Eco - windmills ... (bit OT)

[Jim Yanik]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in
news:iijjcj$6fs$1@news.eternal-september.org:

I'm not buying the idea that humans can have an effect
on global climate. (aside from a major nuclear war...)

Small changes over a long period of time can have a big effect.


then I REALLY get creeped out when people start talking
about lowering the world population. For that, They Go First;
they can set us an example, show us how truly caring they
are about it.

Fact: There are too many people. If population continues to grow
unchecked, "something" will eventually happen to reduce it -- global
war, starvation, economic collapse, perhaps things we haven't
anticipated. THE EARTH DOES NOT HAVE AN UNLIMITED CARRYING CAPACITY.
We can choose to do something rational about it -- or ignore it.

our "carrying capacity" would be better if many countries didn't have bad
governments and waste their nation's wealth and resources.

One way to have fewer people is to give birth to fewer people. This is
generally happening in developed countries -- which is fortunate,
because people with high standards of living tend to use too much
energy and consume too many natural resources.

So what? those people also PRODUCE more.
If you want to lower YOUR standard of living,go right ahead.
Don't expect me to lower mine over your ridiculous assumptions.

Something needs to be done about developing countries. You've seen the
ads asking you to send money to help starving children who have only
feces-laden water to drink. I'm certain most of the agencies trying to
help the poor are sincere and doing the best job they can.

These ads are about "death control" -- keeping people healthy and
alive, when they otherwise might have died. But you never see anything
about "birth control". If poor people want medical assistance, they
should have to pay for it -- by practicing birth control. If they
refuse to, then they don't get help -- and they and their children
die. You can consciously practice birth control with contraception --
or you can let nature do it, with disease and death. Make your choice.

The thing that makes human beings distinct from other animals is that
we can drastically manipulate our environment to provide enough
nutrition to produce a seemingly unlimited number of additional people
-- which is largely what we've done since the invention of agriculture
and animal husbandry. * We KNOW we will eventually reach the point
where there will be too many people to feed. At some point, human
beings -- in all countries, at all economic levels -- need to be
FORCED to have fewer children. Enough fewer, so that global population
begins to decline.

You don't want me to take away people's freedom to destroy themselves?
Fine. On a certain level, I really don't care. The world doesn't need
"the damned human race".

it doesn't need your wacky beliefs either.

* Aboriginal Americans are a good example of people who /did not/ live
this way.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[Jim Yanik]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in
news:iijk25$8sa$1@news.eternal-september.org:

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:ljfpk619pdh7ikkd4jdfuhrne50o93hf9v@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:45:42 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

It doesn't matter whether or
not the rise in CO2 is the cause of warming.

Sure it does. No problem can be solved without first finding at least
one culprit to blame. Once the causes/culprits/conspirators/etc are
identified, we can then move forward towards a solution.
Unfortunately, most of the energy "solutions" offered are variations
on either austerity programs, genocide, redistribution of wealth, or
indirect self-enrichment.

I hope that's a joke.

You expect "the market" -- which is driven more by profit than
altruism -- to provide a useful solution?

Yes,as it usually DOES provide solutions.
It's certain austerity programs and "redistribution" schemes don't.
They just make things worse.

Where do you come off claiming most of the solutions involve
"austerity programs, genocide, [or] redistribution of wealth". (I'm
not sure what you mean by "indirect self-enrichment". Dale Gribble
selling carbon offsets?) How does the gradual replacement of
carbon-producing energy sources with carbon-neutral or low-carbon
sources induce "austerity" or "genocide"?


Nobody has an easy answer to the energy problem that will scale well
and satisfy everyone's requirements. That means that the status quo
will remain until the day we run out of oil.

Which is what the oil companies want. Why should we give into them,
when there /are/ solutions?

What's this "we" nonsense? "We" use what resources we have until better
ones prove practical and are accepted by the free market,not by forcing
"solutions" on people,that turn out to be regressive and counterproductive.
(like MBTE,ethanol)

you must be a socialist/communist.
there's always some folks who think they know better how everybody else
should live.

We've also been here before. During the 17th century, England had an
energy crisis of sorts when it ran out of wood, which was needed for
ship construction and heating. That's when the 14th century ban on
coal burning was magically lifted and England switched to coal.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/offbeat-news/environmentalism-in-1
306/
725
I suspect something similar will happen with nuclear power. When the
demand appears, the "problems" with nuclear will magically disappear.

