Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com mounted the barricade and roared out: Superconductivity is achieved only at low temperatures, produced by refigeration systems. The power necessary to maintain the refrigeration would be greater than the advantage of supercondutivity. Room temperature superconductivity remains a goal, not a reality. Sorry, grok. Hey, I'm sorry too, Carrell. For all those deluded engineers out there, and all those other deluded people footing their bills. - -- grok. - -- Build the North America-wide General Strike. TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. ALL power to the councils and communes. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkn3FZUACgkQXo3EtEYbt3FYPgCgjo7YK6QcGKHuS/l/KNhKo8P3 cD4An0dpQmAjmT2PPBf73vN6zX7bRnyS =uYDV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
No, its to avoid putting additional co2 and other such chemicals into the environment. the algae is all gas that has been removed from the environment. nice cycle. Remember, those of use that actually use logic know that a single approach will not work. On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Harry Veeder hvee...@ncf.ca wrote: - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com Date: Monday, April 27, 2009 0:57 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:45:08 - 0400:Hi, [snip] If you want a reliable and continous supply of power, solar and wind will not give you that unless you can figure out how to store the generated power cost effectively. [snip] As already discussed frequently on this list, solar can be captured and stored using algae. This is essentially what we are already using when we burn coal. We would just be shortening the cycle time from millions of years to months. While wind and solar don't actually supply continuous electric power, they are also not as bad as you might think. To start with wind may be variable, but if connected to a continent wide grid, then the wind is always blowing somewhere,which helps to reduce the size of the bumps and hollows. Solar would supply direct power only during the day, but then that is also when most power is needed. At night, energy stored in the form of biomass could supplement that supplied by wind, to ensure a continuous supply. Furthermore, as I have also pointed out in the past, it should prove both feasible and cheap to store energy as heat underground in molten salt. At the temperature at which common table salt melts, the Carnot efficiency could be as high as 62%. This could provide a means of storing solar energy through the night at a cost up to 1000 times less than that of lead-acid batteries.If the solar energy is collected in a desert where there is very little cloud cover from day to day, then storage for much more than a day would be unnecessary, particularly if multiple solar plants contributed, that were geographically widely distributed. Then there are also other clean power sources that can contribute during the night - hydro, tidal, geothermal. In short, by utilizing an effective mix of different clean sources, a reliable power supply can be achieved, without fossil fuels, if we really wanted to. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Isn't the point of adopting solar and wind power to avoid burning combustibles? Growing a biomass like algae as a source of fuel seems to defeat this. On the other hand if we eat the algae... harry
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
On Apr 26, 2009, at 7:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: If you want a reliable and continous supply of power, solar and wind will not give you that unless you can figure out how to store the generated power cost effectively. Harry Here are some thoughts along those lines: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HotCold.pdf Also, electrolysis efficiencies may be near ideal soon, so bulk hydrogen storage is likely a viable option for utility energy storage. Home energy storage systems, as well as EV car batteries and smart meters, can be expected to be additional means of smoothing variations in demand and supply, and utilizing home PV or wind systems as well. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 If you want a reliable and continuous supply of power, solar and wind will not give you that unless you can figure out how to store the generated power cost effectively. Harry Same deal as regards to ekonomies of skale, as I alluded to -- and most certainly with such an important projekt as getting Humanity weened off karbon fuels. For that matter, all these resources should be taken away from the present building of a military police state, and ploughed into exactly this program. And Buckminster Fuller realized one part of this goal decades ago: that part of the storage/efficiency problem was obviated by the fact that a World-wide energy grid would be making use of off-peak generation on one side of the Planet to direct it to the other side of the Planet -- where it happened to be needed at just that time. And a World-wide infrastrukture projekt like that is reason enuff for Socialism. ; Of course, the reality of cold-fusion-in-a-can would change that dynamik considerably. ;P - -- grok. - -- Build the North America-wide General Strike. TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. ALL power to the councils and communes. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkn1vpQACgkQXo3EtEYbt3H69wCgiNuR101cIIrHypn1PCiO6nDX OZEAoIiaMeLrl2hsRVv4KLV9icsenPc0 =+Ca+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
This all sounds great, but let's see someone do it competitively on a large scale before pinning our hopes on it. Jeff -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 12:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:45:08 -0400: Hi, [snip] If you want a reliable and continous supply of power, solar and wind will not give you that unless you can figure out how to store the generated power cost effectively. [snip] As already discussed frequently on this list, solar can be captured and stored using algae. This is essentially what we are already using when we burn coal. We would just be shortening the cycle time from millions of years to months. While wind and solar don't actually supply continuous electric power, they are also not as bad as you might think. To start with wind may be variable, but if connected to a continent wide grid, then the wind is always blowing somewhere, which helps to reduce the size of the bumps and hollows. Solar would supply direct power only during the day, but then that is also when most power is needed. At night, energy stored in the form of biomass could supplement that supplied by wind, to ensure a continuous supply. Furthermore, as I have also pointed out in the past, it should prove both feasible and cheap to store energy as heat underground in molten salt. At the temperature at which common table salt melts, the Carnot efficiency could be as high as 62%. This could provide a means of storing solar energy through the night at a cost up to 1000 times less than that of lead-acid batteries. If the solar energy is collected in a desert where there is very little cloud cover from day to day, then storage for much more than a day would be unnecessary, particularly if multiple solar plants contributed, that were geographically widely distributed. Then there are also other clean power sources that can contribute during the night - hydro, tidal, geothermal. In short, by utilizing an effective mix of different clean sources, a reliable power supply can be achieved, without fossil fuels, if we really wanted to. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Jeff Fink rev...