NationStates Jolt Archive

I said it before, and will say it again.....once more people embrace the go green banner, the better the environment will be without a corresponding loss of trade revenue.....except for those that fail to get on the bandwagon that is!!

Global investment in renewable energy grows 43 per cent in 2006, UN says (http://finance.sympatico.msn.ca/investing/news/businessnews/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5035421)

Come on Canada/US........we should be world leaders in this field, yet we drag our feet. Sad!!

Not according to John Baird. *nods*

I like the epitath Vonnegut gives for the world in Hocus Pocus: "We could have saved it, but we were too goddamn cheap"

Although I guess now the only way we're going to end up saving the world is when the ruling class realizes it's cheaper to do so.

Not according to John Baird. *nods*

The Conservative Party doesn't care about the environment?!?

I am SHOCKED!

I said it before, and will say it again.....once more people embrace the go green banner, the better the environment will be without a corresponding loss of trade revenue.....except for those that fail to get on the bandwagon that is!!

Global investment in renewable energy grows 43 per cent in 2006, UN says (http://finance.sympatico.msn.ca/investing/news/businessnews/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5035421)

Come on Canada/US........we should be world leaders in this field, yet we drag our feet. Sad!!

I've been to America...I doubt this go green thing will ever take off there, I've never seen such waste in my life. You can't get a cup of coffee unless it's in a paper/styrofoam cup wrapped in cardboard wrapped in plastic wrapped in paper and in a bag.

The Conservative Party doesn't care about the environment?!?

I am SHOCKED!

It costs too much (read: we don't want to divert funds from defence), so they are telling how us about how bad it is for the economy...

I've been to America...I doubt this go green thing will ever take off there, I've never seen such waste in my life. You can't get a cup of coffee unless it's in a paper/styrofoam cup wrapped in cardboard wrapped in plastic wrapped in paper and in a bag.

so tru

Not according to John Baird. *nods*
John Baird is one of Stevie's yo-yos. :eek:

John Baird is one of Stevie's yo-yos. :eek:

He's got the whole lot of those drones on one big conga-line string doesn't he? :p

Although I guess now the only way we're going to end up saving the world is when the ruling class realizes it's cheaper to do so.
Either that it would be cheaper to do so, or that they could make a shitload of money by going green.

This has been the bit I never get. Renewable and green technologies are more stable, cheaper in the long run, and the converstion would be a stimulation of the economy in the same way the internet was, it's a whole lot of money moving around. The only ones who stand to lose are those who stand still.

And not to harp on the same thing, but American car manufacturers whined and whined that making greener more fuel efficient cars would ruin them. So they didn't, and they've had slumping sales. Toyota made fuel efficient cars and out sold them. The most ridiculous thing is that instead of blaming the product, they blame the union.

Whatever happen to that whole 'innovate or die' thing?

This has been the bit I never get. Renewable and green technologies are more stable, cheaper in the long run, and the converstion would be a stimulation of the economy in the same way the internet was, it's a whole lot of money moving around. The only ones who stand to lose are those who stand still.

And not to harp on the same thing, but American car manufacturers whined and whined that making greener more fuel efficient cars would ruin them. So they didn't, and they've had slumping sales. Toyota made fuel efficient cars and out sold them. The most ridiculous thing is that instead of blaming the product, they blame the union.

Whatever happen to that whole 'innovate or die' thing?
The innovators moved to Japan, China, etc., and the American economy will die????

Great talking points CTOAN!!

The innovators moved to Japan, China, etc., and the American economy will die???

No, no, the US is still one of the world's biggest innovators, but we're making all of our progress in greener sectors like IT, biotechnology, alternative energy and medicine. Manufacturing couldn't adapt to the changing market, and it died out and left the country.

Either that it would be cheaper to do so, or that they could make a shitload of money by going green.
Well, yes, that too.

Yeah, you people are bashing america for being wateful but you fail to realize how America is also the one developing very close to ALL of the green technology...

My stock is doing nicely. :cool:

My stock is doing nicely. :cool:

So is mine, but I'm investing in the bad side of global warming. Chinese and Russian ETFs, defense contractors like Raytheon and oil refiners are some of my best performers. Of course, I've also got a lot of technology companies in there (obviously) and GE.

The innovators moved to Japan, China, etc., and the American economy will die????

Great talking points CTOAN!!

Ugh, calling them talking points makes me feel dirty.

Yeah, you people are bashing america for being wateful but you fail to realize how America is also the one developing very close to ALL of the green technology...

The US consumes 20% of the world's energy and produced over 20% of its total GDP. That's not really that wasteful; almost all of our waste is in the transportation sector and nowhere else. In fact, our economy is highly energy-efficient outside of transportation.

Global warming is bad for the economy because it is going to kill the majority of the planetary population unless it is curbed. Of course I cannot help but imagine that all the Corporations, their Boards of Directors, and their shareholders will all survive. And so it shall be that the End Times will be soulless corporations attempting to sell their wares to one another.