They apparently already have. See...

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

Of course, very little is being done about it.

BECAUSE of gov't restictions,manipulation of the free market forces.

But it remains that nuclear,solar,wind,geothermal electric sources are
STILL no practical replacement for petroleum powered autos and small
trucks.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[William Sommerwerck]

One way to have fewer people is to give birth to fewer people.
This is generally happening in developed countries -- which is
fortunate, because people with high standards of living tend
to use too much energy and consume too many natural resources.

So what? those people also PRODUCE more.
If you want to lower YOUR standard of living,go right ahead.
Don't expect me to lower mine over your ridiculous assumptions.

Ridiculous? Fewer people --> less demand for everything --> less need to
produce things

You don't want me to take away people's freedom to destroy themselves?
Fine. On a certain level, I really don't care. The world doesn't need
"the damned human race".

it doesn't need your wacky beliefs either.

Wacky? There's nothing wacky about common sense. You need to do some
thinking...

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Of course, very little is being done about it.

BECAUSE of gov't restictions,manipulation of the free market forces.

Uh, huh. The free-market forces you praise -- which work very well in the
short term -- will almost always produce long-term results that benefit only
business.

 

[Jeffrey Angus]

On 2/5/2011 12:56 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

Uh, huh. The free-market forces you praise -- which work very
well in the short term -- will almost always produce long-term
results that benefit only business.

Uh, William, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work.

Jeff

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Uh, huh. The free-market forces you praise -- which work very
well in the short term -- will almost always produce long-term
results that benefit only business.

Uh, William, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work.

Where does that leave the consumer?

I'm not in this world to make someone else rich.

 

[Jim Yanik]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in
news:iik6d5$cg6$1@news.eternal-september.org:

One way to have fewer people is to give birth to fewer people.
This is generally happening in developed countries -- which is
fortunate, because people with high standards of living tend
to use too much energy and consume too many natural resources.

So what? those people also PRODUCE more.
If you want to lower YOUR standard of living,go right ahead.
Don't expect me to lower mine over your ridiculous assumptions.

Ridiculous? Fewer people --> less demand for everything --> less need to
produce things


You don't want me to take away people's freedom to destroy themselves?
Fine. On a certain level, I really don't care. The world doesn't need
"the damned human race".

it doesn't need your wacky beliefs either.

Wacky? There's nothing wacky about common sense. You need to do some
thinking...

US GNP is higher than other nations because we produce so much,which is why
we use so much energy.

YOU need to do some learning.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[Jim Yanik]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in
news:iik8kf$l79$1@news.eternal-september.org:

Uh, huh. The free-market forces you praise -- which work very
well in the short term -- will almost always produce long-term
results that benefit only business.

As if "business" is some enemy of the people.. they provide goods and
services that the people want and consume.
Businesses are owned either by private citizens or
stockholders(IOW,citizens)Businesses are -US-,not some enemy.That's your
socialism poking it's ugly head again.
Otherwise,they'd be OUT of business. (unless propped up by socialism;then
they become antiquated and wasteful)

Uh, William, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work.

Where does that leave the consumer?

I'm not in this world to make someone else rich.

I doubt YOU are making anyone "rich".


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[Jim Yanik]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in
news:iik6i0$d48$1@news.eternal-september.org:

Of course, very little is being done about it.

BECAUSE of gov't restictions,manipulation of the free market forces.

Uh, huh. The free-market forces you praise -- which work very well in
the short term -- will almost always produce long-term results that
benefit only business.

Which benefits everybody;jobs,higher standard of living,higher tax revenues
for gov't to spend/waste. When business suffers,people suffer.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Uh, huh. The free-market forces you praise -- which work very
well in the short term -- will almost always produce long-term
results that benefit only business.

As if "business" is some enemy of the people.

It often is. You know little about history.

They provide goods and
services that the people want and consume.
Businesses are owned either by private citizens or
stockholders(IOW,citizens)Businesses are -US-,not some enemy.That's your
socialism poking its ugly head again.
Otherwise,they'd be OUT of business. (unless propped up by socialism;then
they become antiquated and wasteful).

You just don't understand, do you?

 

[Arfa Daily]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iijne2$joj$1@news.eternal-september.org...

