What will Obama do if/when gas goes back up?

[Tokter 0]

Quote

In a way that is his point. If you have all these little electric cars, where is the power to charge them going to come from?

Ideally from solar power, but until that is a reality I would prefer nuclear over coal. And coal over sending billions of $ to a few that build man made islands and cities in deserts...

[billvon 2,454]

>>they need to get battery technology to give us 200 miles per charge

>What should that cost?

About $7 for a 200 mile charge. For the pack itself, a pack good for 1000 cycles has to cost around $10,000 to be economically viable. Right now it's around $40,000 for such a battery. Which is why many people are concentrating on PHEV's, which use batteries 90% of the time and a gas engine 10% of the time. That gets you to a $6000 battery and unlimited range.

[warpedskydiver 0]

You cannot get something from nothing.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

> If these changes are included in the budget, I think it will seriously decrease
>production in America.

Good! That will save our resources for when we really need them - AND drive gas prices up, which is the only way any alternative fuel/technology will take off.

It's a pretty brave move. Spiking gas prices and increasing our reliance on foreign oil in the short term could be political suicide if alternatives are slow to develop.

[billvon 2,454]

>You cannot get something from nothing.

Correct. Fortunately there are a lot of "somethings" around (wind, sunlight, tidal motion etc) that we can use. The trick is using them efficiently and cheaply.

[Ion01 1]

Quote

No, they haven't.

So the increase in temperatures global has been happening at an exponetial rate despite even the IPCC admissions? So as temperature increases the atmosphere reflects heat back towards the earth more so it doesn't radiate back into space despite the 20 years of data showing thats not what happens? So CO2 is one of the largest contributors to global warming despite the fact it is the smallest? So the poles are melting due to warming despite the observations that the poles are colder and has increased in some areas where as others they are simply ablating? So polar bears are drowning and going extinct despite the observations that we have more polars bears today and the few recorded locations of drowning are on "mainland" areas and not due to melting of ice? So we have had more and worse weather currently due to warming despite the records showing it cycles and has been much worse in the past?

Quote

Right. Instead, we should just level off our emissions, to keep changes down to a minimum.

Talk about missing the point. First, leveling off emission only works if there wasn't a natural cycle in the first place. Explain why, if man is the cause, did the roman and midevil warming happen before industrialization? Second, after we spend Trillions of dollars and put millions out of work as a result and don't allow 3rd world countries to advance and make 1st rate countries like ours take huge steps backwards to reduce emissions by (I will make it huge even though knowone believes this huge amound is even possible) 1/4 then it would take 90 years to change the temperature by one degree! So rather than save millions of live by extending our technological advances to those that need it we will take these advances from those that already had it so even more die so we can have a degree over 90 years? This is evidenced by the fact that as a countries co2 emissions go up so does thier life expectancy and thier child mortality rate drops! How is that an acceptable trade-off despite the fact that there are natural cycles like the cooling cycle we are in now that is not being accounted for and we can't control. Do you not even realize that mankind flourished the most during warming periods as there was more farmland due to warmer temps so less people starved! You would rather go through all that trouble so people can starve due to less farm land and colder temperatures which also require them to burn more to generate heat so they don't freeze to death?

Quote

I think you may have misheard something; the science in there makes zero sense.

Well, I just take your word for it then.....???? Even the IPCC realizes that the oceans absorb CO2. Do your own research. Look on google about NASA and thier search for the missing CO2 or simply go to spaceweather.com and see how many protons are hitting our upper atmosphere and and read some research into how that effects the gasses of the atmosphere or what effect the Ionosphere (an ion is a charged particle) does and why its there in the first place. In addition, all these predictions and temperature changes require that the sun not vary in temperature. In addition, Temperatures are also effected by solar flares and even the (what NASA calls) flux tube (birkeland current) which is a stream of charged particles flowing between the earth and the sun. Non-of this is accounted for in the IPCC models or predictions which is why their predictions have not followed observations in addition to the fact that thier models require the heat input to the earth to be constant!

Quote

Chart attached. Perhaps you were looking at it backwards.

http://seoblackhat.com/images/co2-vs-temp.jpg
So how are carbon levels rising and dropping without human influence? How are carbon levels dropping period?
http://www.uigi.com/Temperature_swings_11000_yrs.jpg
As you can see it has been much warmer in the past without industrialization. And why did temperatures rise and drop? Also, all because temperature and carbon corrilates does not mean that one causes the other.

Quote

Google Donora, PA. A good example of "keeping government out."