Ugh, calling them talking points makes me feel dirty.
*apologizes......throws CTOAN a bar of soap :)

That would be environmental safe soap. :)

You hit the nail on the head with your points. The N/A auto manufacturers have had their way with the consumer for far too long, and have blown their golden opportunity to be world class leaders.

Blaming the unions is rubbish for sure!!

I said it before, and will say it again.....once more people embrace the go green banner, the better the environment will be without a corresponding loss of trade revenue.....except for those that fail to get on the bandwagon that is!!

Global investment in renewable energy grows 43 per cent in 2006, UN says (http://finance.sympatico.msn.ca/investing/news/businessnews/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5035421)

Come on Canada/US........we should be world leaders in this field, yet we drag our feet. Sad!!
And just how much non-renweable energy and materials goes into the production of these source of "renewable" energy and materials? Have you ever heard of a cost benefit analysis? If it costs more to make a "renewable fuel" or source of power than it puts out then you've actually done more harm to the environment.

Hydrogen, the fuel that everyone seems to be ejaculating praise over, needs to be made and that process takes more energy than it can produce. Therefore, hydrogen fuel cells for cars and in general are bad for the environment. Same goes for ethanol. It's partially oxidized to begin with and alcohols have less energy in their bonds than comparable alkanes.

Paper recycling is also bad for the environment. A truck picks it up from your house and all other homes nearby; drives to a sorting center, it gets sorted, driven again even farther to another recycling center; soaked, shredded, bleached, treated, pressed, rolled, and cut before being driven to whoever ordered it. All those chemical baths and burnt fuel aren't healthy to most organisms so paper recycling is bad for the environment.

Aluminum recycling is good for the environment so please recycle metals. And you should probably recycle plastic because its made from oil. But send your paper bags through a shredder at home and throw them in your backyard to decompose.

Hybrid cars are also a load of bullshit. For that extra few thousand dollars you get to lug around a giant toxic battery that weighs hundreds of pounds, a second engine, a second power train, etc. You might say its half car...and nothing else. And then there is that whole problem of them only getting better milage when you're in stop-and-go traffic because they recharge through braking. If you take a hybrid on the highway it will have to run the whole time on a small, weak gas engine. And a Pious goes from 0 to 60 in 12 seconds as opposed to just over 4 seconds for a Chevy Corvette and a Harley in just under 6 and a Mini Cooper at 6.6.

And solar power sucks too. 6 ping pong tables of photovoltaic cells to power the average car. With full exposure.

And just how much non-renweable energy and materials goes into the production of these source of "renewable" energy and materials? Have you ever heard of a cost benefit analysis? If it costs more to make a "renewable fuel" or source of power than it puts out then you've actually done more harm to the environment.

Hydrogen, the fuel that everyone seems to be ejaculating praise over, needs to be made and that process takes more energy than it can produce. Therefore, hydrogen fuel cells for cars and in general are bad for the environment. Same goes for ethanol. It's partially oxidized to begin with and alcohols have less energy in their bonds than comparable alkanes.

Paper recycling is also bad for the environment. A truck picks it up from your house and all other homes nearby; drives to a sorting center, it gets sorted, driven again even farther to another recycling center; soaked, shredded, bleached, treated, pressed, rolled, and cut before being driven to whoever ordered it. All those chemical baths and burnt fuel aren't healthy to most organisms so paper recycling is bad for the environment.

Aluminum recycling is good for the environment so please recycle metals. And you should probably recycle plastic because its made from oil. But send your paper bags through a shredder at home and throw them in your backyard to decompose.

Hybrid cars are also a load of bullshit. For that extra few thousand dollars you get to lug around a giant toxic battery that weighs hundreds of pounds, a second engine, a second power train, etc. You might say its half car...and nothing else. And then there is that whole problem of them only getting better milage when you're in stop-and-go traffic because they recharge through braking. If you take a hybrid on the highway it will have to run the whole time on a small, weak gas engine. And a Pious goes from 0 to 60 in 12 seconds as opposed to just over 4 seconds for a Chevy Corvette and a Harley in just under 6 and a Mini Cooper at 6.6.

And solar power sucks too. 6 ping pong tables of photovoltaic cells to power the average car. With full exposure.
Have you got any credible sources that back up your points?

Paper recyling is bad for the environment? Think again about how many oxygen producing trees are spared the axe because of recyling. The pressing and rolling happens to recylables as well as new product. Also transportation to the recycling plant would be almost equivalent to trucks going into the forests to harvest the trees and then deliver the product to the mills. etc. etc....

I've been to America...I doubt this go green thing will ever take off there, I've never seen such waste in my life. You can't get a cup of coffee unless it's in a paper/styrofoam cup wrapped in cardboard wrapped in plastic wrapped in paper and in a bag.