Small changes over a long period of time can have a big effect.

Maybe, but the climate change scientists would have us believe
that we are causing all this in but a few years ...

There has been a gradual warming since the Industrial Age. The apparently
"sudden" change is supposedly due to a "tip over" effect.

That sounds like a high priest of MMGW's invention to make the facts fit the
model ...

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iijki7$ac5$1@news.eternal-september.org...

But I think that he was missing the point completely. He failed to
understand that it has become a religion, with its own mantras, and its
high
priests are in fact very vocal at every opportunity, appearing on TV,
radio
and in newspapers just about every day. They have this attitude of 'we're
right so you must be wrong', which is forced down the public's throat
continuously, through the media, and all this legislation which is
depriving
us of 'comfort' items like incandescent light bulbs, and stopping our
waste
bins from being emptied every week, and stopping the local tips from
taking
any rubbish that they don't consider to be recyclable and so on. I think
what we are actually starting to see is a backlash from the public at
having
their lives interfered with continuously, and they see this as a result
of
the preachings of the scientists.

But what does that have to do with whether the scientists are right?
Science
is not "supposed" to be about what people -- especially the public --
thinks, or would like to think.

It's true that scientists are only slightly less irrational than your
average idiot. That doesn't mean they're wrong, or that it's a bad idea to
use less energy or recycle waste.

You too, appear to miss the point of what I was saying ...

Arfa

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 01:42:53 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
<arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Wind
turbines take a lot of manufacturing, shipping, installing and maintenance,
all of which uses very substantial amounts of energy, and the returns from
them are very small at best.

Well, when there's no wind, other uses for the device can be found;
<http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/01/base-jumping-off-wind-turbines-is-insane-video.php>


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[John Robertson]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:ljfpk619pdh7ikkd4jdfuhrne50o93hf9v@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:45:42 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

It doesn't matter whether or
not the rise in CO2 is the cause of warming.

Sure it does. No problem can be solved without first finding at least
one culprit to blame. Once the causes/culprits/conspirators/etc are
identified, we can then move forward towards a solution.
Unfortunately, most of the energy "solutions" offered are variations
on either austerity programs, genocide, redistribution of wealth, or
indirect self-enrichment.

....


Nobody has an easy answer to the energy problem that will scale well
and satisfy everyone's requirements. That means that the status quo
will remain until the day we run out of oil.

Which is what the oil companies want. Why should we give into them, when
there /are/ solutions?
...

You know, all oil companies are publicly owned, which means if you want
to be heard by them you need to only buy stock in the company. All
companies are required to make a profit - but oil (or any company) can
be directed by the shareholders on how that profit is generated.

Note that I do not hold any shares in any oil companies that I am aware
of - no prospectus is mailed to me each year from my mutual fund
management company - but I am thinking of buying a few shares so I have
a voice there...you only need one share after all!

John :-#)#

--
(Please post followups or tech enquiries to the newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
Call (604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 05:40:56 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:ljfpk619pdh7ikkd4jdfuhrne50o93hf9v@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:45:42 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

It doesn't matter whether or
not the rise in CO2 is the cause of warming.

Sure it does. No problem can be solved without first finding at least
one culprit to blame. Once the causes/culprits/conspirators/etc are
identified, we can then move forward towards a solution.
Unfortunately, most of the energy "solutions" offered are variations
on either austerity programs, genocide, redistribution of wealth, or
indirect self-enrichment.

I hope that's a joke.

I wish it were a joke. I've seen assignment of the blame take
precedence over a suitable solution enough times to make me suspect
that it's some component of human nature or element of bureaucracy.
Global warming is one of the best examples. The ratio of publications
dedicated to assigning the blame, versus investigating a solution, is
rather high. I recall watching a panel on TV, that was allegedly
looking into solutions for global warming. A few minutes were devoted
to several grandiose schemes, but the majority of the show was again
an attempt to fix the blame on everything from bovine flatulence to
industrialization. This was packaged as an attempt to "explain" how
global warming works, but was really a poorly disguised blame game.

You expect "the market" -- which is driven more by profit than altruism --
to provide a useful solution?

You expect the government, which is driven more by establishing and
growing a power base, than doing anything useful for its constituents,
to provide a useful solution?