@ptd.net mounted the barricade and roared out: Solar electric, I read, uses indium which is in short supply and isn't even mineable. The production process releases some kind of hexafluoride chemical that causes an atmospheric problem. The panels use more electricity to produce than they save over a lifetime. They deteriorate over time. There are overwhelming transmission losses in any grid that could get the power from the day side of the planet to the night side. Need I go on? These are certainly serious issues. Perhaps even insurmountable ones. However -- I don't believe they are. The pollution issue, for instance is almost certainly only one tied to profit motive. And certainly as well: economies of scale would cut down production costs. And is it even really true solar cells never produce as much electricity as their manufacture consumes? Frankly, I find that hard to believe. Besides too -- not all solar tek uses rare elements, etc. Cheap, replaceable ones are a real possibility. These are technical problems that could some day be overcome. My point is: They are here and now serious problems, and afaik their solutions are not on the horizon. The point is, again: to develop ekonomies of skale. And be serious about this. You're not really focusing on that. The horizon is here. The time is now. Some day is today. The matter is no longer hypothetical, even if capitalist governments still have their collective selfish heads up their fat asses... I'm a slow typist. Let me know if I must respond to solar thermal and wind power to. What -- they have problems too..?? ;P These alternatives cannot compete economically with present generating methods unless they are heavily subsidized by the government. So we have a choice. We can pay $1.00 per kwh to the power company or pay some portion of it to the tax man. Which do you prefer? History is replete with examples of necessary government subsidization of teknologikal research. Indeed: much of capitalist tek business would not today exist if Big Government hadn't footed the bill with *public money* for research up front, first. Free Market shills going on about let the Market decide, yadda, are just that. What we require in fact is the equivalent of an energy Manhattan Project. Controlled energy, that is. ;P - --grok. - -- Build the North America-wide General Strike. TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. ALL power to the councils and communes. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkn2YVkACgkQXo3EtEYbt3FxPwCfWGKIrC5fEeADjBknfgFGGyGB /ZYAnRsJvKZPIQz/Lj39xQ3r4QezIXsA =BFnw -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
Hydro! Are you kidding? All the good remaining sites are protected by the Sierra Club. Even small hydro installations across the country have been decommissioned by the dozens over the last 50 years. I remember driving past the abandoned Bells Island Hydro plant on the James River in Richmond VA. It was already history by 1975. Dams on US streams are being routinely removed to reestablish fish migrations. Tell me how can any new hydro project ever pass an environmental impact study! Jeff -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 12:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear Then there are also other clean power sources that can contribute during the night - hydro, tidal, geothermal. In short, by utilizing an effective mix of different clean sources, a reliable power supply can be achieved, without fossil fuels, if we really wanted to. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Jeff Fink rev...@ptd.net mounted the barricade and roared out: Again, the losses involved with transmitting power halfway around the world are overwhelming. Only Tesla or a sci fi writer can do it. Jeff I thought massive superconducting DC cables were the way to go there. Seriously. - -- grok. - -- Build the North America-wide General Strike. TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. ALL power to the councils and communes. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkn2YgwACgkQXo3EtEYbt3GDJgCgwEozgMMEs0RuZKCMeQMCSo1X RpMAoIPJfJ8BDpzaTCK+j+Bo434TlOyL =7GI2 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
FW: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
-Original Message- From: Jeff Fink [mailto:rev...@ptd.net] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 9:32 PM To: 'g...@resist.ca' Subject: RE: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear Again, the losses involved with transmitting power halfway around the world are overwhelming. Only Tesla or a sci fi writer can do it. Jeff -Original Message- From: grok [mailto:g...@resist.ca] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 10:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 If you want a reliable and continuous supply of power, solar and wind will not give you that unless you can figure out how to store the generated power cost effectively. Harry Same deal as regards to ekonomies of skale, as I alluded to -- and most certainly with such an important projekt as getting Humanity weened off karbon fuels. For that matter, all these resources should be taken away from the present building of a military police state, and ploughed into exactly this program. And Buckminster Fuller realized one part of this goal decades ago: that part of the storage/efficiency problem was obviated by the fact that a World-wide energy grid would be making use of off-peak generation on one side of the Planet to direct it to the other side of the Planet -- where it happened to be needed at just that time. And a World-wide infrastrukture projekt like that is reason enuff for Socialism. ; Of course, the reality of cold-fusion-in-a-can would change that dynamik considerably. ;P - -- grok. - -- Build the North America-wide General Strike. TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. ALL power to the councils and communes. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkn1vpQACgkQXo3EtEYbt3H69wCgiNuR101cIIrHypn1PCiO6nDX OZEAoIiaMeLrl2hsRVv4KLV9icsenPc0 =+Ca+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
FW: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
-Original Message- From: Jeff Fink [mailto:rev...@ptd.net] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 9:21 PM To: 'g...@resist.ca' Subject: RE: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear Solar electric, I read, uses indium which is in short supply and isn't even mineable. The production process releases some kind of hexafluoride chemical that causes an atmospheric problem. The panels use more electricity to produce than they save over a lifetime. They deteriorate over time. There are overwhelming transmission losses in any grid that could get the power from the day side of the planet to the night side. Need I go on? These are technical problems that could some day be overcome. My point is: They are here and now serious problems, and afaik their solutions are not on the horizon. I'm a slow typist. Let me know if I must respond to solar thermal and wind power to. These alternatives cannot compete economically with present generating methods unless they are heavily subsidized by the government. So we have a choice. We can pay $1.00 per kwh to the power company or pay some portion of it to the tax man. Which do you prefer? -Original Message- From: grok [mailto:g...@resist.ca] Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 3:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Solar and wind are obviously not it for numerous reasons already posted on this forum. What are the main reasons, again? I'm not aware of any inherent ones, despite claims to the contrary. For instance: AFAIC we could blanket the Sahara with solar arrays and solar chimneys, etc. Lower costs come with mass-production and are not an issue, AFAIC. And there are no inherent pollution issues AFAIC, either -- tho' these do exist today under present profit-grubbing ekonomik regimes. - -- grok. - -- Build the North America-wide General Strike. TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. ALL power to the councils and communes. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkn0u8EACgkQXo3EtEYbt3GOugCdECvmcjXX/jkTAB3A8gPvLwNK UBQAniSlnn2m+OEceTMLNof87JSbrL2q =IoCc -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
In reply to Jeff Fink's message of Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:27:10 -0400: Hi, This all sounds great, but let's see someone do it competitively on a large scale before pinning our hopes on it. I'm not pinning my hopes on it, nor do I expect it to be competitive. I only stated that it was possible. Personally, I tend to think of if more as a last resort. If you want competitive, then support my fusion device. ;) (The cost of the experimental prototype is trivial for any significant business, and the potential rewards are, quite literally, immeasurable). [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