Canada's actually okay for that. Most places give you a discount for bringing (and using) one of those portable coffee mugs and many people do so. (At least the places I go to are... but then again I avoid Starbucks so....)

I think you are all missing a very important point.
Yes, "going green" saves money in the long run, and yes, it's better for the economy, and yes, it prevents a fiery man-made apocalypse that will bring Judgment Day several hundred years ahead of schedule. On the other hand, being eco-friendly is hard! Do you know what I would have to do to turn off the lights whenever I leave the house? I would have to remember to turn them off, then I would have to go to every room, flip the switch, and then go back outside. It's much simpler to leave it in the hands of the next generation; they look up to the challenge.

Hydrogen, the fuel that everyone seems to be ejaculating praise over, needs to be made and that process takes more energy than it can produce. Therefore, hydrogen fuel cells for cars and in general are bad for the environment. Same goes for ethanol. It's partially oxidized to begin with and alcohols have less energy in their bonds than comparable alkanes.

Ejaculating? I don't think we're that excited.

Have you got any credible sources that back up your points?

Paper recyling is bad for the environment? Think again about how many oxygen producing trees are spared the axe because of recyling. The pressing and rolling happens to recylables as well as new product. Also transportation to the recycling plant would be almost equivalent to trucks going into the forests to harvest the trees and then deliver the product to the mills. etc. etc....

He's also exterioralising the costs of a damaged climate, and only looking at the costs of manufacture.

And just how much non-renweable energy and materials goes into the production of these source of "renewable" energy and materials? Have you ever heard of a cost benefit analysis? If it costs more to make a "renewable fuel" or source of power than it puts out then you've actually done more harm to the environment.

Sort of. Every source of energy takes more energy to produce than could possibly be extracted from it. It doesn't matter if it is renewable or not. Oil requires an amazing amount of pressure and heat. Solar energy requires nuclear fusion. The question is where the energy required to produce this source comes from and the effects of using that source.

Hydrogen, the fuel that everyone seems to be ejaculating praise over, needs to be made and that process takes more energy than it can produce. Therefore, hydrogen fuel cells for cars and in general are bad for the environment.

All energy storage devices are less than 100% efficient. Should we stop using batteries? A hydrogen fuel cell is nothing more than a battery, really.

Same goes for ethanol. It's partially oxidized to begin with and alcohols have less energy in their bonds than comparable alkanes.

But the energy required to power the processes of entrapping the carbon and fermenting it all come from solar energy, which is a more intelligent resource than oil and gas.

Paper recycling is also bad for the environment. A truck picks it up from your house and all other homes nearby; drives to a sorting center, it gets sorted, driven again even farther to another recycling center; soaked, shredded, bleached, treated, pressed, rolled, and cut before being driven to whoever ordered it. All those chemical baths and burnt fuel aren't healthy to most organisms so paper recycling is bad for the environment.

But recycling paper is not as bad as making that same paper from scratch. However, you do pont out the problems with recycling. This is why recycling is the last step we should take. Reduction of energy and resource consumption is a better solution, i.e.e don't use paper at all.

Aluminum recycling is good for the environment so please recycle metals. And you should probably recycle plastic because its made from oil. But send your paper bags through a shredder at home and throw them in your backyard to decompose.

Provided they have no harmful inks or bleaches on them, yes. Paper decomposes within a year, wax paper takes two to seven years, I believe.

Hybrid cars are also a load of bullshit. For that extra few thousand dollars you get to lug around a giant toxic battery that weighs hundreds of pounds, a second engine, a second power train, etc. You might say its half car...and nothing else. And then there is that whole problem of them only getting better milage when you're in stop-and-go traffic because they recharge through braking. If you take a hybrid on the highway it will have to run the whole time on a small, weak gas engine. And a Pious goes from 0 to 60 in 12 seconds as opposed to just over 4 seconds for a Chevy Corvette and a Harley in just under 6 and a Mini Cooper at 6.6.

Yet people are apparently wanting to buy them. Perhaps we should let the free market decide this one.

And solar power sucks too. 6 ping pong tables of photovoltaic cells to power the average car. With full exposure.

Not to mention that the chemicals used in the production of solar cells is very toxic, the panels need to be rotated to be constantly perpendicular to the suns rays, and several other problems.

Every energy source has some pros and some cons. Rather than choosing one that we then try to aply to all possible situations, it would be better to implement several different systems according to local weather conditions. Arizona would be a better spot for solar collectors, while New York City could make electricity from the methane of decomposing garbage. Even the ecological bogey men of nuclear and coal have a part to play in such a scenario.

And just how much non-renweable energy and materials goes into the production of these source of "renewable" energy and materials? Have you ever heard of a cost benefit analysis? If it costs more to make a "renewable fuel" or source of power than it puts out then you've actually done more harm to the environment.
Someone already pointed out that this is a phenomenon of all power sources and that fossil fuels when compared to others don't really fair that well.