Ok, answering a question with a question is not really an answer, but
I couldn't resist. Lacking any better alternatives, I do think the
market will save our collective posteriors once again as it has
countless times in the past. I'll spare you the standard lecture on
greed and need. Suffice to say that if we run out of fossil fuels,
numerous enterprising entrepreneurs will provide a variety of
alternatives. The winners will be what the consumer buys, not what
the government mandates. I have a wild enough imagination to suggest
many alternatives, none of them ideal, but all of them better than not
having any sources of usable energy. And yes, they will be dirty,
have numerous side effects, probably pollute the hell out of some
corner of the planet, and possibly even kill a few early adopters, but
it will work and sell.

Where do you come off claiming most of the solutions involve "austerity
programs, genocide, [or] redistribution of wealth". (I'm not sure what you
mean by "indirect self-enrichment". Dale Gribble selling carbon offsets?)

Austerity programs are those that offer either a penalty for over-use,
or an incentive or subsidy for switching to alternatives. Neither
method will survive for long. Subsidizing solar installations is fine
for the short term, but cannot be supported for maybe a few more years
as solar adoption grows. All incentives seem to do is accelerate the
process of adoption. If you want real accelerated conversion, just
watch what happens when you run out of oil or turn off the
electricity.

Genocide has been mentioned in this thread. It's more politically
correct packaged as "population reduction" or "birth control". Judging
by the increasing world population, neither is working. Eventually,
someone is going to implement a short cut, and that's genocide.

Redistribution of wealth is simply taxes. At this time, taxes are a
big chunk of the cost of gasoline. In California, it's about
$0.40/gallon, which sells for about $3.20/gallon. There are
"conservation" solutions advocated that would provide a counter
incentive to consumption by taxing the hell out of gasoline, while
using the revenue to fund "research" into alternatives. This might
actually work, if the "research" offered any worthwhile solutions to
investigate.

I don't really know much about selling carbon credits. My premature
conclusion is that it's a great way for high consumption countries and
industries to continue belching greenhouse gasses.

How does the gradual replacement of carbon-producing energy sources with
carbon-neutral or low-carbon sources induce "austerity" or "genocide"?

<http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/post-hoc/>
There's no connection. I've already covered austerity and genocide.
Which low carbon sources are you suggesting? None of the major
alternatives offered (except nuclear) will scale to the current
consumption levels. Hydrogen is a bad joke. Compare costs. If we
don't change consumption, and simply replace coal fired generation
with solar, the resultant electricity will optimistically cost 5 times
as much. Can you say "redistribution of wealth"?

Some relative costs of generation:
<http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/>

Nobody has an easy answer to the energy problem that will scale well
and satisfy everyone's requirements. That means that the status quo
will remain until the day we run out of oil.

Which is what the oil companies want. Why should we give into them, when
there /are/ solutions?

That is what the people (consumers) also want. Nobody is going to
adopt a more expensive or inconvenient solution until they're force to
do so. Price and profit drives the market, not a fiat decision by the
oil cartels. To be fair, they're trying to stretch the supply as long
as possible, and delay the inevitable oil wars, where the consuming
countries do battle over what's left. Need a really great incentive?
Just start another war over oil.

We've also been here before. During the 17th century, England had an
energy crisis of sorts when it ran out of wood, which was needed for
ship construction and heating. That's when the 14th century ban on
coal burning was magically lifted and England switched to coal.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/offbeat-news/environmentalism-in-1306/725>\

Comments? It's a perfect example of running out of an energy
producing resource and substituting a not so convenient and more dirty
alternative. We've done it once before and will do it again.

Incidentally, the English crown did a land grab of most of the forests
in England in order to insure that there would be enough big trees
needed for ship building. Meanwhile, the peasants froze during the
worst part of the little ice age. We're going to have more of the
same when we run out of oil.

I suspect something similar will happen with nuclear power. When the
demand appears, the "problems" with nuclear will magically disappear.

They apparently already have. See...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Yep. I like pebble bed reactors. Obviously, I have had no experience
with one, but from what I read, they seem a good solution. The rest
is politics and perception. Perception is the big problem. Like
dirty coal in 17th century England, nuclear is perceived as being
inherently dangerous and polluting. The perception will need to
change before there's going to be any wide spread conversion. My
guess is that the 3rd world countries will lead the conversion,
leaving the major powers behind.

Of course, very little is being done about it.

