[fizzissist]

....and speaking of pure profit.....your good buddy AlGore makes the news again....

Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month
Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations

"...In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria. ...."

http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/arti...article_id=764

Doesn't Gore have interest in an old mine too? Oh yeah...the zinc mine...

"Then there is the Gore zinc mine. Mr. Gore has personally earned $570,000 in zinc royalties from a mine his father bought in 1973 from Armand Hammer, the business executive famous for his close friendship with the Soviet Union and for pleading guilty to making illegal campaign contributions during Watergate. On the same day Al Gore Sr. bought the 88-acre parcel from Hammer for $160,000, he sold the land and subsurface mining rights to his then 25-year-old son for $140,000. The mineral rights were then leased back to Hammer's Occidental Petroleum and the royalty payments put in the names of Al Gore Jr. and his wife, Tipper."

[handlewanker]

Yeah Fizzwizz, you gotta be in it to win it.
I wouldn't deny Al Gore his right to "maka da money", or his right to buy all the energy he requires, when it's rationed that's a different matter.
Uno Hoo.

[Geof]

Here you are, a bunch more reading out of Jolly Old Blighty.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...arbon_free_uk/

Nice to know that for the past two years or so I have been on the same wavelength as a Cambridge physics prof; he just has more free time than me to dig up numbers.

[TomB]

Here you are, a bunch more reading out of Jolly Old Blighty.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...arbon_free_uk/

.

Excellent material. It is so refreshing to see somebody else that really does the numbers. In the whole sequence I can only comment on one point and that is not to disagree but to extend. At one point while introducing the idea of nuclear he makes the point that nuclear is not infinitely dangerous and then he compares it to mining danger.

I think that nuclear reactors were at one time much more dangerous than mining, i.e. they put whole communities at risk and not just the underground miners. However, next generation reactors, so called Generation IV reactors are no more like the early ones than a modern car is like a Model T. Both boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors use Graphite moderators and will fail catastrophically if the core is not submerged. A high temperature gas cooled reactor like the S. African Pebble Bed Reactor will simply stop if it gets to hot. The kinds of accidents we all watched at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were failures of water cooling and were actually or potentially more serious that most coal mining accidents. (I know no radiation escaped Three Mile Island so the safety design worked but it could have been very bad with one or two more failures. Also I don’t want to offend any one from any place that has lost a miner. At a personal level it hurts but I can remember only one coal mining accident that wiped out a community, the recent mine flooding in China.) If future reactor builds use the Generation IV cores (and there are several designs) then the major risk for nuclear reactors will be eliminated. Then I think their risk will be below that of other industrial processes in modern western countries.

What I worry about is that our fear of nuclear will cause industry and regulators to do another generation of the same-old, same-old while saying the new digital control room fixes the risk. Both parties are very likely to argue that public fear dictates we need to do what we have the most experience with and that inertia will force use to stay with the inherently more dangerous water cooling designs.

Tom B

[tobyaxis]

The only thing that will stop Global Warming is to get rid of all Modern Day Machines and go back to Horses, Buggies, and Sail Boats. Anyone remember the 1700 and 1800's ???????

Even then the population of the World would have to be reduced by at least 1/3 or more.

IMPO

[handlewanker]

Carefull Toby, they'll accuse you of being a realist.

I think we have to forget that we have the present use of free fossil fuel from the Cornucopia, and in reality recost the whole infrastructure of human endeavour on the basis of "work for the energy dollar" using a low yield energy source that will be rationed.

Probably that will clean up the atmosphere and then if the volcanoes and forest fires stop happening everything in the garden will be rosy, horses can eat hay harvested from fields plowed by horses and we'll soon be back to the stone age living in simple stone huts using simple wooden tools and eating out of simple wooden bowls, so environmentally friendly.

But only if we can stop the global warming scenario which some say is overdue, and with it the coming ice age again.

One goes with the other, if the conveyor belt is interupted in any way we can look forward to many white Christmasses to come. Ho Ho Ho.
Ian.

[Geof]

.....Even then the population of the World would have to be reduced by at least 1/3 or more.

IMPO

That is the scary part.

Did you read the full test of the article in 'theregister'?

I was thinking about it over the weekend: He does explain some technically feasible ways of providing enough energy without using fossil fuels, but when you consider the scale of infrastructure involved, everyone would be fully occupied building and maintaining the 'renewable energy' machines, nobody would be able to use all this abundant energy making the type of consumer goods and preparing the wide range of foods we take for granted.

It is a bit "Alice In The Looking Glass" where the Red Queen says; " No dear you have to run this fast just to stand still; if you want to get anywhere you must run twice as fast."

Subsistence technology!

[handlewanker]

Having read the account from The Register, it would seem that the figures account for the energy needs from ten or twenty years back, whereas the energy needs for ten or twenty years hence will pale into insignificence when it's the food supply that will knock down most grandiose plans.

The population growth, and anyone who thinks that population is "just moving around" and not increasing is blind, will soak up any meagre energy production figures dreamed up at this moment in time.

