steel content, you'd have to look at the amount of steel
consumed by turbine construction every year. It's obviously a tiny
portion of the world's steel consumption. You'd also want to track the
method used to produce that steel, since different methods (scrap remelt
vs. ore) would put vastly different amounts of CO2 into the air. And
you'd have to compare those emissions with the CO2 savings over the life
of the turbine.

My guess is that the amount of steel used is quite small, that a lot of
it is made by relatively clean methods, and that the CO2 savings easily
outweigh the costs. But I'm willing to look at numbers, if you have any.

You also have to look at the carbon production of keeping the
generation system in each case fed with fuel, and the steel used for
building ships, railway tracks, and other fuel handling equipment all
the way from it's source.
Of course, for most renewables, that's nil - the wind brings itself to
the turbine, the water to the hydro-electric plant, and the tides and
waves to their respective generators. No transport required.
The cost of laying a cable to bring the power out is the same in both
cases, so that can be pretty much ignored. But even gas needs a
pipeline, and the steel and carbon cost of building that is
significant.


It's true that transport of fuel isn't free, but how about the cost of
mowing all the weeds in the solar fields? I wonder how they do that.
If it's too dry to grow weeds then cleaning the facilities is an ongoing
expense. Maintenance of wind or solar fields demands quite a bit of
fossil fueled transport, consider how those turbines are installed --
they don't last forever, and they can't run long without maintenance.

I'm completely in favor of renewable energy, but it has to compete on a
realistic basis, and it has to pay a penalty for uncertain availability.

I'll believe in a renewable energy economy when I see renewable
infrastructure built with it.

as well as Universities around the world. The pro-DDT writings (yes,
I'm changing pollutants) cited by Andre were done by a professor at my
alma matter while he was a professor (along with other notable
antics). EPA regulations, some of which implicate the global warming
"hoax" (e.g. the methane regulation) are the products of endless
public input, typically from industry-hired scientists and
environmental groups. There are legions of qualified scientists who
are capable of determining what is or is not a hoax.

To get way back to the original question, who determines who the
"qualified scientists" are? At some point, if we're going to have any
approximation to a democracy, the public have to have enough
understanding to make some guess as to who is trustworthy and who is
not.

the problem is, the vast majority of "the public" will always be
incapable of telling which scientists are trustworthy and which are
not. Most will not even try.

I guess that's an argument against democracy, then?

Yep, as it's currently implemented here. Alternately, it can be looked
on as an argument against ignorance. Unfortunately, I don't see a way
to measurably improve either one.

Well, a genuinely proportional representation system would be a start.
For all it's faults, the European Parliament (elected using PR) is far
more responsive to well argued concerns of the electorate than most
others I know of - because they know that every vote counts.


I guess you didn't vote Brexit, then.


I doubt if anyone with an IQ above room temperature did.
Sadly, there are a lot of gullible fools - some even in government.
Our unelected Prime Minister is rushing to pull the trigger before
even starting negotiations on what will follow, despite it being
perfectly obvious that 2 years (the maximum time after invoking
article 50 for the exit to take place) is nowhere near long enough to
untangle the interdependence, never mind build some trade
relationships and agreements to follow it.


So you are calling THE MAJORITY of your countrymen stupid? After some of your comments here I could have predicted that.
  #307  
Old December 25th 16, 07:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default 3 feet in 50 years?!?

On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 3:13:43 AM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote:
Radey Shouman considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016
22:31:11 -0500 the perfect time to write:

Phil Lee writes:

Radey Shouman considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016
15:39:15 -0500 the perfect time to write:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 12/22/2016 10:54 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 10:29:46 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:


But CO2 is not tobacco, there are no CO2 non-smokers, unless they live
deep in the jungle and shoot all strangers with poison arrows. The sad
fact is that CO2 regulations are probably good for Exxon's business,
trying to cut CO2 has led to an *increase* in natural gas use, for
peaking power plants, at the expense of coal, which is used for base
load. Coal is still needed, of course, to make steel for all those huge
offshore wind turbines. It's quite likely that they have led to a net
increase in total CO2 emmissions.

Very doubtful, at least in the U.S.

If you want to restrict your measurement to one country it's easy to
reduce CO2 -- Germany has no doubt reduced its emissions for electric
generation, but by putting a lot of the burden of power peaking on its
neighbors. But I thought it was *global* warming we were worried about.

The UK now uses very little coal - much has been replaced with carbon
neutral woodchip fuel for the same generating stations,


That "carbon neutral" woodchip fuel is a massive and unconscionable
scam. A lot of it is logged in the US, and would otherwise be lumber or
left as trees, then it is shipped across the Atlantic in fossil-fueled
vessels. It's as pointlessly destructive to the environment as the
ethanol subsidies in the US.