In reply to Jeff Fink's message of Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:54:22 -0400: Hi, [snip] Hydro! Are you kidding? All the good remaining sites are protected by the Sierra Club. Even small hydro installations across the country have been decommissioned by the dozens over the last 50 years. I remember driving past the abandoned Bells Island Hydro plant on the James River in Richmond VA. It was already history by 1975. Dams on US streams are being routinely removed to reestablish fish migrations. Tell me how can any new hydro project ever pass an environmental impact study! [snip] As mentioned in my reply to your other post, I see this more as a last resort, which would likely only be used if people get desperate enough. In that situation, hydro might make a comeback, just as there is currently a tendency for nuclear to make a comeback. Besides, I didn't say anything about new hydro, just that it could be part of the mix - as it is now. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
In reply to grok's message of Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:55:24 -0700: Hi, [snip] I thought massive superconducting DC cables were the way to go there. Seriously. [snip] That could work, but I think we would first need another breakthrough in high temperature superconductivity to significantly reduce the cost. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: FW: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
In reply to Jeff Fink's message of Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:57:17 -0400: Hi, [snip] Again, the losses involved with transmitting power halfway around the world are overwhelming. Only Tesla or a sci fi writer can do it. Jeff [snip] Actually it might be possible using the electrosphere, since you mention Tesla. :) A connection could be made using UV lasers to ionize channels through the lower atmosphere up to the electrosphere. Of course this sort of thing is fraught with potential problems, not least of which would be completely upsetting the weather on a World wide scale. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Jeff Fink rev...@ptd.net mounted the barricade and roared out: That's a whole lot of expensive cooling (huge operating costs). If we can do all of these things for a buck a KWH, I'd say we were doing good. My electric bill is already over $100 /mo. I can't afford to pay a thousand! Can you? Jeff Ekonomies of skale, fella -- ekonomis of skale (not to mention socialist cost-accounting...) But for that matter: they apparently have working systems already operational in California and Chicago (and maybe elsewhere); so I wonder what the real-world costs of superconducting DC actually are now? In any case: cost/benefit analyses have to be done. And AFAIC, I don't see why transmission of energy that wouldn't otherwise be utilized can't be done as an interim, stop-gap measure -- and the system progressively made more efficient, as teknology advances and resources are made available. And that's only part of the equation, of course. But I wonder what the numbers actually are/would be. - -- grok. - -- Build the North America-wide General Strike. TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. ALL power to the councils and communes. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkn2jCAACgkQXo3EtEYbt3HcMQCgl7YDE4Y2GjWTtwcIltE9QHUN ryUAoONdtj35e9fSwtW5S1VcUsq2ntG2 =Kq09 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, mix...@bigpond.com mix...@bigpond.com mounted the barricade and roared out: I thought massive superconducting DC cables were the way to go there. Seriously. That could work, but I think we would first need another breakthrough in high temperature superconductivity to significantly reduce the cost. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk That's the ideal. But even nitrogen cooling is way cheaper than helium. 'Regular' refrigeration even moreso. - -- grok. - -- Build the North America-wide General Strike. TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. ALL power to the councils and communes. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkn2jTsACgkQXo3EtEYbt3GWmgCfVC7BP7KgA1/Wk0hYQDYM0cy+ 51AAoNtoGWt8fyY9OE5gA92NLeknDgIg =yKCY -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
What I mean by do nothing is leave the CO2 production rates as they are. You talk of cutting man made CO2 to zero like it is possible and desirable. You are literally saying that doing nothing is contributing no manmade CO2 to the environment which means the extinction of the human race! No fossil fueled power plants, no cooking fires to support the resulting cave man existence, and finally, no breathing. I used to think like this back in junior high school, that the biggest problem on earth is people, and that if we eliminate all people the planet would be perfect. I outgrew those thoughts. Jeff -Original Message- From: leaking pen [mailto:itsat...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:47 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear The thing is, we are ALREADY doing something. If we want to do nothing, then we cut all manmade co2 sources instantly. doing SOMETHING is doing just what we are doing already. On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Jeff Fink rev...@ptd.net wrote: It appears from your analysis that the earth has more self regulating capability than most experts give it credit for. Further, it seems to me that it will be better to observe and collect more data for a while instead of rushing off to do something. Better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing, especially if that wrong thing is massively expensive. Misguided, high priced environmental repairs could collapse an already weakened world economy. Jeff
RE: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
I'm all for replacing fossil fuel powered machines with equal or superior nonpolluting alternatives. So far, nothing but nuclear comes close. All I am saying is, don't shut down, dismantle, or otherwise cripple the fossil fuel industry until a viable alternative is commercially available. Solar and wind are obviously not it for numerous reasons already posted on this forum. I really hope LENR will solve the problem, and I hope it is soon. Jeff -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:59 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear You and many people Jeff, miss an important issue about finding ways to reduce CO2 emission. Yes it is expensive, but so are all changes in technology. The expense issue is only a distraction raised by industries that will be harmed by the new technology. In contrast, the general population always benefits from such efforts because more jobs are created and energy becomes cheaper. Unless you are the owner of an oil, gas or coal company, your self interest requires you to support any effort to develop any new energy source, but especially ones that do not generate CO2 regardless of the cost. The cost will eventually be recovered from the energy generated by the new technology. Meanwhile, you or your friends would have a job that otherwise might not be available. Also, when CO2 is removed from the gas leaving a coal plant, so is mercury and uranium, which is a benefit to your health. You need to look past the propaganda generated by the energy industries that would lose profits. Ed On Apr 25, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: It appears from your analysis that the earth has more self regulating capability than most experts give it credit for. Further, it seems to me that it will be better to observe and collect more data for a while instead of rushing off to do something. Better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing, especially if that wrong thing is massively expensive. Misguided, high priced environmental repairs could collapse an already weakened world economy. Jeff -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:40 PM To: vortex Subject: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWSACTION=DSESSION=RCN=30717 New research from Switzerland and the UK reveals