Good luck with that warming . . .

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The military already has the capacity to make synthetic fuels in the event of a crises..

No, that is simply incorrect. They want the capacity, are are sponsoring a lot of research in the area, and have placed orders contingent on the R&D being successful. But the capacity they require doesn't yet exist, and won't if people like you get your way.

You failed to recognize the larger point; that we already have set aside the necessary reserves for any potential military contingency. All of this bio fuel crap is just that. A large boondoggle. And Bills point, a red herring.

Nice but futile attempt at backpedaling.

...

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

[brenthutch 383]

I don’t think I gave a six month timeline.



Agreed, however I would look at those resources as points on a continuum rather that distinct entities.
Light sweet crude transitions into heavy crude which transitions into oil sands which morphs into coal based petrol which in turn evolves into bio diesel, and the progression continues. With little drama. The transitions will be smoothed out by greedy capitalist trying to exploit the situation. Some will get rich and others will go broke as the market picks winners and losers.

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The military already has the capacity to make synthetic fuels in the event of a crises..

No, that is simply incorrect. They want the capacity, are are sponsoring a lot of research in the area, and have placed orders contingent on the R&D being successful. But the capacity they require doesn't yet exist, and won't if people like you get your way.

You failed to recognize the larger point; that we already have set aside the necessary reserves for any potential military contingency. All of this bio fuel crap is just that. A large boondoggle. And Bills point, a red herring.

Nice but futile attempt at backpedaling.

Hey Douchington, let us examine the point that you accuse me of backpedaling from.
From Bill. "worldwide economic collapse, brought about when oil becomes very suddenly too expensive to afford, and we rapidly lose most of our transportation, military and agricultural energy sources"

I point out that this scenario is unlikely because of the several redundant contingencies that are currently in place to prevent this. How is this backpedaling.

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The military already has the capacity to make synthetic fuels in the event of a crises..

No, that is simply incorrect. They want the capacity, are are sponsoring a lot of research in the area, and have placed orders contingent on the R&D being successful. But the capacity they require doesn't yet exist, and won't if people like you get your way.

You failed to recognize the larger point; that we already have set aside the necessary reserves for any potential military contingency. All of this bio fuel crap is just that. A large boondoggle. And Bills point, a red herring.

Nice but futile attempt at backpedaling.

Hey Douchington, let us examine the point that you accuse me of backpedaling from.
From Bill. "worldwide economic collapse, brought about when oil becomes very suddenly too expensive to afford, and we rapidly lose most of our transportation, military and agricultural energy sources"

I point out that this scenario is unlikely because of the several redundant contingencies that are currently in place to prevent this. How is this backpedaling.

?

[billeisele 122]

Quote

>One could say that morons and charlatans are using local transient warm spells
>and natural changes in weather to encourage an activist segment of society that is
>predisposed to extreme views to claim that the "sky is falling."

Agreed. Similarly, political shills and people who are heavily invested in oil and coal are using local transient cold spells and natural changes in weather to encourage a particularly clueless segment of society that is predisposed to hateful rhetoric to deny climate change, and to try to suppress and ignore any science that deals with it.

Fortunately, scientists don't pay much heed to either side. They concentrate on the gradual increase in global temperatures that has been occurring since 1850.

Glad to see we have found some common ground. There are folks on both sides of this issue that are pushing their chosen agenda solely to serve themselves. The most well known offender is/was Al Gore. The list goes on from there.

Fine the earth is warming. Back to 2 basic questions. How much of the temp change is due to human action? How much can we impact the rate of change by changing what we do?

Why is the government subsidizing technology that, in certain places, makes no sense. Why are people installing solar in SC where the solar availability is less than 35%? If they want solar then disconnect from the grid otherwise they are not avoiding any costs or power plant construction for the power company.
I'm all for alternative energy. But tell the whole story and make smart decisions. Net metering is a ripoff for the masses and benefits a few select participants.

Why are we making ethanol? It takes more energy to make it than you get from it. It raises the cost of food, damages engines, and simple enriches individuals to the detriment of the masses.