Yep, because there's little (financial) incentive to do anything
different at this time. I got a good hint in 1974, when I decided
that the energy crisis of 73-74 would produce a market for a better
electric vehicle. So, I designed and partially built what I
considered to be a better machine. There was considerable interest
until the day the Arabs turned the oil back on, when all interest
evaporated. Lesson learned... nobody wants a solution to a
non-existent problem.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 11:32:03 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

Uh, huh. The free-market forces you praise -- which work very
well in the short term -- will almost always produce long-term
results that benefit only business.

Uh, William, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work.

Where does that leave the consumer?
I'm not in this world to make someone else rich.

Invest in business. Why remain a victim when you can join the
exploiters?

I got the clue in 73-74 when the Arabs turned off the oil and we had
an energy crisis. The press was full of conspiracy theories
suggesting that the evil oil companies were conspiring to raise prices
and soak the public. So, I investigated the owners of the major oil
companies and found (for example) that the largest stockholder in
Standard Oil was the Chicago school teachers retirement fund. Somehow,
I had a difficult time believing that they would force Standard Oil
management to precipitate an energy crisis in order to increase their
profits.

The problem was that the very consumers that were complaining about
the availability, and later the price, of gasoline would not allow
Standard Oil to sell gas for less than its cost. They were
stockholders and they needed to make a profit on the stock. So,
Standard Oil was effectively forced by its stockholders to soak the
public and make obscene profits. It doesn't matter as long as someone
else pays. The various oil companies had so much cash on hand after
the energy crisis that they went on a major buying spree of energy
related and mineral companies. Only threat of a government monopoly
investigation slowed them down.

No, you're not in this world to make someone else rich. But, in a
capitalist economy, some transactions are simply not going to be
equally beneficial to all concerned. Sometimes, radically unequal. In
the case of oil, the supply and demand price curve is extremely steep.
Very small changes in supply produce huge changes in price. This is
something that commodity market investors simply cannot resist. You
can make or lose a fortune overnight. If you think you have a handle
on the energy market, then try your luck. (I did and lost most of my
investment). It's like riding a bucking horse. One mistake and you
get trampled. Good luck.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 21:31:54 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

Redistribution of wealth is simply taxes. At this time, taxes are a
big chunk of the cost of gasoline. In California, it's about
$0.40/gallon, which sells for about $3.20/gallon.

I erred. Total gas taxes in Calif are about $0.60/gallon or about 19%
of the cost.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[William Sommerwerck]

There has been a gradual warming since the Industrial Age.
The apparently "sudden" change is supposedly due to a "tip
over" effect.

That sounds like a high priest of MMGW's invention to make
the facts fit the model ...

You have that backwards -- make the model fit the facts.

The models we have are almost certainly not complete, nor fully understood.
So there's certainly a degree of "hand waving", and even giving in to making
tautological explanations.

The problem of renewable energy is one that government and industry should
have been working on since after WWII. They've made only fitful and
half-hearted efforts, most because the energy industry won't be interested
in renewable energy until the non-renewable sources become so horribly
expense it can gouge.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

It's true that scientists are only slightly less irrational
than your average idiot. That doesn't mean they're wrong,
or that it's a bad idea to use less energy or recycle waste.

You too, appear to miss the point of what I was saying ...

Oh, I got your point... That people accept certain belief systems with a
near-religious fervor. But that has nothing to do with whether those beliefs
are true or not, or how we should live our lives.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

You know, all oil companies are publicly owned, which means if you want
to be heard by them you need to only buy stock in the company. All
companies are required to make a profit - but oil (or any company) can
be directed by the shareholders on how that profit is generated.

Note that I do not hold any shares in any oil companies that I am aware
of - no prospectus is mailed to me each year from my mutual fund
management company - but I am thinking of buying a few shares so I have
a voice there...you only need one share after all!

Yes... and the effect of any vote will be drowned out by the majority that
only cares about the company's profits.

By the way... Businesses do not generally put their projects up to vote by
the stock holders. If you want to change the way a company does business,
you hve to get it on the agenda. It's not easy.

Long before I was a bleeding-heart liberal, I held stock in one of the
world's largest companies, given to me by my father. The company sometimes
asked its stockholders to vote on various issues. Even though I wasn't even
a teenager, I felt that most of them benefitted the company, not its
employees or the public, and I voted against them.