I'd understood that most of it came from the by-product of lumber -
all the bits of wood that are too small or otherwise unsuitable for
traditional uses.
That said, conversion to woodchip is only an interim measure to keep
the lights on while genuinely (local) renewables are developed.

and wind and
solar are still growing fast. We haven't even really started on the
carbon neutral source with the greatest and most predictable capacity
of all - tidal power - although several experiments are underway to
find the most efficient way of using it without damaging the very
environment we are trying to protect. All that stands in the way are
the puppets of the fossil fuel industry, who will be brought down in
time, when their funding runs out, and they lose the ability to buy
governments and "news" programming (like faux news and the Murderoch
rags)


Good luck with the tidal power (really). Running equipment in the ocean
is tough, and no one has made much of a success of tidal power yet. If
they do, I have to wonder what sort of damage the alteration of ocean
currents will cause.


The scale would never be large enough to damage the big ocean
currents.
As for running equipment in a hostile environment, we've been doing
that for millennia. It's not hard, it's just different.
The biggest source of delay is the endless arguments over the most
efficient way to convert water movement into electrical power.
To which of course the answer is "who cares, as long as you get on and
build some" The energy available from even a very slow tidal current
is enormous - it's proportional to the weight that's in motion, and
that is over a tonne per cubic metre (sal****er being more dense than
fresh). Comparing it with wind power is like comparing a solid fuel
stove to a nuclear power plant!

The first step of any rational divestment campaign, is boycott. A
few million people boycotting fossil fuels would really get the
attention of those greasy plutocrats. The fossil fuel industry will be
brought down when people stop buying their products, not before.


Some are doing that already, far more are avoiding investments in
them, which may be the more effective lever. Collapsing share prices
tend to make them sit up and take notice, and if the big companies in
the fossil fuel sector would just redirect their huge investment
potential towards renewables instead of yet more fossil fuels, we may
yet be able to let them survive.

First, the steel used for wind
turbines is a tiny portion of total steel production. Second, the
steel industry in the U.S. is mostly using mini-mills with electric
furnaces to re-melt scrap. Less than a third of U.S. made steel comes
from ore, and that industry uses only a tiny portion of the U.S. coal
production. Of course, like anything else electric, those electric
furnaces are ultimately powered more and more by natural gas.

Unfortunately, converting from one fossil fuel to another doesn't
change the carbon use much, if at all, despite being cleaner in terms
of other pollutants.
At least the natural gas plants can be run on bio-methane just as
easily as fossil gas, so can be converted with the addition of a
bio-gas digester. But you still need to get the gas to the generator,
so the digester needs to be somewhere on the existing pipeline network
and not too far from the sources of digestible raw materials (which
would mostly be farm waste).

Sure, much of the production of steel from ore has been offshored to
China, but it still requires large quantities of coal. Once again, the
*global* effect is what's alleged to be important.

Yet China is increasing it's use of carbon neutral power sources
faster than anywhere else on earth. Which may be why they can produce
the stuff cheaper!
The great thing about renewables is that they produce far cheaper
energy, once you get the infrastructure built.


That's actually true, the problem is availability. Under a rational
pricing regime you would have to install several times the expected
demand in solar or wind facilities in order to have a chance of not
falling short some of the time.

Only if you attempt to rely on the unreliable.
That's why funding a replacement for baseload is essential, and I
don't know anything that comes even close to tidal power in that
respect.

I'll believe in a renewable energy economy when I see renewable
infrastructure built with it.

Already happening.


Where? Give an example, please. Are wind turbines being installed
using electric vehicles?


Electric vehicles are becoming more and more common, and are used for
maintenance on quite a few solar farms, and our panels were installed
(although admittedly not delivered) without any use of infernal
combustion engines.

as well as Universities around the world. The pro-DDT writings (yes,
I'm changing pollutants) cited by Andre were done by a professor at my
alma matter while he was a professor (along with other notable
antics). EPA regulations, some of which implicate the global warming
"hoax" (e.g. the methane regulation) are the products of endless
public input, typically from industry-hired scientists and
environmental groups. There are legions of qualified scientists who
are capable of determining what is or is not a hoax.

To get way back to the original question, who determines who the
"qualified scientists" are? At some point, if we're going to have any
approximation to a democracy, the public have to have enough
understanding to make some guess as to who is trustworthy and who is
not.

the problem is, the vast majority of "the public" will always be
incapable of telling which scientists are trustworthy and which are
not. Most will not even try.

I guess that's an argument against democracy, then?

Well, it's certainly against the corrupt versions practiced in both
the UK and US at the moment, which seem to be designed to give the
appearance of democracy without actually following it's basic
principles.


Democracy has eventually failed every time it's been tried. As long as
that is remembered it might have a chance. Oddly it's not emphasized
much any more.