Hydrogen, the fuel that everyone seems to be ejaculating praise over, needs to be made and that process takes more energy than it can produce. Therefore, hydrogen fuel cells for cars and in general are bad for the environment. Same goes for ethanol. It's partially oxidized to begin with and alcohols have less energy in their bonds than comparable alkanes.
You'll find the enthusiasm for hydrogen is far lower than you characterize it, mostly because it looks like the preferred method of creating it seems to involve fossil fuels, which feels a bit like seeing your watch on the guy who installed your cable. There are other alternatives to that being researched, and like many of the alternatives, time will tell.

At this point complaints like this sound like the people stomping about saying things like "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible" or "Man was not meant to exceed 60mph." Again, wheres all that faith in "American ingenuity?" We can go into space and cure disease but for some reason we have no faith that with research and know how we can make the refining of Ethanol better? Brazil uses sugar cane, which is much better than corn, eventually we'll stop sucking corn cock (okay, I just wanted to say 'corn cock') when alternatives prove more and more reliable.

I'm not on my computer so I don't have the link to the story about biodiesel coming from algae.

What's truly emerging, and someone hit on this already, is that it isn't going to be a one stop solution, and we have to stop looking at it that way. There isn't going to be a magic wand technology that's going to power your cars and your lights and shoot rainbows and rain ice cream. We're in all likelyhood going to be looking at several smaller solutions that are tailored to the local needs. What this prevents, and we should be glad for this looking in hindsight to our last 'one size fits all' solution, is a global catastrophe because the one source is interrupted somehow. It's how nature survives and it's going to be how we're going to have to survive, diversity.

Paper recycling is also bad for the environment. A truck picks it up from your house and all other homes nearby; drives to a sorting center, it gets sorted, driven again even farther to another recycling center; soaked, shredded, bleached, treated, pressed, rolled, and cut before being driven to whoever ordered it. All those chemical baths and burnt fuel aren't healthy to most organisms so paper recycling is bad for the environment.
The way paper is currently recycled it's not the best and that does need to be revised.

Aluminum recycling is good for the environment so please recycle metals. And you should probably recycle plastic because its made from oil. But send your paper bags through a shredder at home and throw them in your backyard to decompose.
Not everyone has a backyard, though.

Hybrid cars are also a load of bullshit. For that extra few thousand dollars you get to lug around a giant toxic battery that weighs hundreds of pounds, a second engine, a second power train, etc. You might say its half car...and nothing else. And then there is that whole problem of them only getting better milage when you're in stop-and-go traffic because they recharge through braking. If you take a hybrid on the highway it will have to run the whole time on a small, weak gas engine. And a Pious goes from 0 to 60 in 12 seconds as opposed to just over 4 seconds for a Chevy Corvette and a Harley in just under 6 and a Mini Cooper at 6.6.
Did you just compare a Corvette to a hybrid? How damn ridiculous is that? "Why buy a Civic, a Bentley Arnage is way better." Utterly silly. Not to mention the Corvette gets less than half the mileage and costs almost four times as much. Most peoples driving is done in city, where the Prius excels. If you do the majority of your driving on highways you need a different vehicle. No one is seriously advocating an all Prius roadway, but if you're a city hopper and you can, it would help.

And solar power sucks too. 6 ping pong tables of photovoltaic cells to power the average car. With full exposure.
Still not on my computer so I don't have the link, but solar equipped Prius' (and after market mod) get up to 120mpg. Not freakin' bad, really. And developments are being made in solar cells, including ones that absorb UV energy as well, making them effective even in overcast conditions. (and with that one they're getting pretty sci-fi, talking about it being a 'roll on' type substance or even interweaving it in clothing to recharge cell phones and laptops...I wish I had the link. When I get home I'll look for it)

The bottom line is that yes, a lot of the alternatives are in their early stages and not everything works the way it should. And maybe in a lot of these cases it won't. But if we gave up at the first signs generations of things computers would never have gotten past the Johniac and the Wright Brothers would have ended their lives still making bicycles.

Just sayin'.

ireland is gettin hotter so screw yas all im all for it

There is also non photvoltaic solar systems, such as solar heating (which can be used as a solar farm to make steam for a turbine). There also needs to be more effective electricity transmission methods (try to develop better superconductors and develop nanotech enhanced superconductors for cars) and more efficient use inside systems.

Have you got any credible sources that back up your points?
Daniel K. Benjamin, New York Times, CEI, New York Department of Sanitation, etc.