In 1988, for example, the EPA demanded that the Departments of Energy and Defense clean up 17 of their weapons plants which were leaking radioactive and toxic chemicals -- enough contamination to cost $100 billion in clean-up costs over 50 years! The EPA was simply ignored. No bureaucrats went to jail or were sued for damages. Government departments have sovereign immunity.


In 1984, a Utah court ruled that the U.S. military was negligent in its nuclear testing, causing serious health problems (e.g. death) for the people exposed to radioactive fallout. The Court of Appeals dismissed the claims of the victims, because government employees have sovereign immunity.

Hooker Chemical begged the Niagara Falls School Board not to excavate the land where Hooker had safely stored toxic chemical waste. The school board ignored these warnings and taxpayers had to foot a $30 million relocation bill when health problems arose. The EPA filed suit, not against the reckless school board, but against Hooker Chemical! Government officials have sovereign immunity.

What I have already showed, repeated, and additional information showing how the government is worse is completely nullified? The fact that industry is cleaner than government means nothing?

[Ion01 1]

Quote

>You cannot get something from nothing.

Correct. Fortunately there are a lot of "somethings" around (wind, sunlight, tidal motion etc) that we can use. The trick is using them efficiently and cheaply.

Correct, and when they become effiecent and cheap people will use them. Government regulation can not make things efficient and cheap.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You cannot get something from nothing.

The second coming of Plato and Socrates combined.

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

Correct, and when they become effiecent and cheap people will use them. Government regulation can not make things efficient and cheap.

I agree and someone above mentioned how if gas goes through the roof, say $15/gallon, then the alternative would instantly be cheaper.

The private sector is always one step ahead of the government.

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

End oil company subsidies. Funnel the money to clean/efficient car development and mass transit.

But there are gobbs of money pouring into transit agencies already. I don't believe there is one line out there that actually sustains itself with fares.

[billvon 2,454]

>>No, they haven't.

>So the increase in temperatures global has been happening at an
>exponetial rate despite even the IPCC admissions?

No, it hasn't, nor is it what you said before.

>So CO2 is one of the largest contributors to global warming despite the fact
>it is the smallest?

It is the largest forcing term. It is not (by far) the strongest greenhouse gas.

>So the poles are melting due to warming despite the observations that the
>poles are colder . . .

The North Pole is warming rapidly. The South Pole is warming a lot more slowly. Both are warming.

=========================================
Study Finds New Evidence of Warming in Antarctica

By KENNETH CHANG
Published: January 21, 2009

Antarctica is warming.

That is the conclusion of scientists analyzing half a century of temperatures on the continent, and the findings may help resolve a climate enigma at the bottom of the planet.

Some regions of Antarctica, particularly the peninsula that stretches toward South America, have warmed rapidly in recent years, contributing to the disintegration of ice shelves and accelerating the sliding of glaciers. But weather stations in other locations, including the one at the South Pole, have recorded a cooling trend. That ran counter to the forecasts of computer climate models, and global warming skeptics have pointed to Antarctica in questioning the reliability of the models.

In the new study, scientists took into account satellite measurements to interpolate temperatures in the vast areas between the sparse weather stations.

“We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases."
====================================

>So we have had more and worse weather currently due to warming despite
>the records showing it cycles and has been much worse in the past?

?? I didn't say we had "more and worse weather."

>First, leveling off emission only works if there wasn't a natural cycle in
>the first place. Explain why, if man is the cause, did the roman and midevil
>warming happen before industrialization?

Because other things than man affect the climate. Milankovitch cycles and volcanic eruptions to name just two.

>Even the IPCC realizes that the oceans absorb CO2.

Of course. Now explain what you meant when you said "the charged particles we recieve from the sun and the oceans regulate CO2." That's not supported by any science. (But it sure sounds real smart and complex-like!)

>In addition, all these predictions and temperature changes require that
>the sun not vary in temperature.

The sun varies in temperature all the time, and that doesn't matter. What DOES matter is the energy from the sun that reaches the earth. That's affected by total solar output, solar wind output etc. It varies in an 11-year cycle called the sunspot cycle and is higher during periods of high sunspot activity.

>This is evidenced by the fact that as a countries co2 emissions go up
>so does thier life expectancy and thier child mortality rate drops!

Yep. And as their drunk driving rates go up their child mortality drops too. More alcohol for drivers! Save the babies!

>In 1988, for example, the EPA demanded that the Departments of
>Energy and Defense clean up 17 of their weapons plants which were leaking
>radioactive and toxic chemicals -- enough contamination to cost $100 billion
>in clean-up costs over 50 years!

Yep. How many died there? 20 died and 7000 were seriously injured in Donora. In the UK, as their new coal-powered private industry took off in the 1950's, 4000 died in a single week due to the smog.