Get the political idiots out of this issue!!

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[billvon 2,400]

>airlines, tucking companies and many large petroleum users purchase
>futures to insulate them from price shocks.

Agreed. And the price of those futures are going up as people realize oil will be more valuable in the future. They can help but certainly do not guarantee "cheap oil." You yourself have admitted that the market will "fix things" - and futures will not prevent this.

>Or move into a new career, start a company, develop a new product.

They are - solar, wind, alternative energy.

>Your example is illustrative of your world view. Definitely a glass is half
>empty /victim type.

Uh, dude, I'm telling you we CAN make the change. You are listing reasons why Americans are too stupid/cheap/shortsighted to consider moving away from oil and coal.

>False analogy, you are conflating the military with civilian open market

No, I'm not. You said that the military can make its own fuel. The reason it can do that is because of the billions we've spent on alternate fuel programs over the years. Above you proposed cancel ling all that. If people such as yourself were in charge 40 years ago we would now not have that military synfuel capability. Fortunately such people were in the minority.

>Yes Bill I would like to have control over what happens to me.

Cool. Then switch to the sun we get here in the US, not oil we beg from people like the Sauds and Chavez. Remember that picture of Bush holding hands with Prince Abdullah? That will get much worse as we get more desperate.

Or we can use the energy that we have, that falls on the US every day. Dependent victim or self sufficient individual? Your choice.

[billvon 2,400]

>That's the thing. What do we want to control? Climate is, I think, being
>approached as present-day "security" is being approached.

Are you saying we are trying to control the climate? I disagree. Right now I'd say we are putting a lot of effort into chang5ng the climate. We would all be better off in the long run (IMO) if we let it change on its own. When you look at the history of the climate on the planet, barring major disasters (meteors etc) it changes pretty slowly - slowly enough that we can adapt.

Might we someday want to control it for real? Maybe; perhaps it would be to prevent an ice age after a meteor impact. That's a ways off though.

>We don't want any bad times so let's prevent good times.

To a degree, yes. If you want to prevent recessions and depressions, constrain irrational exuberance during bubbles. If both are OK, then less regulation is needed. There are, of course, middle grounds where good times can still be had and bad times are simply not as bad.

That's not just a principle in economics, though. It's true of education - to prevent future bad times (unemployment, living with Mom) preventing current good times (i.e. studying instead of partying all night) is a good idea. It's true of investment - to prevent future good times (poverty) prevent current good times (i.e. buy the Honda instead of the Ferrari until you have a better job.)

[billvon 2,400]

>Hey Douchington, let us examine the point that you accuse me of
>backpedaling from.

Let's avoid PA's please.

[billvon 2,400]

>How much of the temp change is due to human action?

In terms of additional heating, between 1.6 and 2.4 watts per square meter is attributable to anthropogenic effects. That's led to an approx. 1.5F degree increase over the past 100 years or so.

>How much can we impact the rate of change by changing what we do?

In the short term, we can't change it at all. CO2 in the atmosphere has about a 40 year half life, so even if we stopped emitting all CO2 tomorrow (an unreasonable and impractical goal) it would take years before the CO2 level started dropping, and decades for warming to reverse.

The actions we take today basically make it easier for our grandkids to deal with the problems.

>Why are people installing solar in SC where the solar availability is less
>than 35%?

Not sure what that number is. Here in San Diego our average direct solar equivalent is only 5 hours a day (i.e. on average over the year you can count on 5 hours of direct sunlight a day.) In SC it's 3.5. So a solar PV system in SC will generate 70% of what a system in SD will. Is that worth it? Depends on the price of electricity where you are. Is it worth it in northern Washington, where it averages 1.1 hour a day? Probably not, unless regular power is hideously expensive or unavailable.

>If they want solar then disconnect from the grid otherwise they are not
>avoiding any costs or power plant construction for the power company.