One thing puzzles me, importing energy from desert regions where sunlight prolificates and transporting it by HVDC to UK and elsewhere, how are you going to pay for it, seeing as your present manufacturing cost stucture is based upon energy derived from free in the ground oil pools.

As soon as the oil is gone so do all the figures, and trying to base your economy on sustainable energy is like trying to get bread crumbs out of a bag to feed the hungry.

I don't suppose for one moment that energy rationing will be in the pipeline, that is the needs of the many will be relegated to the back burner by the needs of the few.

It would be interesting to know actually how many megawatts of electricity are used on a day to day basis on average, using present manufacturing methods and public domestic demands, such as just getting up and boiling the millions of kettles when Coronation Street makes a break. Does this take into account the millions of kettles heated on gas stoves too? Would banning Coronation Street solve the energy crisis?

At the end of the day it will be the Governments responsibility to ensure the lights stay on and the gas and water flows.

All the population are interested in is if the TV lights up or the toilet flushes and is the pub going to be open later, all else is the governments responsibility, and if they want to stay in power that is how it will be.

Who cares if the nukes prolificate, that is something you will be born with and get used to, like in the old days having a large gasometer down the road that stores coalgas for the cooking stoves and gas heaters, just part of the environment.

The equation is balanced on a knife edge, with the figures generated, when all it takes is a few degrees colder and longer during winter to make the energy demands skyrocket.

It will take a thousand years to stop global warming, and that will lead to consequences that at best are hypothesis and guesswork, why a thousand years? Because you aren't going to live for a thousand years and so the results of preventing global warming are pure guesswork and at best ineffectual. Vested interests will determine which methods produce the best returns.

In the meantime lip service will be paid to all measures bordering on the lessening of the comfort zone, and the most effective method will be a tightening of the belt as the services become more expensive to produce.
Uno Hoo.

[cxevalo]

Here is the way to solve the energy crises. Algae ponds. From
what i have found from multiple sources on the net algae can
produce 10000 gallons of biodiesel per acre per year, under the
right conditions. It is clamed that an area the size of Maryland would be enough to supply the US need for sometime.

One of the right conditions is an increase in
the CO2 in the growth media. It turns out that one of the nicest sources of CO2 is a brewery. So you put breweries next to the algae ponds and there you go.

Can one of you that are handy with numbers calculate how much ale and lager we will each have to consume to keep the breweries open? ( all in the name of supporting energy production, a heroic sacrifice but we can do it)

cheers, and pass the pretzels

[handlewanker]

I'm working on a secret project breeding "electric" eals.
When I get them big enough I'm gonna harness them to my power supply and then get them to charge all my batteries up, only takes a bit of feeding on cheap grub to keep them happy.
Uno Hoo.

[Bill Johns]

This one is easy, eliminate all jet and turbine engines. And the artificial clouds they make will no longer be. And the fallacy of global warming will fade. All aircraft need to be powered by more effcient engines, that don't run a non intermittent cycle like turbines do.

[Mariss Freimanis]

It seems the thinking is there are warehouses full of "more efficient engines" and "alternate energy power plants" that only need to be pulled out of stock and put into use. Going with that thinking is Patent Office is stacked floor to ceiling with marvelous alternate energy inventions that have been bought-up and suppressed by evil energy corporations. Finally, there is the belief some lone-wolf inventor working in his garage can come up with an invention that will give 400 MPG from your car using a secret mixture of gerbil urine, sunflower seeds and butter-glazed croissants.

It won't happen folks; our civilization run on oil. Solar power, algae, ethanol, wind farms, biomass compost heaps, hydrogen and cold fusion cannot even put a dent in our energy needs let alone replace them. We completely run on oil.

Nuclear fission energy is the only contender and even it is flawed. Uranium 235 is a very rare isotope that would run out before oil does should we depend on it for energy.

Global Warming is an unneeded idiocy that has been foisted on us. It makes utilization of our current fossil fuel resources less efficient than it would be otherwise. "Alternate Energy" is another one; pursuing the pot of gold at the end of that rainbow absorbs resources out of proportion for any reasonable expected return.

What we need to do is drill for more oil and use the abundant coal we have. Burn fossil fuels full tilt until physics and engineering delivers on the promise of fusion energy one day. There is no downside; global warming doesn't exist and "alternate energy" is a dead end not worth investing another penny.

Of course this won't happen. We have a populace largely ignorant of science, economics and hard realities. We believe wishing commands things to come true. Wish for a gentle, eco-sensitive and renewable energy source and it must appear. If it doesn't, then we aren't wishing hard enough or the lazy scientists aren't try hard enough or some evil corporate cabal is suppressing it. Most don't understand it took 175 years of hard work to develop our oil-driven civilization and therefore cannot comprehend the enormous effort it will take to generate a viable successor.

Mariss

[dynosor]

We believe wishing commands things to come true.

The only thing worse than wishing is to command invention by means of legislation. "Make laws and they will have to comply". Even if you dare ignore political silliness, you cannot disobey the laws of nature.