Paper recyling is bad for the environment? Think again about how many oxygen producing trees are spared the axe because of recyling. The pressing and rolling happens to recylables as well as new product. Also transportation to the recycling plant would be almost equivalent to trucks going into the forests to harvest the trees and then deliver the product to the mills. etc. etc....
Most paper companies grow whole forests on private land right next to the facotry for the specific purpose of cutting them down and turning them into paper...at least in the US. And trees use up the oxygen and food they make during the day at night so they really aren't the green lungs of Earth you've been led to believe. If you believe that driving a truck will cause global warming then recycling paper will raise temperatures more than if you left it in your backyard to feed some flower seeds.

Look, recycling most metals is beneficial, you have to mine them and process the ore. I'll admi that if it melts then it's propbably worth it (with the exception of glass because that's just sand and it still costs more energy to recycle a plastic bottle than to make a new one but I'll let plastic slide because its oil and that's needed for fuel). But if it rots then it's probably not. Recycling, like most of this whole "going green" fad is a gris-gris. And being the complete dick that I am I just feel compelled to destroy things that make people feel good.

The whole recycling craze actually started with a garbage barge called the Mobro 4000 back in 1987. The plan was to turn the trash into fuel but a rumor about medical shit got started that soured the deal and the idiot skipper ran up and down the coast trying to dump his load. The story got picked up by the evening news as a sign that America and the world was full of shit and we needed to recycle or we'd be buried in garbage. But if you actually crunched the numbers a 35 mile wide 200 feet tall or deep landfill would hold about a thousand years of trash. It'd suck to live near such a thing but nobody is actually proposing it, it's just an example of how much room we've actually got.

The fact is that recycling increases energy and resource useage through transporting, sorting, storing, and cleaning.

Recycling isn't profitable (producing more than it consumes) without subsidies (with the exception of metal recycling like aluminum) and because subsidies don't really count because the money was taken out of your pocket to begin with it simply isn't profitable. Government recycling programs have been a financial loss every year since they started.

"Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America: a waste of time and money, a waste of human and natural resources."
-New York Times

The Endangered Specieis Act is also a bunch of bull. Since it became law only 40 species have been delisted. 9 of them died out so it did jack shit for them. The rest either recovered on their own from hunting restrictions already in place or were mistakenly listed. Oops.

Every silver lining has a dark cloud.

There is also non photvoltaic solar systems, such as solar heating (which can be used as a solar farm to make steam for a turbine). There also needs to be more effective electricity transmission methods (try to develop better superconductors and develop nanotech enhanced superconductors for cars) and more efficient use inside systems.
Lately I've been convinced by the argument for DC power distribution and local 'microgrids' where power is generated in smaller amounts closer to the needs without as much loss that occurs when having power travel longer distances.

With business that utilize unused roof space and end up generating more power than they need sell their excess back to the power grid. This is only one small example of how this system is already working. Not to mention that it provides another way for local businesses to create an extra revenue stream while doing something good. There are other examples of how this would work and I'm becoming more and more convinced that in a lot of situations that'd be the way to go. Not to mention spreading the cost out and lowering the overall risk. Much easier to subsidize local solar/wind/methane/whatever than build whole new technology plants that have to ship power that will bleed over a longer distance.

And being the complete dick that I am I just feel compelled to destroy things that make people feel good.



Invalidates a great deal of what you have to say since you will favor evidence that 'destroys things that make people feel good.' I know your proud of your anti-social issues, and that you shouldn't be gives you that extra sense of glee, but on the respectability scale it puts you on par with puppy kickers and kids who pull the wings off flys, little more than a nuisance.

If you where simply critical that would be one thing, because it is constructive. However, with this admission you give the impression that you are willing to stick your flag in whatever you can find that is the most contrarian, which sort of makes it a waste of time. Because of that, more than a single source would be required because you are prone to the "more scientists named Steve" trap because by your own admission you give extra weight to opinions based on how bad they will make people feel.

Only problem is that you would not generate nearly enough energy for the city or for energy instensive industires. That and we also need to stop the enlargement of cities horizontally, we need them to build up, not out.

Better superconducting materials (maybe even the warm superconductin 'grail') would allow tide or wind farms that are far from the area that needs the power.

Only problem is that you would not generate nearly enough energy for the city or for energy instensive industires. That and we also need to stop the enlargement of cities horizontally, we need them to build up, not out.

Better superconducting materials (maybe even the warm superconductin 'grail') would allow tide or wind farms that are far from the area that needs the power.
I don't know about that, as some industries are already capable of producing more power than they need. There would be a deficit that might need to be made up, but it would be on a much lower scale than generating all the needs in one place and can be done on a much smaller and more manageable scale.

I've been to America... .

Goodness. All of it?

I doubt this go green thing will ever take off there, I've never seen such waste in my life. You can't get a cup of coffee unless it's in a paper/styrofoam cup wrapped in cardboard wrapped in plastic wrapped in paper and in a bag.

Respectfully, old chap, you missed a bit!