Another thing that is widely missed is just how many better (as well
as less destructive) uses crude oil has. It is a soup of very useful
chemicals, with an even wider variety of uses.

I wonder what future generations will think when they look back at the
late 20th and early 21st centuries and ask "what, you mean they just
BURNED it?"
I suspect their reaction will be like that of our current view of
ancient tribes just destroying things they didn't understand, and
we'll be the ones viewed as savages.


OK Phil, since you believe the world around you to be stupid beyond belief and yourself to be very smart why don't you tell us your local tides and the size of the installation that would deliver the 25 mw that the largest windmills presently do.
  #308  
Old December 25th 16, 07:35 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default 3 feet in 50 years?!?

On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 3:48:53 AM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 11:13:39 +0000, Phil Lee
wrote:

Radey Shouman considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016
22:31:11 -0500 the perfect time to write:

Phil Lee writes:

Radey Shouman considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016
15:39:15 -0500 the perfect time to write:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 12/22/2016 10:54 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 10:29:46 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:


But CO2 is not tobacco, there are no CO2 non-smokers, unless they live
deep in the jungle and shoot all strangers with poison arrows. The sad
fact is that CO2 regulations are probably good for Exxon's business,
trying to cut CO2 has led to an *increase* in natural gas use, for
peaking power plants, at the expense of coal, which is used for base
load. Coal is still needed, of course, to make steel for all those huge
offshore wind turbines. It's quite likely that they have led to a net
increase in total CO2 emmissions.

Very doubtful, at least in the U.S.

If you want to restrict your measurement to one country it's easy to
reduce CO2 -- Germany has no doubt reduced its emissions for electric
generation, but by putting a lot of the burden of power peaking on its
neighbors. But I thought it was *global* warming we were worried about.

The UK now uses very little coal - much has been replaced with carbon
neutral woodchip fuel for the same generating stations,

That "carbon neutral" woodchip fuel is a massive and unconscionable
scam. A lot of it is logged in the US, and would otherwise be lumber or
left as trees, then it is shipped across the Atlantic in fossil-fueled
vessels. It's as pointlessly destructive to the environment as the
ethanol subsidies in the US.

I'd understood that most of it came from the by-product of lumber -
all the bits of wood that are too small or otherwise unsuitable for
traditional uses.
That said, conversion to woodchip is only an interim measure to keep
the lights on while genuinely (local) renewables are developed.


When I worked in Indonesia there were freighter load after freighter
load of wood chips leaving on every tide. Straight from the forest to
the freighter.

I didn't work in that field but my understanding was that economically
it was cheaper to chip the lower grades of timber rather than milling
it.

and wind and
solar are still growing fast. We haven't even really started on the
carbon neutral source with the greatest and most predictable capacity
of all - tidal power - although several experiments are underway to
find the most efficient way of using it without damaging the very
environment we are trying to protect. All that stands in the way are
the puppets of the fossil fuel industry, who will be brought down in
time, when their funding runs out, and they lose the ability to buy
governments and "news" programming (like faux news and the Murderoch
rags)

Good luck with the tidal power (really). Running equipment in the ocean
is tough, and no one has made much of a success of tidal power yet. If
they do, I have to wonder what sort of damage the alteration of ocean
currents will cause.


The scale would never be large enough to damage the big ocean
currents.
As for running equipment in a hostile environment, we've been doing
that for millennia. It's not hard, it's just different.
The biggest source of delay is the endless arguments over the most
efficient way to convert water movement into electrical power.
To which of course the answer is "who cares, as long as you get on and
build some" The energy available from even a very slow tidal current
is enormous - it's proportional to the weight that's in motion, and
that is over a tonne per cubic metre (sal****er being more dense than
fresh). Comparing it with wind power is like comparing a solid fuel
stove to a nuclear power plant!

The first step of any rational divestment campaign, is boycott. A
few million people boycotting fossil fuels would really get the
attention of those greasy plutocrats. The fossil fuel industry will be
brought down when people stop buying their products, not before.


Some are doing that already, far more are avoiding investments in
them, which may be the more effective lever. Collapsing share prices
tend to make them sit up and take notice, and if the big companies in
the fossil fuel sector would just redirect their huge investment
potential towards renewables instead of yet more fossil fuels, we may
yet be able to let them survive.


First, the steel used for wind
turbines is a tiny portion of total steel production. Second, the
steel industry in the U.S. is mostly using mini-mills with electric
furnaces to re-melt scrap. Less than a third of U.S. made steel comes
from ore, and that industry uses only a tiny portion of the U.S. coal
production. Of course, like anything else electric, those electric
furnaces are ultimately powered more and more by natural gas.

Unfortunately, converting from one fossil fuel to another doesn't
change the carbon use much, if at all, despite being cleaner in terms
of other pollutants.
At least the natural gas plants can be run on bio-methane just as
easily as fossil gas, so can be converted with the addition of a
bio-gas digester. But you still need to get the gas to the generator,
so the digester needs to be somewhere on the existing pipeline network
and not too far from the sources of digestible raw materials (which
would mostly be farm waste).