that, somewhat paradoxically, plants absorb more carbon dioxide (CO2) when the atmosphere is polluted than they do under cleaner skies. OK that is the finding. Now for the spin. You can imagine that the word coming from the oil-patch (bush- patch?) is YES! just what we have been saying all along, and furthermore, now that know that CO2 is a good thing for nature and for increasing the growth of biomass, and that the cleaner the skies, the less nature can use CO2 - then full speed ahead with maximum carbon but without any emission controls. However, that is 'spin' not logic. But - LOL - the same scientists who found the link, are trying to put a totally different spin on it. Writing in the journal 'Nature', the scientists warn that as air pollution levels continue to decline, even steeper greenhouse gas emissions cuts will be needed to stabilize the climate. Huh? Whoa. You have to use your imagination to fathom how this double negative makes sense, but their explanation is not so far-fetched and 'apologetic' as it may at first seem: Plants rely on the sun to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Although it seems counter-intuitive, plants actually absorb CO2 more efficiently under hazy sunlight than they do under bright, direct sunlight. When exposed to direct sunlight, the leaves at the top of the plant canopy get more sunlight than they can use, and go into a defensive mode, while leaves in the shade do not get enough. However, when clouds and minute particles of pollution scatter the light, leaves lower down on the canopy get comparatively more light than in the previous case. As a result, plants absorb CO2 more effectively in diffuse light than in direct light. But the ideal situation, from the biomass perspective is not necessarily to limit CO2 Doh, reducing carbon emissions reduces the CO2 that plants need. And the 'greenhouse' effect can now be appreciated to be due almost exclusively to the other problems - methane and especially halogens. BUT- 'global dimming' due to particulates, has reduced the net greenhouse effect in the recent past, and if we eliminate particulates, that will increase the net greenhouse effect. Confused yet? The scientists seem to be saying that you either must release dirty CO2 or none at all. Well, that is not quite true - but it highlights the huge grey area we are dealing with in these discussions
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
See, theres a big difference between crippling, and causing them to not make as big of a profit. (remember, this is the industry that has made new record profits every quarter for the past several years. On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 5:20 AM, Jeff Fink rev...@ptd.net wrote: I'm all for replacing fossil fuel powered machines with equal or superior nonpolluting alternatives. So far, nothing but nuclear comes close. All I am saying is, don't shut down, dismantle, or otherwise cripple the fossil fuel industry until a viable alternative is commercially available. Solar and wind are obviously not it for numerous reasons already posted on this forum. I really hope LENR will solve the problem, and I hope it is soon. Jeff -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:59 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear You and many people Jeff, miss an important issue about finding ways to reduce CO2 emission. Yes it is expensive, but so are all changes in technology. The expense issue is only a distraction raised by industries that will be harmed by the new technology. In contrast, the general population always benefits from such efforts because more jobs are created and energy becomes cheaper. Unless you are the owner of an oil, gas or coal company, your self interest requires you to support any effort to develop any new energy source, but especially ones that do not generate CO2 regardless of the cost. The cost will eventually be recovered from the energy generated by the new technology. Meanwhile, you or your friends would have a job that otherwise might not be available. Also, when CO2 is removed from the gas leaving a coal plant, so is mercury and uranium, which is a benefit to your health. You need to look past the propaganda generated by the energy industries that would lose profits. Ed On Apr 25, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: It appears from your analysis that the earth has more self regulating capability than most experts give it credit for. Further, it seems to me that it will be better to observe and collect more data for a while instead of rushing off to do something. Better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing, especially if that wrong thing is massively expensive. Misguided, high priced environmental repairs could collapse an already weakened world economy. Jeff -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:40 PM To: vortex Subject: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWSACTION=DSESSION=RCN=30717 New research from Switzerland and the UK reveals that, somewhat paradoxically, plants absorb more carbon dioxide (CO2) when the atmosphere is polluted than they do under cleaner skies. OK that is the finding. Now for the spin. You can imagine that the word coming from the oil-patch (bush- patch?) is YES! just what we have been saying all along, and furthermore, now that know that CO2 is a good thing for nature and for increasing the growth of biomass, and that the cleaner the skies, the less nature can use CO2 - then full speed ahead with maximum carbon but without any emission controls. However, that is 'spin' not logic. But - LOL - the same scientists who found the link, are trying to put a totally different spin on it. Writing in the journal 'Nature', the scientists warn that as air pollution levels continue to decline, even steeper greenhouse gas emissions cuts will be needed to stabilize the climate. Huh? Whoa. You have to use your imagination to fathom how this double negative makes sense, but their explanation is not so far-fetched and 'apologetic' as it may at first seem: Plants rely on the sun to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Although it seems counter-intuitive, plants actually absorb CO2 more efficiently under hazy sunlight than they do under bright, direct sunlight. When exposed to direct sunlight, the leaves at the top of the plant canopy get more sunlight than they can use, and go into a defensive mode, while leaves in the shade do not get enough. However, when clouds and minute particles of pollution scatter the light, leaves lower down on the canopy get comparatively more light than in the previous case. As a result, plants absorb CO2 more effectively in diffuse light than in direct light. But the ideal situation, from the biomass perspective is not necessarily to limit CO2 Doh, reducing carbon emissions reduces the CO2 that plants need. And the 'greenhouse' effect can now be appreciated to be due almost exclusively to the other problems - methane and especially halogens. BUT- 'global dimming' due to particulates, has reduced the net greenhouse effect in the recent past, and if we eliminate particulates, that will increase the net greenhouse
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