There's no doubt, America's record on the environment is a disgrace. But don't be so quick to judge what's possible. I'm a British expat marooned in Dallas, Texas. In the last year, I've seen the number of recycle bins down the streets near my house multiply. The college where I teach is instituting campus-wide "go green" policies, and though the roads still choke on the emissions from the SUVs of "soccer moms," there are a lot more smaller cars on the roads than there were five years ago.

It's becoming cooler to go greener, even in redneck country. Now if we can just get the Repugs out of office, we could get some serious legislation to back up the grassroots efforts for the environment.

-=-
Peace and lentils

I don't know about that, as some industries are already capable of producing more power than they need. There would be a deficit that might need to be made up, but it would be on a much lower scale than generating all the needs in one place and can be done on a much smaller and more manageable scale.

I agree with that, it is just I was saying that you will still need some kind of large scale power generation that occurs fairly far away from the systems that need it.

Many of the self contained transmission and generation systems would also be good for work in space.

Diversification is good.

I agree with that, it is just I was saying that you will still need some kind of large scale power generation that occurs fairly far away from the systems that need it.

Many of the self contained transmission and generation systems would also be good for work in space.

Diversification is good.
Certainly would prevent things like Enron and the 'rolling black out' bullshit that plagued California and helped elect an Austrian action hero governor...key-ryst. Sometimes my state gives me a good argument why we shouldn't strike out on our own...

Peace and lentils

Peace: Yay.

Lentils: Ugh, foul and horrible.

Key-ryst?

Sound it out, it's a phonetic spelling of a certain frustrated way of saying "Christ"

Certainly would prevent things like Enron and the 'rolling black out' bullshit that plagued California and helped elect an Austrian action hero governor...key-ryst. Sometimes my state gives me a good argument why we shouldn't strike out on our own...

Key-ryst?

Canada's actually okay for that. Most places give you a discount for bringing (and using) one of those portable coffee mugs and many people do so. (At least the places I go to are... but then again I avoid Starbucks so....)

Starbucks here in the US also gives a discount for bringing your own cup or re-using one of their paper ones. They also use a lot of recycled products.

Everybody likes to knock Starbucks, but they treat their staff well. They also "recycle" their daily pastries that are unsold by offering them free to shelters etc. No, I don't own shares, but I did work for them briefly when I first got to the US--the only place I know round here where someone who serves hot drinks for a living can get health insurance, paid vacation, and shares in the company.

I'm sure they're hard-nosed business people at head office, and they charge a hell of a lot for a cup of Joe, but when I hand over my dosh, I know the person serving me isn't having the hell exploited out of them like so many other places. My Carame Machiatto goes down smooth, sweet, and reasonably guilt free.

Just FYI.

:)

-=-
Peace and lentils

I kept on sounding 'ryst' like 'rist'

Well, I'm not that good at phonetics. There might be a better way to do that.


What an odd side road threadjack thing...

Peace: Yay.

Lentils: Ugh, foul and horrible.

It's all in the sauce ;)

-=-
Peace and lovely, lovely lentils

I kept on sounding 'ryst' like 'rist'

I will always remember what my old Environmental Sciences professor taught me: "If you want to find out if something is worth recycling, find out if the crooks are doing it".

We know that lead and copper are worth recycling, because people thieve the stuff from roofs over here in the UK. Aluminium is definitely worth it - pubs have to chain up their empty aluminium beer barrels to stop them being stolen.

Good quality scrap aluminium is worth up to £700 ($1400) per tonne - mainly because it costs more than twice that amount to refine it from bauxite.
Copper is worth about the same amount - especially electronics grade wiring, which can be worth even more than aluminium.
But generally, for most metals, it takes far less energy to recycle than to refine from the ore. Aluminium is the most extreme case, but steel is worth doing too - blast furnaces can take about 30% scrap iron / steel into the charge and still produce decent steel.

Recycling glass is however a waste of time. It takes more energy to sort through the different colours, crush it to dust etc. and the recycled product is never as good as brand new stuff. Besides, the raw materials for glass (sand, limestone, potash) are cheap and abundant.
Making extra-thick glass bottles / jars and re-using them is a far better idea.

Recycling paper is still worth doing - but remember that whatever grade of paper you put into the recycling process - you're going to get a lower grade out because the fibres have been shortened by the re-milling. So top quality printer paper becomes card - card becomes newsprint - newsprint becomes cardboard - cardboard becomes bog roll - end of cycle. I know there's really a few more cycles than than, but that's the principle.

I will always remember what my old Environmental Sciences professor taught me: "If you want to find out if something is worth recycling, find out if the crooks are doing it".

Not a bad rule of thumb. I like the sound of your old Prof.

Slightly worrying only in the way it's so close to the old "Let the market decide" chestnut that is often such strong fuel for the anti-intervention debate. So far, the market alone is not doing enough for the environment in the US, although the way the whole car manufacturing thing is crashing, who knows? Maybe the market has a conscience after all!