Sure, much of the production of steel from ore has been offshored to
China, but it still requires large quantities of coal. Once again, the
*global* effect is what's alleged to be important.

Yet China is increasing it's use of carbon neutral power sources
faster than anywhere else on earth. Which may be why they can produce
the stuff cheaper!
The great thing about renewables is that they produce far cheaper
energy, once you get the infrastructure built.

That's actually true, the problem is availability. Under a rational
pricing regime you would have to install several times the expected
demand in solar or wind facilities in order to have a chance of not
falling short some of the time.

Only if you attempt to rely on the unreliable.
That's why funding a replacement for baseload is essential, and I
don't know anything that comes even close to tidal power in that
respect.

I'll believe in a renewable energy economy when I see renewable
infrastructure built with it.

Already happening.

Where? Give an example, please. Are wind turbines being installed
using electric vehicles?


Electric vehicles are becoming more and more common, and are used for
maintenance on quite a few solar farms, and our panels were installed
(although admittedly not delivered) without any use of infernal
combustion engines.

as well as Universities around the world. The pro-DDT writings (yes,
I'm changing pollutants) cited by Andre were done by a professor at my
alma matter while he was a professor (along with other notable
antics). EPA regulations, some of which implicate the global warming
"hoax" (e.g. the methane regulation) are the products of endless
public input, typically from industry-hired scientists and
environmental groups. There are legions of qualified scientists who
are capable of determining what is or is not a hoax.

To get way back to the original question, who determines who the
"qualified scientists" are? At some point, if we're going to have any
approximation to a democracy, the public have to have enough
understanding to make some guess as to who is trustworthy and who is
not.

the problem is, the vast majority of "the public" will always be
incapable of telling which scientists are trustworthy and which are
not. Most will not even try.

I guess that's an argument against democracy, then?

Well, it's certainly against the corrupt versions practiced in both
the UK and US at the moment, which seem to be designed to give the
appearance of democracy without actually following it's basic
principles.

Democracy has eventually failed every time it's been tried. As long as
that is remembered it might have a chance. Oddly it's not emphasized
much any more.


Another thing that is widely missed is just how many better (as well
as less destructive) uses crude oil has. It is a soup of very useful
chemicals, with an even wider variety of uses.

I wonder what future generations will think when they look back at the
late 20th and early 21st centuries and ask "what, you mean they just
BURNED it?"
I suspect their reaction will be like that of our current view of
ancient tribes just destroying things they didn't understand, and
we'll be the ones viewed as savages.

--
cheers,

John B.


20% of the Brazilian Rain Forest has been logged off and 150 acres every single day disappear under the machinery. This is the most important forest in the world and it is disappearing for fast that will will be beyond saving in short order.
  #309  
Old December 25th 16, 07:38 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 206
Default 3 feet in 50 years?!?


"Phil Lee" wrote in message ...

[snip]

I doubt if anyone with an IQ above room temperature did.


[imported from another reply]

If that's true please explain Brexit, the upcoming NLexit etc.


In a word, ignorance.


If that is what you truely think then I think you ought to consider your own IQ.

Mine is well above room temperature and possibly higher than yours as I suspect is that of many who voted Brexit. It is your own elitest liberal arrogance that spawned Brexit and Trump. Something I would have hoped to avoid and possibly could have had it not been for guys like you. If you cannot see why then your IQ is not as high as you think!!!!

Graham.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

  #310  
Old December 25th 16, 07:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default 3 feet in 50 years?!?

On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-8, Graham wrote:
"Phil Lee" wrote in message ...

[snip]

I doubt if anyone with an IQ above room temperature did.


[imported from another reply]

If that's true please explain Brexit, the upcoming NLexit etc.


In a word, ignorance.


If that is what you truely think then I think you ought to consider your own IQ.

Mine is well above room temperature and possibly higher than yours as I suspect is that of many who voted Brexit. It is your own elitest liberal arrogance that spawned Brexit and Trump. Something I would have hoped to avoid and possibly could have had it not been for guys like you. If you cannot see why then your IQ is not as high as you think!!!!


I've enough Irish in me that Phil would only say that once around me. When he returned from hospital he would be a great deal more careful with his words.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another one six feet under Judith in England[_2_] UK 15 July 3rd 13 04:02 PM
Where do you put your feet? snowkel Unicycling 1 June 27th 08 01:34 PM
Where do you put your feet? kokomo Unicycling 0 June 27th 08 06:49 AM
Where do you put your feet? kerosian Unicycling 0 June 27th 08 04:03 AM
how big are your feet? thinuniking Unicycling 13 June 5th 04 11:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.