?? Here in San Diego, solar power peaks at around 2-3pm, which very closely matches summer energy peaks around 5-6pm. It generates power at the same time demand is highest. Our house, for example, is a net energy generator every day from about 9am to 6pm in the summer; the rest of the time (when demand is lowest) we take power from the grid.

If that same house disconnected from the grid, the power company would not get the benefit of that power.

>I'm all for alternative energy. But tell the whole story and make smart
>decisions. Net metering is a ripoff for the masses and benefits a few
>select participants.

Why? We generate more than we use. For a long time we weren't getting anything from the power company at all i.e. they "kept" the extra power. How was that a bad deal for them or their other customers?

As of this year they are going to start paying "avoided cost" i.e. the amount they didn't have to generate. So we pay 10-12 cents a kwhr for power we get from them, and they pay us 2-3 cents a kwhr for power they get from us. Theoretically it's the same amount they pay generators to generate that power, and they keep the rest to use for maintenance/expansion/profits/CEO bonuses etc. Again, how is that a bad deal for them?

>Why are we making ethanol? It takes more energy to make it than
>you get from it. It raises the cost of food, damages engines, and
>simple enriches individuals to the detriment of the masses.

I agree that corn-based ethanol is a bad idea (although looking at today's society, we could use less corn going into soft drinks and more being used for fuel.)

However, cellulosic ethanol is a pretty good idea. No one eats wood chips or bark, and it's fuel that can be used almost identically to gasoline. (And it doesn't damage modern engines any more than gasoline does.)

[kallend 1,623]

mediamatters.org/research/201101270013

...

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

[billeisele 122]

Quote

>How much of the temp change is due to human action?
In terms of additional heating, between 1.6 and 2.4 watts per square meter is attributable to anthropogenic effects. That's led to an approx. 1.5F degree increase over the past 100 years or so.
------------------------------
Would like to read the irrefutable(sp?) data on this.
------------------
>Why are people installing solar in SC where the solar availability is less than 35%?

Not sure what that number is. Here in San Diego our average direct solar equivalent is only 5 hours a day (i.e. on average over the year you can count on 5 hours of direct sunlight a day.) In SC it's 3.5. So a solar PV system in SC will generate 70% of what a system in SD will. Is that worth it? Depends on the price of electricity where you are.
------------------------
Residental cost is about 11 cents. The 35% # is a load factor (availability) estimate - utility speak.
---------------
>If they want solar then disconnect from the grid otherwise they are not avoiding any costs or power plant construction for the power company.

?? Here in San Diego, solar power peaks at around 2-3pm, which very closely matches summer energy peaks around 5-6pm. It generates power at the same time demand is highest. Our house, for example, is a net energy generator every day from about 9am to 6pm in the summer; the rest of the time (when demand is lowest) we take power from the grid.

If that same house disconnected from the grid, the power company would not get the benefit of that power.
--------------------------
OK. We both know that your house is not the "average" consumer. During the peak it is possible to be a net exporter. As soon as a cloud passes over, the house becomes an importer thus the utility has to provide power and has all the associated expenses - just as if the solar panel was not ever there. Being a net generator is different than being off the peak (duration vs. instanteous). The bulk of utility infrastructure focus is on meeting peak demand while having cheap/reliable base load production. Solar panels take away revenue used to pay for base assets but don't help reduce peak demand infrastructure costs. Taking power during the off-peak period (low demand period) helps the utility stabilize the system.

>I'm all for alternative energy. Net metering is a ripoff for the masses and benefits a few select participants.

Why? We generate more than we use. For a long time we weren't getting anything from the power company at all i.e. they "kept" the extra power. How was that a bad deal for them or their other customers?
---------------
agree, bad deal for homeowner
-----------------
As of this year they are going to start paying "avoided cost" i.e. the amount they didn't have to generate. So we pay 10-12 cents a kwhr for power we get from them, and they pay us 2-3 cents a kwhr for power they get from us. Theoretically it's the same amount they pay generators to generate that power, and they keep the rest to use for maintenance/expansion/profits/CEO bonuses etc. Again, how is that a bad deal for them?
------------------------
that is how it should work, fairest to all concerned, most net metering programs don't work that way, the meter simply runs both directions
-------------------
>Why are we making ethanol? It takes more energy to make it than you get from it. It raises the cost of food, damages engines, and simple enriches individuals to the detriment of the masses.