No, i speak of cutting to zero sarcastically. I used it to make a point that doing NOTHING is just that, doing NOTHING, and that we are already doing something by producing co2, so your statement of, we should do nothing is meaningless. Its like saying, we are all rowing our boat down river, someone says, ohh, i think we are approaching a waterfall! We should slow down to see before we go over the edge. And you would be the dude saying, no, full speed ahead, don't be crazy. Seriously, you actually took my statement as meaning i think we SHOULD cut to zero? You need to work on your reading comprehension, and learn not to grab onto the one statement you think you can argue against without actually, say, READING it. On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 5:10 AM, Jeff Fink rev...@ptd.net wrote: What I mean by do nothing is leave the CO2 production rates as they are. You talk of cutting man made CO2 to zero like it is possible and desirable. You are literally saying that doing nothing is contributing no manmade CO2 to the environment which means the extinction of the human race! No fossil fueled power plants, no cooking fires to support the resulting cave man existence, and finally, no breathing. I used to think like this back in junior high school, that the biggest problem on earth is people, and that if we eliminate all people the planet would be perfect. I outgrew those thoughts. Jeff -Original Message- From: leaking pen [mailto:itsat...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:47 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear The thing is, we are ALREADY doing something. If we want to do nothing, then we cut all manmade co2 sources instantly. doing SOMETHING is doing just what we are doing already. On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Jeff Fink rev...@ptd.net wrote: It appears from your analysis that the earth has more self regulating capability than most experts give it credit for. Further, it seems to me that it will be better to observe and collect more data for a while instead of rushing off to do something. Better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing, especially if that wrong thing is massively expensive. Misguided, high priced environmental repairs could collapse an already weakened world economy. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Solar and wind are obviously not it for numerous reasons already posted on this forum. What are the main reasons, again? I'm not aware of any inherent ones, despite claims to the contrary. For instance: AFAIC we could blanket the Sahara with solar arrays and solar chimneys, etc. Lower costs come with mass-production and are not an issue, AFAIC. And there are no inherent pollution issues AFAIC, either -- tho' these do exist today under present profit-grubbing ekonomik regimes. - -- grok. - -- Build the North America-wide General Strike. TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. ALL power to the councils and communes. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkn0u8EACgkQXo3EtEYbt3GOugCdECvmcjXX/jkTAB3A8gPvLwNK UBQAniSlnn2m+OEceTMLNof87JSbrL2q =IoCc -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:45:08 -0400: Hi, [snip] If you want a reliable and continous supply of power, solar and wind will not give you that unless you can figure out how to store the generated power cost effectively. [snip] As already discussed frequently on this list, solar can be captured and stored using algae. This is essentially what we are already using when we burn coal. We would just be shortening the cycle time from millions of years to months. While wind and solar don't actually supply continuous electric power, they are also not as bad as you might think. To start with wind may be variable, but if connected to a continent wide grid, then the wind is always blowing somewhere, which helps to reduce the size of the bumps and hollows. Solar would supply direct power only during the day, but then that is also when most power is needed. At night, energy stored in the form of biomass could supplement that supplied by wind, to ensure a continuous supply. Furthermore, as I have also pointed out in the past, it should prove both feasible and cheap to store energy as heat underground in molten salt. At the temperature at which common table salt melts, the Carnot efficiency could be as high as 62%. This could provide a means of storing solar energy through the night at a cost up to 1000 times less than that of lead-acid batteries. If the solar energy is collected in a desert where there is very little cloud cover from day to day, then storage for much more than a day would be unnecessary, particularly if multiple solar plants contributed, that were geographically widely distributed. Then there are also other clean power sources that can contribute during the night - hydro, tidal, geothermal. In short, by utilizing an effective mix of different clean sources, a reliable power supply can be achieved, without fossil fuels, if we really wanted to. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
- Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com Date: Monday, April 27, 2009 0:57 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:45:08 - 0400:Hi, [snip] If you want a reliable and continous supply of power, solar and wind will not give you that unless you can figure out how to store the generated power cost effectively. [snip] As already discussed frequently on this list, solar can be captured and stored using algae. This is essentially what we are already using when we burn coal. We would just be shortening the cycle time from millions of years to months. While wind and solar don't actually supply continuous electric power, they are also not as bad as you might think. To start with wind may be variable, but if connected to a continent wide grid, then the wind is always blowing somewhere,which helps to reduce the size of the bumps and hollows. Solar would supply direct power only during the day, but then that is also when most power is needed. At night, energy stored in the form of biomass could supplement that supplied by wind, to ensure a continuous supply. Furthermore, as I have also pointed out in the past, it should prove both feasible and cheap to store energy as heat underground in molten salt. At the temperature at which common table salt melts, the Carnot efficiency could be as high as 62%. This could provide a means of storing solar energy through the night at a cost up to 1000 times less than that of lead-acid batteries.If the solar energy is collected in a desert where there is very little cloud cover from day to day, then storage for much more than a day would be unnecessary, particularly if multiple solar plants contributed, that were geographically widely distributed. Then there are also other clean power sources that can contribute during the night - hydro, tidal, geothermal. In short, by utilizing an effective mix of different clean sources, a reliable power supply can be achieved, without fossil fuels, if we really wanted to. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Isn't the point of adopting solar and wind power to avoid burning combustibles? Growing a biomass like algae as a source of fuel seems to defeat this. On the other hand if we eat the algae... harry
[Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWSACTION=DSESSION=RCN=30717 New research from Switzerland and the UK reveals that, somewhat paradoxically, plants absorb more carbon dioxide (CO2) when the atmosphere is polluted than they do under cleaner skies. OK that is the finding. Now for the spin. You can imagine that the word coming from the oil-patch (bush-patch?) is YES! just what we have been saying all along, and furthermore, now that know that CO2 is a good thing for nature and for increasing the growth of biomass, and that the cleaner the skies, the less nature can use CO2 - then full speed ahead with maximum carbon but without any emission controls. However, that is 'spin' not logic. But - LOL - the same scientists who found the link, are trying to put a totally different spin on it. Writing in the journal 'Nature', the scientists warn that as air pollution levels continue to decline, even steeper greenhouse gas emissions cuts will be needed to stabilize the climate. Huh? Whoa. You have to use your imagination to fathom how this double negative makes sense, but their explanation is not so far-fetched and 'apologetic' as it may at first seem: Plants rely on the sun to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Although it seems counter-intuitive, plants actually absorb CO2 more efficiently under hazy sunlight than they do under bright, direct sunlight. When exposed to direct sunlight, the leaves at the top of the plant canopy get more sunlight than they can use, and go into a defensive mode, while leaves in the shade do not get enough. However, when clouds and minute particles of pollution scatter the light, leaves lower down on the canopy get comparatively more light than in the previous case. As a result, plants absorb CO2 more effectively in diffuse light than in direct light. But the ideal situation, from the biomass perspective is not necessarily to limit CO2 Doh, reducing carbon emissions