RE: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics
Ah, but David, this makes a couple of assumptions that I don't find valid: (1)that you're going to make a special trip for the recycle stuff. If you're already going to be there and you pick up the recycle stuff and take it back with you, isn't that a net gain? (2) that you're compensated for your "off" time at the same rate as your "professional" time. For me, my off time is more valuable than my professional time--and, as a government employee, I don't make anywhere near $300/hr (though some people may find that hard to believe considering my lavish lifestyle). So maybe in these terms alone, it's a wash.Louise From:"David Locklear" dlocklea...@gmail.comTo:"Texas Cavers" texascavers@texascavers.comSubject:[Texascavers] OT - recycling economicsDate:Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:26:28 -0500MIME-Version:1.0Received:from raistlin.wokka.org ([69.56.185.90]) by bay0-mc10-f20.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Sat, 27 Oct 2007 13:26:42 -0700Received:(qmail 77510 invoked by uid 89); 27 Oct 2007 20:26:45 -Received:(qmail 77501 invoked by uid 31338); 27 Oct 2007 20:26:44 -I am all for recycling.However, I think it is interesting to look at the total cost of theeffort.For example, if you calculate mileage at 30 cents permile ( taking into consideration wear depriciation of your vehicle ).Let's assume one drives 10 miles round-trip to recycle their load.That would be $ 3.00.If the street value of the raw recycled goods is, say $ 22, then therewas some sort of gain of $ 19.Then there is the time consideration.How much is your timeworth?If you are a doctor that charges $ 300 per hour, then youcould help the environment more by just working and donatingmoney to the recycling effort. But if you are unemployedor serving community service, then your time isn't really lost,because it would have been spent on some equilavent task.Then you have to consider what becomes of the material atthe recycling center.What are their cost to turn the aluminumcan into raw aluminum?What pollution is created in this process?From a physics point of view, there is no way that the entire cyclecould be 100 percent efficient. Some of the lost money isn'twasted though, because you are gaining intangible things ofvalue such as a clean park.And other monies used simplyfor park cleaning, possibly are reduced.And there are other subtle effects. For-profit recycling centers generatecrime.They provide a easy way for theives to make money, whichin turn is laundered, and used to buy guns, drugs and other unwantedthings in your neighborhood.They can also attract vagrants inthe area, that sleep nearby in the woods and under the bridges.There is also a corruption factor, as white-collar criminals step in totake over the major industrial part of the recycling effort.Theseare the guys that own and operate the big diesel trash trucks thatcruze the neighborhoods picking up few recyclable material yetget a fat government contract, and the contractors that operatethe landfills, and their lawyers, and the politicians that aresecretly in cohoots with, etc.In summary, recycling can give you a warm fuzzy feeling, butthe overall picture isn't rosy.On a related note,When I was a young kid going to the beach, it was littered with millionsof aluminum tabs that were once pulled off of an aluminum can. I rememberwhen a canned-drink company introduced a monkey to demonstratethe method for popping the top on the new integrated cans.Remember that ? That wasa historical moment in my life. I haven't seen an aluminum tab on theground in over 20 years. I believe I cut my foot on one as a young kidat Turner Falls while swimming.-Visit our website: http://texascavers.comTo unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.comFor additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:02:16 -0800 power_lou...@hotmail.com wrote: as a government employee, I don't make anywhere near $300/hr You're considered rich if you make that in one day! -- Lyndon Tiu - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
RE: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics
Dr. David Goodstein, a physics professor at the California Institute of Technology and author of the best seller: Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil estimates that it would take 10,000 new nuclear power plants to replace the energy created by oil but even then the world's uranium would be gone in one or two decades.
Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics
Mike Quinn wrote: Dr. David Goodstein, a physics professor at the California Institute of Technology and author of the best seller: Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil estimates that it would take 10,000 new nuclear power plants to replace the energy created by oil but even then the world's uranium would be gone in one or two decades. That's assuming we are using 10,000 fission nuclear power plants. Uranium is a non-renewable resource. The supply of uranium will follow a depletion curve similar to that of oil. Fusion nuclear (as opposed to fission) holds more promise as it uses heavy water/regular water/hydrogen which is more abundant, but if I understand it correctly, current fusion nuclear technology is only good for WMD's and not for power generation. There is international work underway to develop fusion nuclear tech for power generation. If I remember it correctly, a reactor is being built in France for this. Try googling it. -- Lyndon Tiu - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
RE: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics
When was the last nuclear power plant built? When will the next singular plant produce power? When will we have 10,000 nuclear power plants of *any* kind? Given that some say the world is already past peak oil, I personally don't see how we're going to make it to 10,000 nukes... see PO article in last Monday's The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html Graphic Showing Oil Producing Countries Past Peak Oil... http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/10/25/oil-producing-countries-past-peak-oct-2007.png or: http://tinyurl.com/33ambo If we are past PO, then the likely ensuing hoarding will accentuate the problem... Mike Quinn, Austin -Original Message- From: Lyndon Tiu [mailto:l...@alumni.sfu.ca] Sent: Sun 10/28/2007 8:22 AM To: Texas Cavers Cc: Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics Mike Quinn wrote: Dr. David Goodstein, a physics professor at the California Institute of Technology and author of the best seller: Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil estimates that it would take 10,000 new nuclear power plants to replace the energy created by oil but even then the world's uranium would be gone in one or two decades. That's assuming we are using 10,000 fission nuclear power plants. Uranium is a non-renewable resource. The supply of uranium will follow a depletion curve similar to that of oil. Fusion nuclear (as opposed to fission) holds more promise as it uses heavy water/regular water/hydrogen which is more abundant, but if I understand it correctly, current fusion nuclear technology is only good for WMD's and not for power generation. There is international work underway to develop fusion nuclear tech for power generation. If I remember it correctly, a reactor is being built in France for this. Try googling it. -- Lyndon Tiu
Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics
President Shrub thinks we will just switch to bio-fuels..that will surely save the world On 10/28/07 8:53 AM, Mike Quinn mike.qu...@tpwd.state.tx.us wrote: When was the last nuclear power plant built? When will the next singular plant produce power? When will we have 10,000 nuclear power plants of *any* kind? Given that some say the world is already past peak oil, I personally don't see how we're going to make it to 10,000 nukes... see PO article in last Monday's The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html Graphic Showing Oil Producing Countries Past Peak Oil... http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/10/25/oil-producing-countries-past-peak-oc t-2007.png or: http://tinyurl.com/33ambo If we are past PO, then the likely ensuing hoarding will accentuate the problem... Mike Quinn, Austin -Original Message- From: Lyndon Tiu [mailto:l...@alumni.sfu.ca] Sent: Sun 10/28/2007 8:22 AM To: Texas Cavers Cc: Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics Mike Quinn wrote: Dr. David Goodstein, a physics professor at the California Institute of Technology and author of the best seller: Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil estimates that it would take 10,000 new nuclear power plants to replace the energy created by oil but even then the world's uranium would be gone in one or two decades. That's assuming we are using 10,000 fission nuclear power plants. Uranium is a non-renewable resource. The supply of uranium will follow a depletion curve similar to that of oil. Fusion nuclear (as opposed to fission) holds more promise as it uses heavy water/regular water/hydrogen which is more abundant, but if I understand it correctly, current fusion nuclear technology is only good for WMD's and not for power generation. There is international work underway to develop fusion nuclear tech for power generation. If I remember it correctly, a reactor is being built in France for this. Try googling it. -- Lyndon Tiu - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics
As long as we're using petroleum-based fertilizers to grow the bio portion of the fuels, coal or oil-fired power plants to generate the electricity needed to run the factories that turn the biomass into fuel, and trucking it to the gas stations in deisel-burning semis, I don't think we'll see any kind of net gain -- it's more a shuffling of the deck chairs. I've done a fair bit or reading on the nuclear (oops, nucular) industry in the last year, and if anyone would take the time to educate themselves about the waste generation, handling, and number of accidents and close-calls we've had it would surely disabuse them of the notion that fission is anything like a responsible way to generate power. We've got to work it from all angles -- reduction of consumption, solar, wind, hydrogen fuel cells -- all of it, and the sooner the better. CV On Oct 28, 2007, at 10:15 AM, John P. Brooks wrote: President Shrub thinks we will just switch to bio-fuels..that will surely save the world On 10/28/07 8:53 AM, Mike Quinn mike.qu...@tpwd.state.tx.us wrote: When was the last nuclear power plant built? When will the next singular plant produce power? When will we have 10,000 nuclear power plants of *any* kind? Given that some say the world is already past peak oil, I personally don't see how we're going to make it to 10,000 nukes... see PO article in last Monday's The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html Graphic Showing Oil Producing Countries Past Peak Oil... http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/10/25/oil-producing-countries- past-peak-oc t-2007.png or: http://tinyurl.com/33ambo If we are past PO, then the likely ensuing hoarding will accentuate the problem... Mike Quinn, Austin - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics
Chris Vreeland wrote: We've got to work it from all angles -- reduction of consumption, Lifestyle change ? -- Lyndon Tiu - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
RE: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics
If you mean corn, the energy input/output ration is quite small (if positive at all)... Plus, using a high percentage of our arable land to use for filling our SUV's vs. feeding people is perhaps not the best way forward. As for help from the gov, FEMA, Uncle Sam, etc., I suggest developing self reliant contingency plans. Conservation will make more energy available quicker than any other route, but we can't all move closer to our jobs and shifting to more economical vehicles will take a decade or more. An increase in telecomuting would be great. Mike -Original Message- From: John P. Brooks [mailto:jpbrook...@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sun 10/28/2007 10:15 AM To: Mike Quinn; Lyndon Tiu; Texas Cavers Cc: Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics President Shrub thinks we will just switch to bio-fuels..that will surely save the world On 10/28/07 8:53 AM, Mike Quinn mike.qu...@tpwd.state.tx.us wrote: When was the last nuclear power plant built? When will the next singular plant produce power? When will we have 10,000 nuclear power plants of *any* kind? Given that some say the world is already past peak oil, I personally don't see how we're going to make it to 10,000 nukes... see PO article in last Monday's The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html Graphic Showing Oil Producing Countries Past Peak Oil... http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/10/25/oil-producing-countries-past-peak-oc t-2007.png or: http://tinyurl.com/33ambo If we are past PO, then the likely ensuing hoarding will accentuate the problem... Mike Quinn, Austin -Original Message- From: Lyndon Tiu [mailto:l...@alumni.sfu.ca] Sent: Sun 10/28/2007 8:22 AM To: Texas Cavers Cc: Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics Mike Quinn wrote: Dr. David Goodstein, a physics professor at the California Institute of Technology and author of the best seller: Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil estimates that it would take 10,000 new nuclear power plants to replace the energy created by oil but even then the world's uranium would be gone in one or two decades. That's assuming we are using 10,000 fission nuclear power plants. Uranium is a non-renewable resource. The supply of uranium will follow a depletion curve similar to that of oil. Fusion nuclear (as opposed to fission) holds more promise as it uses heavy water/regular water/hydrogen which is more abundant, but if I understand it correctly, current fusion nuclear technology is only good for WMD's and not for power generation. There is international work underway to develop fusion nuclear tech for power generation. If I remember it correctly, a reactor is being built in France for this. Try googling it. -- Lyndon Tiu
Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics
Mike Quinn wrote: Conservation will make more energy available quicker than any other route, but we can't all move closer to our jobs and shifting to more economical vehicles will take a decade or more. An increase in telecomuting would be great. The ever increasing price of energy will force people to conserve. The only reason we are not conserving is because energy is cheap and still widely available. -- Lyndon Tiu - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