-=-
Peace and lentils

Well, I'm not that good at phonetics. There might be a better way to do that.


What an odd side road threadjack thing...

Threadjack? THIS IS NSG!

*Kicks CTOAN/C'tan into a pit*

Lately I've been convinced by the argument for DC power distribution and local 'microgrids' where power is generated in smaller amounts closer to the needs without as much loss that occurs when having power travel longer distances.
Actually this is a terrible idea because it increases the amount of equipment required to generate and distribute the same amount of power. Why have one giant power plant that produces X amount of power with X amount of materials when you could have a hundred smaller plants that individually only use a tenth of the materials? Genius!

With business that utilize unused roof space and end up generating more power than they need sell their excess back to the power grid. This is only one small example of how this system is already working. Not to mention that it provides another way for local businesses to create an extra revenue stream while doing something good. There are other examples of how this would work and I'm becoming more and more convinced that in a lot of situations that'd be the way to go. Not to mention spreading the cost out and lowering the overall risk. Much easier to subsidize local solar/wind/methane/whatever than build whole new technology plants that have to ship power that will bleed over a longer distance.
I'm an architect. An engineer. It's not my job to come up with brand new technology, just to make sure the existing stuff works right and works well. As an estimator I have weigh the costs of something with the potential benefits. If something doesn't do anything or doesn't do enough to make up for the cost of it then it's a waste. Photovoltaic cells are a waste. I cannot make them work well and I don't use them in my designs because they can cause roof problems.

What this really shows is how impossible it is to use solar power for must useful applications. Solar power simply can't produce the wattage necessary for this kind of work, it can only power electronics and things. Solar power proponents imagine that a huge solar panel will automatically power everything they need because it's big, and they are biased because they think solar power is so cool. (Using wind power is a similar story.)

If you look on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power you will find that the maximum average power that the Earth gets from the sun is 125-375 W/m^2. We will use the upper range for this to give solar energy as much of a benifit of doubt as we can.

Googling the largest cargo ship gets us the Emma Maersk http://telstarlogistics.typepad.com/telstarlogistics/2006/11/the_largest_con.html
which links to this fact sheet:
http://www.maersk.com/NR/rdonlyres/53C3A206-24BD-4290-9FE9-417971C4A710/0/EmmaM%C3%83%C2%A6rskL203FactSheetUK.pdf

It gives the length and width of the ship as 387 meters and 56 meters. A surface area of 21672 square meters. We will assume that the entire top has solar panels, despite the obvious problems this would have if they ever wanted to load or unload cargo again. Unless there was some sort of roll out solar mat, but I digress.

This gives us a total of 8127 kW (note the kilo, the previous units have been in watts.)

Returning to the fact sheet we can see the engines the Maersk uses:
An 80,000 kW diesel propulsion engine.

and for electricity:
5 diesel generators combining to 20,700 kW
and a steam turbine that runs off the maine exhaust (so probably no additional pollution) for 8,500 kW

If you add these together you get 109200 kW.

So completely layering this ship in solar panels, at tremendous expense, and totally interfering with the ability of this ship to unload cargo. Panels which we assumed would get the very upper range of solar radiation, which we in turn assumed would be converted to electricity at 100% efficiency (rather than the 15% current, even 30% would be pretty optimistic for near-future technology) gave us under 7.5% of the power output required by this ship.
As I said, photovoltaics suck ass.

You want to know what might actually work but won't because ignorant fucktard hippies hate it? Something that can provide all the power that's needed and no one can argue will deep fry the planet with smog? You can guess this one and if you can't then there is something wrong with you. I shouldn't even have to say it. It can move us forward but all environmentalists want to do is yank us back and they've been doing a pretty good job of it too since they've stopped new development of this pancea for energy woes.

Nobody ever conserved their way out of a crisis.

Daniel K. Benjamin, New York Times, CEI, New York Department of Sanitation, etc.
You are the second guy I have busted today, unless of course you and New Mitani are one and the same??

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=836

Advantages and disadvantages of recycling paper:

http://www.axys.net/news/greenfacts/Green_Facts-Paper%20Recycling%20V3.pdf

You are the second guy I have busted today, unless of course you and New Mitani are one and the same??

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=836

Advantages and disadvantages of recycling paper:

http://www.axys.net/news/greenfacts/Green_Facts-Paper%20Recycling%20V3.pdf
First off, no, I'm not New Mitani.

Second, I don't see him being funded by Exxon Mobil on that ExxonSecrets page you linked to.

Third, ExxonSecrets is run by Greenpeace, a political lobby group with agenda of their own. Tha agenda includes starving about a third of the worlds population (because they oppose GE foods) and keeping electricity out of the hands of all but about 10% (because they want us to only use wind and solar).

Fourth, the groups co-founder, Patrick Moore left it in 1986 because its focus, he says, became anti-capitalism. Instead of environmentalism. Which is what its suposed to be.