reduces the CO2 that plants need. And the 'greenhouse' effect can now be appreciated to be due almost exclusively to the other problems - methane and especially halogens. BUT- 'global dimming' due to particulates, has reduced the net greenhouse effect in the recent past, and if we eliminate particulates, that will increase the net greenhouse effect. Confused yet? The scientists seem to be saying that you either must release dirty CO2 or none at all. Well, that is not quite true - but it highlights the huge grey area we are dealing with in these discussions. If you are not confused yet, IMHO - then you are not thinking responsibly. Al Gore is NOT thinking responsibly, NOR are his critics. Now for the good spin - the free-spin of valid alternatives. The is one and only one course of action that makes sense.Both camps are misguided - and any rush to judgment is foolish; and yet there is one window of opportunity that gets us where we need to be in ten years. That is- aside from the obvious: which is adding solar and wind to the extent that we can afford to buy those very high-priced solutions. The only neglected solution IMHO is to take all of the billion$$ that we want and intend to throw at so-called CO2 sequestration, carbon credits, carbon taxes, etc - and shift that into RD for LENR, hydrino tech, ZPE tech, including magnetic energy and even anti-gravity. These fringe-facets are the ugly stepchild of scince because often they combine more art, intuition, trial-and error, and fringe theory than real' science permits. But real scicence has failed us. Give the fringe a chance, and my intuition tells me that success will be forthcoming. We simply do NOT know enough now to say that CO2 is the real culprit, nor that reducing it is the complete answer; but everyone agrees that new energy technology which does not depend on CO2, but promises to be one-fourth to half the cost per kWhr delivered compared to solar or wind - that is the way to go with the billions allocated for CO2 reduction (which will not help anyway). So why are we waiting? Political inertia. We still do NOT have a Director of ARPA-E ! nor has any of that all-important seed money for risky RD gone out to people who can use it. IOW -take the ARPA-E philosophy - which is a great idea on paper but still is not realized, due to foot-dragging and multiply it by all of the dollars that would be wasted in CO2 sequestration, carbon credits and other nonsense. Forget carbon. Carbon is not the enemy, or at least has not been proved to be anywhere near the problem that the Gore-crew contend it to be. The real problem is bureaucratic inertia. Give the alternative energy camp the funds, and we will deliver. I will now cede the soapbox to the Algore Alliance. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
Umm, thats been known since biosphere 2 days. They did several experiments that showed that, but also showed that plants, especially trees, grew taller but skinner, more knotted (bad for the logging industry!) and that other plants grew at weird rates as well, and that it generally caused havoc. On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWSACTION=DSESSION=RCN=30717 New research from Switzerland and the UK reveals that, somewhat paradoxically, plants absorb more carbon dioxide (CO2) when the atmosphere is polluted than they do under cleaner skies. OK that is the finding. Now for the spin. You can imagine that the word coming from the oil-patch (bush-patch?) is YES! just what we have been saying all along, and furthermore, now that know that CO2 is a good thing for nature and for increasing the growth of biomass, and that the cleaner the skies, the less nature can use CO2 - then full speed ahead with maximum carbon but without any emission controls. However, that is 'spin' not logic. But - LOL - the same scientists who found the link, are trying to put a totally different spin on it. Writing in the journal 'Nature', the scientists warn that as air pollution levels continue to decline, even steeper greenhouse gas emissions cuts will be needed to stabilize the climate. Huh? Whoa. You have to use your imagination to fathom how this double negative makes sense, but their explanation is not so far-fetched and 'apologetic' as it may at first seem: Plants rely on the sun to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Although it seems counter-intuitive, plants actually absorb CO2 more efficiently under hazy sunlight than they do under bright, direct sunlight. When exposed to direct sunlight, the leaves at the top of the plant canopy get more sunlight than they can use, and go into a defensive mode, while leaves in the shade do not get enough. However, when clouds and minute particles of pollution scatter the light, leaves lower down on the canopy get comparatively more light than in the previous case. As a result, plants absorb CO2 more effectively in diffuse light than in direct light. But the ideal situation, from the biomass perspective is not necessarily to limit CO2 Doh, reducing carbon emissions reduces the CO2 that plants need. And the 'greenhouse' effect can now be appreciated to be due almost exclusively to the other problems - methane and especially halogens. BUT- 'global dimming' due to particulates, has reduced the net greenhouse effect in the recent past, and if we eliminate particulates, that will increase the net greenhouse effect. Confused yet? The scientists seem to be saying that you either must release dirty CO2 or none at all. Well, that is not quite true - but it highlights the huge grey area we are dealing with in these discussions. If you are not confused yet, IMHO - then you are not thinking responsibly. Al Gore is NOT thinking responsibly, NOR are his critics. Now for the good spin - the free-spin of valid alternatives. The is one and only one course of action that makes sense.Both camps are misguided - and any rush to judgment is foolish; and yet there is one window of opportunity that gets us where we need to be in ten years. That is- aside from the obvious: which is adding solar and wind to the extent that we can afford to buy those very high-priced solutions. The only neglected solution IMHO is to take all of the billion$$ that we want and intend to throw at so-called CO2 sequestration, carbon credits, carbon taxes, etc - and shift that into RD for LENR, hydrino tech, ZPE tech, including magnetic energy and even anti-gravity. These fringe-facets are the ugly stepchild of scince because often they combine more art, intuition, trial-and error, and fringe theory than real' science permits. But real scicence has failed us. Give the fringe a chance, and my intuition tells me that success will be forthcoming. We simply do NOT know enough now to say that CO2 is the real culprit, nor that reducing it is the complete answer; but everyone agrees that new energy technology which does not depend on CO2, but promises to be one-fourth to half the cost per kWhr delivered compared to solar or wind - that is the way to go with the billions allocated for CO2 reduction (which will not help anyway). So why are we waiting? Political inertia. We still do NOT have a Director of ARPA-E ! nor has any of that all-important seed money for risky RD gone out to people who can use it. IOW -take the ARPA-E philosophy - which is a great idea on paper but still is not realized, due to foot-dragging and multiply it by all of the dollars that would be wasted in CO2 sequestration, carbon credits and other nonsense. Forget carbon. Carbon is not the enemy, or at least has not been proved to be anywhere near the problem that the