But hey, it means someone made more money, so it must be OK.

[billvon 2,454]

>But there are gobbs of money pouring into transit agencies already. I don't
>believe there is one line out there that actually sustains itself with fares.

Agreed. That's also true of highways, trains and airspace.

Since we subsidize them all, our two choices would be:

1) end _all_ subsidies or
2) promote the ones that help us reach our goals for our society.

[billvon 2,454]

>Correct, and when they become effiecent and cheap people will use them.

Right. Which is why I hope gas prices climb.

>Government regulation can not make things efficient and cheap.

Government incentives gave us the GM Impact and later the Prius. Worked out pretty well there.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The private sector is always one step ahead of the government.

Which private company first landed on the moon?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>The Easter bunny will come to you house and drop off an electric car for you too.

The Easter bunny dropped off a solar power system and an electric bike a while back at my house. Zero emissions, zero cost for fuel.

Too bad there are people who believe that that's some sort of impossible magic.

Yes, of course...because EVERYPLACE in the country gets 150+ sun days like San Diego.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Correct, and when they become effiecent and cheap people will use them. Government regulation can not make things efficient and cheap.

I agree and someone above mentioned how if gas goes through the roof, say $15/gallon, then the alternative would instantly be cheaper.

The private sector is always one step ahead of the government.

Unless it comes to resource management. Then the private sector is about extracting until nothing is left.

Evidence: nearly every major fishery - swordfish, abalone, cod, tuna...any fish with a longer reproductive cycle. Shorter lived ones like squid may sustain heavy heavy harvesting. Salmon goes on a boom/bust cycle. In all of them, the government ends up trying to solve the problem that industry will not.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>The Easter bunny will come to you house and drop off an electric car for you too.

The Easter bunny dropped off a solar power system and an electric bike a while back at my house. Zero emissions, zero cost for fuel.

Too bad there are people who believe that that's some sort of impossible magic.

Well, most people believe that two wheels are intolerable magic. It either can't do the job of transportation, or it won't for them personally. They need the solar panel plus an electric car.

The electric bike works great in SF so long as it has enough grunt to deal with some slopes. But on my side of town, the frequent cloud cover may make the finance math for solar panels bad.

[billvon 2,454]

>Yes, of course...because EVERYPLACE in the country gets 150+ sun days
>like San Diego.

You are correct - most places do. Heck, there are even a lot of places better than San Diego (New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado.)

But even in places where people think that there's no sun (like Seattle) a solar system will produce over 60% of what a system in San Diego will.

[billvon 2,454]

> But on my side of town, the frequent cloud cover may make the finance
> math for solar panels bad.

What's "your side of town?" I'll look up the NREL data for that location.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

> But on my side of town, the frequent cloud cover may make the finance
> math for solar panels bad.

What's "your side of town?" I'll look up the NREL data for that location.

It's of interest to me, though purely academic as a renter.

I'm on the eastern edge of the Richmond in San Francisco, just north of Golden Gate Park. This is about 3 miles from the ocean...the further west you go, the worse the cloud issues, though at least some of the time I expect there is still solar energy that can be gathered.

[kallend 1,661]

Quote

Quote

Correct, and when they become effiecent and cheap people will use them. Government regulation can not make things efficient and cheap.

I agree and someone above mentioned how if gas goes through the roof, say $15/gallon, then the alternative would instantly be cheaper.

The private sector is always one step ahead of the government.

But it comes cap-in-hand to the government when it needs a bailout due to its own greed and shortsightedness.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,661]

Interesting analysis:
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=powering-a-green-planet

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,454]

>I'm on the eastern edge of the Richmond in San Francisco, just north of
>Golden Gate Park.

That's about 5 equivalent hours of direct sun a day. Here in San Diego about 4 miles from the ocean we are at about 6 equivalent hours.

[loumeinhart 0]

The moon? I dunno maybe the hundreds of wiring/electrical/propulsion/navigation/airframe/communication/material companies that competed for government contracts. That's my guess but I'm sure there's more to it than that.

Your point is that the private sector couldn't go to the moon, right?

Before I buy stock in a company i want to see a business plan. Clearly going to the moon is not profitable.

I'm paraphrasing here: the private sector is like a family of four where the parents go out everyday and use their value in the workplace to create income for food/shelter/education

the govt is like family of four where the parents
go out and simply take someone elses money.

[billvon 2,454]

>the private sector is like a family of four where the parents go out
>everyday and use their value in the workplace to create income for
>food/shelter/education

And the government is like a family of 20, where everyone snipes at each other and complains when it's their turn to do the dishes. "It's not FAIR! Uncle Joe NEVER does the dishes!"