[skippy]

I don`t know why you guys are even participating in this thread as you all made it very clear in the other thread that, like Mariss said, G/W isn't happening, Al Gore is a fake and the whole world is wrong because you know better and this is one big conn. The other thing I don't understand is that we've had various threads on this subject and more keep poppping up. Don't like Handlewanker's comments so we start again? Guess what, he's still here.

Geof, the article from The Register, well what can I say. Have you seen the Sunday morning papers in the UK? "Boy abducted by alien", "13 year old's love child", etc. In between this sort of thing and blaming Brussels for everything that's wrong...... Strange thing is that if they hadn't joined the EU they would have gone down the gurgler long ago.

[Geof]

I don`t know why you guys are even participating in this thread.......

It stops me wasting time watching television.

......Geof, the article from The Register, well what can I say. Have you seen the Sunday morning papers in the UK? "Boy abducted by alien", "13 year old's love child",....

13 year old's love child I will believe, it is biologically possible.

Being abducted by aliens is about as difficult to believe as the idea that anything could be done to significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels without totally destroying our economy, and current civilization. Although I suppose over a period of 175 years with hard work it could happen in an orderly fashion.

Read "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman. http://www.worldwithoutus.com/index2.html

[Mariss Freimanis]

skippy,

You are making an 'ad verecundiam' argument.

Mariss

[OffshoreRacer]

An interesting article on global temperature trends....... http://www.factsandarts.com/articles...ng-since-1995/

[TOTALLYRC]

Regardless of what people think about reducing our dependance on oil won't be easy.
Much less doing away with it completly.
Even if we all could drive with a zero energy cost tommorrow, it is impossible to fly a modern commercial aircraft on any of the alternatives in the forseable future. Can you imagine what would happen to the food chain if that much foodstuffs were diverted to bio fuels. Bio fuels are already raising the cost of corn and other foodstuffs.
Not to mention lubricants and plastics and all the other stuff that is petrolum based.

As for 400mpg motors or carbs, lets not forget about the laws of physics. I don't remember enough of my chemistry class, but based on the ~50% efficency of an interanl combustion engine and the fact there are only so many BTU's per gallon of whatever you want to burn, 400mpg is silly. Even 50mpg in a 4klb vehicle with a realistic shape is impossible/impractical.

If tommorrow, there was a major breakthru in solar panels, taking them to 95% efficency, just think of the petroleum needed to make them, transport them, wire them, and of course replace them. It isn't well known but when you figure how much money you will save with solar panels, they don't tell you that they have limited life span( 20 years if I remember). Then it is more petroleum to replace them.

As a good way to reduce the amount of power consumtion that is warming the earth (cough) lets have all the leaders of the global warming movement reduce their fossil fuel consumption to zero. Do this on a budget that the average income could support. Get back to me and show me the way.

On the poulation front, which by the way the btu's given off by 6+ billion people can't be ignored, I remember when there was only 5 billion people on this earth, now the figures are 6 billion +. Of course you need to believe the figures.
I think we will run out of food, before we run out of oil, so global warming won't be a problem as everyone starves.
Mike

[handlewanker]

Five billion or six billion, I just hope we don't at some moment in time all breathe in at the same time.

BtW, what did we do before the mighty oil took us into seventh heaven?

One thing's for sure, nobody is going to want to walk any distance like they used to do in the old days, so I supose if the oil suddenly stopped flowing tomorrow, it would be the next best alternative, just like it always was, be it wind power, wave power or any other form of labour saving energy producer, anything goes when the Devil drives.

I wonder what the future for air travel will be when the fuel becomes so scarce that it's not feasible to fly by big fuel guzzling heavier than air monster carriers, probably be a way back for the airship running on electric power.
Ian.

[TOTALLYRC]

Five billion or six billion, I just hope we don't at some moment in time all breathe in at the same time.

BtW, what did we do before the mighty oil took us into seventh heaven?

One thing's for sure, nobody is going to want to walk any distance like they used to do in the old days, so I supose if the oil suddenly stopped flowing tomorrow, it would be the next best alternative, just like it always was, be it wind power, wave power or any other form of labour saving energy producer, anything goes when the Devil drives.

I wonder what the future for air travel will be when the fuel becomes so scarce that it's not feasible to fly by big fuel guzzling heavier than air monster carriers, probably be a way back for the airship running on electric power.
Ian.

Before almighty oil took us to seventh heaven, there were a lot less of us.
We also didn't have electric lights and my grand Father told us of how 100 people used to dig ditches, now 1 machine does it in a fraction of the time.
As far as airplane propulsion goes my money is on a breakthru on either battery storage capacity or nuclear electric driving large brushless or ac motors. Imagine how the enviromentalists would feel. They would complain and complain but still would get on the airplane if it meant the option was to give up their vacation.
Electric brushless already works on rc models and somebody is flying a full scale single seater on electric power. It will just need a 1000 fold increase in storage capacity for the same weight as current lipo batteries.

If we coorindinated our breathing we could drive all the wind turbines in the world