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net mounted the barricade and roared out: So why are we waiting? Political inertia. No, we are waiting because of capitalist vested interests -- which put their elite interests ahead of the interests of all the 99.99% of the rest of us. We still do NOT have a Director of ARPA-E ! nor has any of that all-important seed money for risky RD gone out to people who can use it. IOW -take the ARPA-E philosophy - which is a great idea on paper but still is not realized, due to foot-dragging and multiply it by all of the dollars that would be wasted in CO2 sequestration, carbon credits and other nonsense. Forget carbon. Carbon is not the enemy, or at least has not been proved to be anywhere near the problem that the Gore-crew contend it to be. What do you mean We, White Man..? You do not solve the problem of capitalist vested interests by turning to the agents of the same capitalist vested interests for a 'solution'. Talk about double negatives. Or maybe double talk. ;P - -- grok. - -- Build the North America-wide General Strike. TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. ALL power to the councils and communes. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAknzSJkACgkQXo3EtEYbt3EcCwCdHpG1q8yleaiFAsQPwKVXHHqe igkAoKwhPMKsctKRB00Q7InnY2hJTlYb =2maY -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
It appears from your analysis that the earth has more self regulating capability than most experts give it credit for. Further, it seems to me that it will be better to observe and collect more data for a while instead of rushing off to do something. Better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing, especially if that wrong thing is massively expensive. Misguided, high priced environmental repairs could collapse an already weakened world economy. Jeff -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:40 PM To: vortex Subject: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWSACTION=DSESSION=RCN=30717 New research from Switzerland and the UK reveals that, somewhat paradoxically, plants absorb more carbon dioxide (CO2) when the atmosphere is polluted than they do under cleaner skies. OK that is the finding. Now for the spin. You can imagine that the word coming from the oil-patch (bush-patch?) is YES! just what we have been saying all along, and furthermore, now that know that CO2 is a good thing for nature and for increasing the growth of biomass, and that the cleaner the skies, the less nature can use CO2 - then full speed ahead with maximum carbon but without any emission controls. However, that is 'spin' not logic. But - LOL - the same scientists who found the link, are trying to put a totally different spin on it. Writing in the journal 'Nature', the scientists warn that as air pollution levels continue to decline, even steeper greenhouse gas emissions cuts will be needed to stabilize the climate. Huh? Whoa. You have to use your imagination to fathom how this double negative makes sense, but their explanation is not so far-fetched and 'apologetic' as it may at first seem: Plants rely on the sun to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Although it seems counter-intuitive, plants actually absorb CO2 more efficiently under hazy sunlight than they do under bright, direct sunlight. When exposed to direct sunlight, the leaves at the top of the plant canopy get more sunlight than they can use, and go into a defensive mode, while leaves in the shade do not get enough. However, when clouds and minute particles of pollution scatter the light, leaves lower down on the canopy get comparatively more light than in the previous case. As a result, plants absorb CO2 more effectively in diffuse light than in direct light. But the ideal situation, from the biomass perspective is not necessarily to limit CO2 Doh, reducing carbon emissions reduces the CO2 that plants need. And the 'greenhouse' effect can now be appreciated to be due almost exclusively to the other problems - methane and especially halogens. BUT- 'global dimming' due to particulates, has reduced the net greenhouse effect in the recent past, and if we eliminate particulates, that will increase the net greenhouse effect. Confused yet? The scientists seem to be saying that you either must release dirty CO2 or none at all. Well, that is not quite true - but it highlights the huge grey area we are dealing with in these discussions. If you are not confused yet, IMHO - then you are not thinking responsibly. Al Gore is NOT thinking responsibly, NOR are his critics. Now for the good spin - the free-spin of valid alternatives. The is one and only one course of action that makes sense.Both camps are misguided - and any rush to judgment is foolish; and yet there is one window of opportunity that gets us where we need to be in ten years. That is- aside from the obvious: which is adding solar and wind to the extent that we can afford to buy those very high-priced solutions. The only neglected solution IMHO is to take all of the billion$$ that we want and intend to throw at so-called CO2 sequestration, carbon credits, carbon taxes, etc - and shift that into RD for LENR, hydrino tech, ZPE tech, including magnetic energy and even anti-gravity. These fringe-facets are the ugly stepchild of scince because often they combine more art, intuition, trial-and error, and fringe theory than real' science permits. But real scicence has failed us. Give the fringe a chance, and my intuition tells me that success will be forthcoming. We simply do NOT know enough now to say that CO2 is the real culprit, nor that reducing it is the complete answer; but everyone agrees that new energy technology which does not depend on CO2, but promises to be one-fourth to half the cost per kWhr delivered compared to solar or wind - that is the way to go with the billions allocated for CO2 reduction (which will not help anyway). So why are we waiting? Political inertia. We still do NOT have a Director of ARPA-E ! nor has any of that all-important seed money for risky RD gone out to people who can use it. IOW -take the ARPA-E philosophy - which is a great idea on paper but still is not realized, due to foot-dragging and multiply it by all of the dollars that would be wasted in CO2 sequestration
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
The thing is, we are ALREADY doing something. If we want to do nothing, then we cut all manmade co2 sources instantly. doing SOMETHING is doing just what we are doing already. On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Jeff Fink rev...@ptd.net wrote: It appears from your analysis that the earth has more self regulating capability than most experts give it credit for. Further, it seems to me that it will be better to observe and collect more data for a while instead of rushing off to do something. Better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing, especially if that wrong thing is massively expensive. Misguided, high priced environmental repairs could collapse an already weakened world economy. Jeff -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:40 PM To: vortex Subject: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWSACTION=DSESSION=RCN=30717 New research from Switzerland and the UK reveals that, somewhat paradoxically, plants absorb more carbon dioxide (CO2) when the atmosphere is polluted than they do under cleaner skies. OK that is the finding. Now for the spin. You can imagine that the word coming from the oil-patch (bush-patch?) is YES! just what we have been saying all along, and furthermore, now that know that CO2 is a good thing for nature and for increasing the growth of biomass, and that the cleaner the skies, the less nature can use CO2 - then full speed ahead with maximum carbon but without any emission controls. However, that is 'spin' not logic. But - LOL - the same scientists who found the link, are trying to put a totally different spin on it. Writing in the journal 'Nature', the scientists warn that as air pollution levels continue to decline, even steeper greenhouse gas emissions cuts will be needed to stabilize the climate. Huh? Whoa. You have to use your imagination to fathom how this double negative makes sense, but their explanation is not so far-fetched and 'apologetic' as it may at first seem: Plants rely on the sun to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Although it seems counter-intuitive, plants actually absorb CO2 more efficiently under hazy sunlight than they do under bright, direct sunlight. When exposed to direct sunlight, the leaves at the top of the plant canopy get more sunlight than they can use, and go into a defensive mode, while leaves in the shade do not get enough. However, when clouds and minute particles of pollution scatter the light, leaves lower down on the canopy get comparatively more light than in the previous case. As a result, plants absorb CO2 more