However, cellulosic ethanol is a pretty good idea. No one eats wood chips or bark, and it's fuel that can be used almost identically to gasoline. (And it doesn't damage modern engines any more than gasoline does.)

---------------------------------
It is my understanding that it takes more energy to make ethanol than you get from ethanol. Yes / no?
The damage is with non-automotive engines. The fuel lines and certain other parts are a different material from what is used in cars. Primarily in non-inboard marine engines.

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[billvon 2,400]

>OK. We both know that your house is not the "average" consumer.

Right, but it is an example of what _can_ be done.

>As soon as a cloud passes over, the house becomes an importer thus the
>utility has to provide power and has all the associated expenses - just as
>if the solar panel was not ever there.

Yep. That's true if one of their less reliable plants (i.e. peakers) goes off line as well. As an example, our company uses a ~10 megawatt gas turbine to provide heating and cooling to the campus and power to the grid during times of peak demand. It's nowhere near as reliable as, say, a combined-cycle gas power plant - but taken on average, the several hundred small cogen plants throughout San Diego provide enough reliable power to keep San Diego running on very hot days.

That's a challenge to the utility, managing all that variable load _and_ variable generation. But they are getting much better at it, and can do a lot by shedding loads (i.e. turning off A/C compressors and hot water heaters) when load peaks or generation drops off. (Conveniently, when that cloud passes in front of the sun, you don't need A/C quite as much.)

>Taking power during the off-peak period (low demand period) helps the
>utility stabilize the system.

Exactly - which is why EV chargers (for example) are set up to take off-peak power. And are controllable as well, so their power can be reduced when a shortage hits.

>It is my understanding that it takes more energy to make ethanol
>than you get from ethanol. Yes / no?

Corn based ethanol - no, but it's close. You get between 38-109% more energy out than you put in. (The "it takes more energy" thing came from a study done in 1992 before the process was very refined.) The biggest problem, to me, is not really the energy, but the water; clean water is going to be on a par with energy in a few years as a scarce commodity - and corn ethanol takes a LOT of water.

However, cellulosic ethanol is another story. You make it with grass and wood chips, and you see energy gains of around 150% (i.e. 1 kwhr in, 2.5kwhr out.) To me, the only reason to continue with corn ethanol is to provide a source until cellulosic ethanol is available in large quantities (which is happening.)

>The damage is with non-automotive engines. The fuel lines and
>certain other parts are a different material from what is used in cars.
>Primarily in non-inboard marine engines.

I'd agree there; engines not designed for ethanol have problems with it. However, as far as I know, small engine manufacturers are now designing for it, since many places now use ethanol as an oxygenating agent for much of the year.

[billeisele 122]

aren't we supposed to call each other names or something?

- good info on cellulose, I'll go read up
- overall, I'd just like the whole truth be used when promoting technologies and stop the voodoo economics

to the economics issue, the DoD has a net zero initiative and a use green (regardless of the economics) goal - these are both great examples of stupid mandates, those involved know it is crazy but are doing it anyway

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Would that be like those monster hurricanes that the Goreacle® precdicted and never materialized?

www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/02/australia-cyclone-idUSL3E7D21FW20110202

We have a nice monster storm in the US right now, too.
www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/03storm.html?src=mv

...

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

We have a nice monster storm in the US right now, too.
www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/03storm.html?src=mv

I've been in and out of shorts all week.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

We have a nice monster storm in the US right now, too.
www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/03storm.html?src=mv

I've been in and out of shorts all week.

How does that relate to Mike's statement:

"Would that be like those monster hurricanes that the Goreacle® precdicted and never materialized?"
that you CONVENIENTLY snipped? And to the link to the monster cyclone in Australia?