The Truth of Recycling pt1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oloM_dSoW4)
The Truth of Recycling pt2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvfQ0iffj40)
The Truth of Recycling pt3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnoj9MPpi54)

Actually this is a terrible idea because it increases the amount of equipment required to generate and distribute the same amount of power. Why have one giant power plant that produces X amount of power with X amount of materials when you could have a hundred smaller plants that individually only use a tenth of the materials? Genius!
The cost is also spread out instead of one major expenditure. It's a distributed risk. You are approaching this as if it is still a single entity expenditure. It's the equivalent of incorporation versus single entrepreneur. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Having lived through the disadvantages of the centralized system, I'm willing to try the other.


I'm an architect. An engineer.
Congratulations.
It's not my job to come up with brand new technology, just to make sure the existing stuff works right and works well. As an estimator I have weigh the costs of something with the potential benefits. If something doesn't do anything or doesn't do enough to make up for the cost of it then it's a waste. Photovoltaic cells are a waste. I cannot make them work well and I don't use them in my designs because they can cause roof problems.
And yet others have made them work, pay for themselves within 5-6 years, and generate income after 7, with a minimum of 13 to 33 years left of their lifespan.

You'll forgive me if I go with a different contractor.


As I said, photovoltaics suck ass.

You want to know what might actually work but won't because ignorant fucktard hippies hate it? Something that can provide all the power that's needed and no one can argue will deep fry the planet with smog? You can guess this one and if you can't then there is something wrong with you. I shouldn't even have to say it. It can move us forward but all environmentalists want to do is yank us back and they've been doing a pretty good job of it too since they've stopped new development of this pancea for energy woes.

Nobody ever conserved their way out of a crisis.
Sure, exchange one problem with another. Something we still have to mine. Something that still produces waste that we have to deal with. That's worked out great for us in the past...

First off, no, I'm not New Mitani.

Second, I don't see him being funded by Exxon Mobil on that ExxonSecrets page you linked to.
This is what happens when you only look for information to 'make people feel bad.'
Property and Environment Research Center, formerly Political Economy Research Center
Source: www.perc.org
-
Property and Environment Research Center, formerly Political Economy Research Center has received $135,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1998
$20,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 1998 grants list

2000
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
project support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2001
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report

2002
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report

2003
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2004
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Property and Environment Research Center
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2005
$20,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

2006
$20,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006


You can check Exxon's own giving reports-

ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/corporate/giving_report.pdf

Exxon Giving Report 2004
Exxon's published report on annual giving
http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/giving04_publicpolicy.pdf

ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)
XOM Foundation and Corporation donations in 2005 to worldwide organizations.

ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/Corporate/gcr_contributions_public06.pdf
(you'll have to copy and paste, I don't feel like making links)

And then theres-
Founded in 1985, The conservative Independent Institute is "a non-profit, non-politicized, scholarly research and educational organization which sponsors comprehensive studies of major economic, social and environmental problems."

The Institute has sponsored climate skeptic Fred Singer and has been a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition. The Institute's Web site quotes praise from many luminaries, including Ronald Reagan, Edwin Meese, and William Niskanen of the Cato Institute. In 1999, the Independent Institute came under fire for being not so independent. A 18 September New York Times piece outlined how the Independent Institute put out full paged newspaper ads bank-rolled by Microsoft. The ads supported Microsoft's claim of innocence in the face of federal anti-trust charges. According to The New York Times, Microsoft paid for the ads and was also the largest individual donor to the organization that year (David Callahan, "The Think Tank as Flack," Washington Monthly, November 1999).
which-
Independent Institute has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1998
$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 1998 grants list

2000
$5,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
general support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2001
$5,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report

2002
$10,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report

2003
$10,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2005
$30,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

So you can check the source itself-

Independent Institute Website 3/04
http://www.independent.org

Independent Institute website 4/04
http://www.independent.org/

Independent Institute Press Release 7/28/03
http://www.independent.org/tii/content/press_rel/press_030728.html

ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/corporate/giving_report.pdf

S. Fred Singer Article 11/10/03
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1234

ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)
XOM Foundation and Corporation donations in 2005 to worldwide organizations.

The websites of both organizations-
www.perc.org
http://www.perc.org

Independent Institute website 4/04
http://www.independent.org/


Third, ExxonSecrets is run by Greenpeace, a political lobby group with agenda of their own. Tha agenda includes starving about a third of the worlds population (because they oppose GE foods) and keeping electricity out of the hands of all but about 10% (because they want us to only use wind and solar).
Slant much?

Regardless, they have direct sources, the horses themselves, so...

Fourth, the groups co-founder, Patrick Moore left it in 1986 because its focus, he says, became anti-capitalism. Instead of environmentalism. Which is what its suposed to be.
No way! An organization had infighting as it grew! That never happens!