effectively in diffuse light than in direct light. But the ideal situation, from the biomass perspective is not necessarily to limit CO2 Doh, reducing carbon emissions reduces the CO2 that plants need. And the 'greenhouse' effect can now be appreciated to be due almost exclusively to the other problems - methane and especially halogens. BUT- 'global dimming' due to particulates, has reduced the net greenhouse effect in the recent past, and if we eliminate particulates, that will increase the net greenhouse effect. Confused yet? The scientists seem to be saying that you either must release dirty CO2 or none at all. Well, that is not quite true - but it highlights the huge grey area we are dealing with in these discussions. If you are not confused yet, IMHO - then you are not thinking responsibly. Al Gore is NOT thinking responsibly, NOR are his critics. Now for the good spin - the free-spin of valid alternatives. The is one and only one course of action that makes sense.Both camps are misguided - and any rush to judgment is foolish; and yet there is one window of opportunity that gets us where we need to be in ten years. That is- aside from the obvious: which is adding solar and wind to the extent that we can afford to buy those very high-priced solutions. The only neglected solution IMHO is to take all of the billion$$ that we want and intend to throw at so-called CO2 sequestration, carbon credits, carbon taxes, etc - and shift that into RD for LENR, hydrino tech, ZPE tech, including magnetic energy and even anti-gravity. These fringe-facets are the ugly stepchild of scince because often they combine more art, intuition, trial-and error, and fringe theory than real' science permits. But real scicence has failed us. Give the fringe a chance, and my intuition tells me that success will be forthcoming. We simply do NOT know enough now to say that CO2 is the real culprit, nor that reducing it is the complete answer; but everyone agrees that new energy technology which does not depend on CO2, but promises to be one-fourth to half the cost per kWhr delivered compared to solar or wind - that is the way to go with the billions allocated for CO2 reduction (which will not help anyway). So why are we waiting? Political inertia. We still do
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Jeff Fink rev...@ptd.net mounted the barricade and roared out: It appears from your analysis that the earth has more self regulating capability than most experts give it credit for. Further, it seems to me that it will be better to observe and collect more data for a while instead of rushing off to do something. Better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing, especially if that wrong thing is massively expensive. Misguided, high priced environmental repairs could collapse an already weakened world economy. Jeff First off: it is entirely the logic of capitalist ekonomix which causes capitalist ekonomik crises. Second: anything which gets people working will be a vast improvement over the insane enforced idleness which the above 'logic' hog-ties us to. - -- grok. - -- Build the North America-wide General Strike. TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. ALL power to the councils and communes. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAknzS/8ACgkQXo3EtEYbt3Fq2gCgngpdGmX9kXTIlyKQ0OMs0nk7 vg4An1fvbOMUvsl/3bAv6XAK3R1JbWKP =7TgN -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
You and many people Jeff, miss an important issue about finding ways to reduce CO2 emission. Yes it is expensive, but so are all changes in technology. The expense issue is only a distraction raised by industries that will be harmed by the new technology. In contrast, the general population always benefits from such efforts because more jobs are created and energy becomes cheaper. Unless you are the owner of an oil, gas or coal company, your self interest requires you to support any effort to develop any new energy source, but especially ones that do not generate CO2 regardless of the cost. The cost will eventually be recovered from the energy generated by the new technology. Meanwhile, you or your friends would have a job that otherwise might not be available. Also, when CO2 is removed from the gas leaving a coal plant, so is mercury and uranium, which is a benefit to your health. You need to look past the propaganda generated by the energy industries that would lose profits. Ed On Apr 25, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: It appears from your analysis that the earth has more self regulating capability than most experts give it credit for. Further, it seems to me that it will be better to observe and collect more data for a while instead of rushing off to do something. Better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing, especially if that wrong thing is massively expensive. Misguided, high priced environmental repairs could collapse an already weakened world economy. Jeff -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:40 PM To: vortex Subject: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWSACTION=DSESSION=RCN=30717 New research from Switzerland and the UK reveals that, somewhat paradoxically, plants absorb more carbon dioxide (CO2) when the atmosphere is polluted than they do under cleaner skies. OK that is the finding. Now for the spin. You can imagine that the word coming from the oil-patch (bush- patch?) is YES! just what we have been saying all along, and furthermore, now that know that CO2 is a good thing for nature and for increasing the growth of biomass, and that the cleaner the skies, the less nature can use CO2 - then full speed ahead with maximum carbon but without any emission controls. However, that is 'spin' not logic. But - LOL - the same scientists who found the link, are trying to put a totally different spin on it. Writing in the journal 'Nature', the scientists warn that as air pollution levels continue to decline, even steeper greenhouse gas emissions cuts will be needed to stabilize the climate. Huh? Whoa. You have to use your imagination to fathom how this double negative makes sense, but their explanation is not so far-fetched and 'apologetic' as it may at first seem: Plants rely on the sun to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Although it seems counter-intuitive, plants actually absorb CO2 more efficiently under hazy sunlight than they do under bright, direct sunlight. When exposed to direct sunlight, the leaves at the top of the plant canopy get more sunlight than they can use, and go into a defensive mode, while leaves in the shade do not get enough. However, when clouds and minute particles of pollution scatter the light, leaves lower down on the canopy get comparatively more light than in the previous case. As a result, plants absorb CO2 more effectively in diffuse light than in direct light. But the ideal situation, from the biomass perspective is not necessarily to limit CO2 Doh, reducing carbon emissions reduces the CO2 that plants need. And the 'greenhouse' effect can now be appreciated to be due almost exclusively to the other problems - methane and especially halogens. BUT- 'global dimming' due to particulates, has reduced the net greenhouse effect in the recent past, and if we eliminate particulates, that will increase the net greenhouse effect. Confused yet? The scientists seem to be saying that you either must release dirty CO2 or none at all. Well, that is not quite true - but it highlights the huge grey area we are dealing with in these discussions. If you are not confused yet, IMHO - then you are not thinking responsibly. Al Gore is NOT thinking responsibly, NOR are his critics. Now for the good spin - the free-spin of valid alternatives. The is one and only one course of action that makes sense.Both camps are misguided - and any rush to judgment is foolish; and yet there is one window of opportunity that gets us where we need to be in ten years. That is- aside from the obvious: which is adding solar and wind to the extent that we can afford to buy those very high-priced solutions. The only neglected solution IMHO is to take all of the billion$$ that we want and intend to throw at so-called CO2 sequestration, carbon credits, carbon taxes, etc