Oh, it doesn't, it was just a red herring.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110202002452.htm

...

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

[billvon 2,400]

>to the economics issue, the DoD has a net zero initiative and a use green
>(regardless of the economics) goal - these are both great examples of stupid
>mandates, those involved know it is crazy but are doing it anyway

I think the drive to get the military off fossil fuels is an outstanding idea both from the point of view of national security (no more placating Chavez et al) and from the point of view of a ready testing ground for fuels of all sorts. If we do ever get embroiled in a serious (i.e. non-optional) war, all the nonessential green stuff will get dropped instantly, so I don't see it as much of a liability.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We have a nice monster storm in the US right now, too.
www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/03storm.html?src=mv

I've been in and out of shorts all week.

How does that relate to Mike's statement:

"Would that be like those monster hurricanes that the Goreacle® precdicted and never materialized?"
that you CONVENIENTLY snipped? And to the link to the monster cyclone in Australia?

It matters just as much as you talking about a big snow storm occurring on the East Coast. Not a iota.

Nor do cyclones in Australia. The prediction was about HURRICANES - those storms that occur in the Atlantic.

for a guy that is typically pedantic as fuck, it's odd that you're trying to cheat here.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

We have a nice monster storm in the US right now, too.
www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/03storm.html?src=mv

I've been in and out of shorts all week.

How does that relate to Mike's statement:

"Would that be like those monster hurricanes that the Goreacle® precdicted and never materialized?"
that you CONVENIENTLY snipped? And to the link to the monster cyclone in Australia?

It matters just as much as you talking about a big snow storm occurring on the East Coast. Not a iota.

Nor do cyclones in Australia. The prediction was about HURRICANES - those storms that occur in the Atlantic.

for a guy that is typically pedantic as fuck, it's odd that you're trying to cheat here.

WRONG, because Mike's backfiring attempt at ridicule was in response to this:

Quote

A consequence of global warming is climate change, and a consequence of climate change is more extreme weather. The OP is in fact evidence of this.

And your cyclone/hurricane excuse has to be the lamest excuse of the year so far.

...

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

[kelpdiver 2]

stay cold and bitter in Chicago. I'll continue to live it up in California.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

stay cold and bitter in Chicago. I'll continue to live it up in California.

It's a little chilly in Texas, but over all - not too bad.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rushmc 18]

There were fun to compare

http://blog.algore.com/2011/02/an_answer_for_bill.html

and the flash back

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d70iXVN5EVM&feature=player_embedded#

and

http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/45220/bastardi-three-of-next-five-wi.asp

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

We have a nice monster storm in the US right now, too.
www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/03storm.html?src=mv

I've been in and out of shorts all week.

How does that relate to Mike's statement:

"Would that be like those monster hurricanes that the Goreacle® precdicted and never materialized?"
that you CONVENIENTLY snipped? And to the link to the monster cyclone in Australia?

It matters just as much as you talking about a big snow storm occurring on the East Coast. Not a iota.

Nor do cyclones in Australia. The prediction was about HURRICANES - those storms that occur in the Atlantic.

for a guy that is typically pedantic as fuck, it's odd that you're trying to cheat here.

WRONG, because Mike's backfiring attempt at ridicule was in response to this:

Quote

A consequence of global warming is climate change, and a consequence of climate change is more extreme weather. The OP is in fact evidence of this.

And your cyclone/hurricane excuse has to be the lamest excuse of the year so far.

The IPCC forth assessment claimed with a high degree of certainty that Australia would suffer dry conditions.
And that the continental United States would have mild winters albeit with more precipitation .

It would seem that the "gold standard of peer reviewed science" is more than a bit off of the mark.

[brenthutch 383]

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-1-3.html

No where does it talk about record cold or snow in Florida.

[billvon 2,400]

>No where does it talk about record cold or snow in Florida.

Nope. And nowhere does it talk about climate change eliminating record cold or snow in Florida.

Now, about all those deniers who claimed that climate change ended in 1998?