RE: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics
The world's enery availability is rapidly peaking... Mexico, our number two supplier, is running out: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109sid=aQP1F89dAOs8refer=home# http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109sid=aQP1F89dAOs8refer=home# or: http://tinyurl.com/2a9e59 -Original Message- From: Lyndon Tiu [mailto:l...@alumni.sfu.ca] Sent: Sun 10/28/2007 5:10 PM To: Texas Cavers Cc: Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics ... energy is cheap and still widely available. -- Lyndon Tiu
Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics
Mike Quinn wrote: The world's enery availability is rapidly peaking... Mexico, our number two supplier, is running out: I agree completely that we will run out and that we should conserve NOW before it is too late. BUT, just wanted to share an opinion: It only counts when people FEEL it. People will only start conserving if they actually see the problem in their neighborhood. Reading about it on the news about a place most people cannot even find on a map does not count. As long as the neighborhood station has plenty of 87 octane available 24/7. Nothing is going to happen. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109sid=aQP1F89dAOs8refer=home# http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109sid=aQP1F89dAOs8refer=home# or: http://tinyurl.com/2a9e59 -Original Message- From: Lyndon Tiu [mailto:l...@alumni.sfu.ca] Sent: Sun 10/28/2007 5:10 PM To: Texas Cavers Cc: Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics ... energy is cheap and still widely available. -- Lyndon Tiu -- Lyndon Tiu - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics
Honestly, The terrible truth of it all isit really doesn't matter at this point. We are beyone the point of no return At current population expansion rates even if you cut your energy and waste consumption in half for the whole world right now today.in twenty years we would be right back at this same point. At our rate of response to an emergency it would take twenty years for us to even maybe get to a point to cut energy consumptions in half so we are already fourty years behind the power curve..better to just do your part and enjoy the ride... You smart people better get cracking on that zero point energy machiene or that quantum combobulator that is going to save the day and make you rich so I can keep watching TV and eating Night Hawks. I'm saving up my strength to have six kids. I don't think there are enough shitters and eaters out there just yet and I want to do my part! What every patriot should be doing! I am going to raise them to smoke cigaretts, drive Humvees, and build 4000 sq ft homes to raise their 6 kids who will all themselves be big Wal-Mart Shoppers and just buy things they know will break but won't care because they can just buy another one for two dollars. Because Cheap products made by poor third world people forced to drink the runoff of the factory they work in and breathe the smoke from the stacks of the plants cranking out cheap useless shit that I need to make my every day life just that much better. So I will continue to buy my plastic bowl majic disposable toilet brushes, my paper plates, plastic bags, coca-cola's in the aluminum cans that I don't recycle because I don't want ants in my bin, the Mc Donnalds big macs that come in a cardboard box tucked in a paper bag for sefety, the bottled water in the plastic containers that contaminate the once filtered water with poly ethyl Hexamine or whatever it is that keeps building up in my boobs. At this rate I hope I build up enough chemicals in my body that I last 5000 years for someone to dig up my mummy and wonder at my superhuman constitution to have lived so long and have been so full of crap... - Original Message - From: Lyndon Tiu l...@alumni.sfu.ca To: Texas Cavers texascavers@texascavers.com Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:03 PM Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics Mike Quinn wrote: The world's enery availability is rapidly peaking... Mexico, our number two supplier, is running out: I agree completely that we will run out and that we should conserve NOW before it is too late. BUT, just wanted to share an opinion: It only counts when people FEEL it. People will only start conserving if they actually see the problem in their neighborhood. Reading about it on the news about a place most people cannot even find on a map does not count. As long as the neighborhood station has plenty of 87 octane available 24/7. Nothing is going to happen. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109sid=aQP1F89dAOs8refer=home# http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109sid=aQP1F89dAOs8refer=home# or: http://tinyurl.com/2a9e59 -Original Message- From: Lyndon Tiu [mailto:l...@alumni.sfu.ca] Sent: Sun 10/28/2007 5:10 PM To: Texas Cavers Cc: Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - recycling economics ... energy is cheap and still widely available. -- Lyndon Tiu -- Lyndon Tiu - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
