I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?

[jpeps]

Hi RetroTechGuy,

Yes, not withstanding your excellent arguments for rationality in this human insane-asylum, as Feynman noted, scientific theory is only valid until it is disproved by observable (e.g, measurable) events.

Actually, this is backwards... It is nothing more than a hypothesis (a guess) until demonstrated to be consistent with nature. To be elevated to "theory" is must be shown consistent (hence things such as the "string theories" are NOT, they are hypotheses -- at the moment, neither testable nor falsifiable).

Feynman lectured that even accepted "laws" can be refuted many years later with the availability of new data.

I'm expecting a lot more fiascoes related to the "green movement." Nothing in practice is simple...only in theory. Meanwhile, it's been a while since I walked into a restaurant full of cigarette smoke. It took quite a while, first to disprove the ads stating that smoking was good for your health, and then the propaganda that it was sexy. Of course, then they were shuffled off to third world countries.

Many of the largest corporate polluters, such a mining companies, give little back to the local citizens.

[Dougal]

There are more paradoxes, such as farming corn for ethanol, etc., etc.

Yes, but that is just because of trying to implement half-arsed, short-sighted "solutions" (just like saying nuclear energy is "clean").
You also have the fact that current electric cars are supposed to cause more pollution than hybrids, because they're likely to be charged with electricity coming from coal-powered stations... so on the one hand you have power-loss from long lines, coupled with inefficient batteries, while on the other you have a very efficient internal combustion engine.

It's all a matter of priorities and actually dealing with problems when they're discovered (the 1970s...), rather than waiting for the last moment and then panicking (yet governments spend energy fighting against things like drugs, AIDS and obesity, rather than making people take responsibility for their actions).

[Dougal]

it's been a while since I walked into a restaurant full of cigarette smoke. It took quite a while, first to disprove the ads stating that smoking was good for your health, and then the propaganda that it was sexy.

And that's why it's better to use my "bad manners" argument.

I don't care if cigarette smoke gives me cancer: the fact is that its stench is disturbing. I don't like my clothes stinking from it, or my eyes smarting from it or the fact that it breathing hard for me.

That's why it should be illegal in public -- just like excessive noise is not illegal due to the physical (and mental) harm it causes (which it does), but because it unnecessarily disturbs people.

[starhawk]

Internal combustion engines are not what I would consider efficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_c ... efficiency

Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37%. Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average efficiency of about 18%-20%. Rocket engine efficiencies are better still, up to 70%, because they operate at very high temperatures and pressures and can have very high expansion ratios.

That said, at the same time, I've yet to hear of a battery chemistry that was even remotely environmentally friendly. I'm not saying that burning the ancient remains of dinosaurs and cycads is environmentally friendly -- not in the least. What I'm saying is that there really isn't any "better" for the planet, not unless you want to get an Amish buggy and go everywhere at 10-12mph...

Oh, and before anyone mentions solar, those photovoltaic panels that everybody and their brother are installing tend to have a lifetime too. They DO burn out -- and silicon in most forms is highly toxic to just about everything.

So no matter what, the planet is a losing player here.

[Flash]

In the interest of accuracy, Wartsila make large stationary diesel engines which they claim exceed 50% thermal efficiency. Combined cycle (gas turbine engines whose exhaust is fed into a boiler which drives a steam turbine) generators have exceeded 50% overall thermal efficiency by quite a bit for some time.

[jpeps]

Oh, and before anyone mentions solar, those photovoltaic panels that everybody and their brother are installing tend to have a lifetime too. They DO burn out -- and silicon in most forms is highly toxic to just about everything.

So no matter what, the planet is a losing player here.

25-30 years

[Flash]

And silicon dioxide, aka quartz and silica, is not at all toxic, although breathing silica dust in high concentrations damages the lungs (silicosis).

What's toxic about silicon PV cells is the dopant. Some of the elements that are added to pure silicon to make it into a semiconductor are toxic. Arsenic, for instance. But so little dopant is required to do the job, and so little silicon is needed to make a PV cell, that the amount of toxic stuff added to the environment by going solar is at the background level. Plus, PV cells can at least in theory be recycled reasonably cheaply.

[RetroTechGuy]

Hi RetroTechGuy,

Yes, not withstanding your excellent arguments for rationality in this human insane-asylum, as Feynman noted, scientific theory is only valid until it is disproved by observable (e.g, measurable) events.

Actually, this is backwards... It is nothing more than a hypothesis (a guess) until demonstrated to be consistent with nature. To be elevated to "theory" is must be shown consistent (hence things such as the "string theories" are NOT, they are hypotheses -- at the moment, neither testable nor falsifiable).

Feynman lectured that even accepted "laws" can be refuted many years later with the availability of new data.

Correct. But first you have to become accepted as a law/theory...before you can lose that status...

I'm expecting a lot more fiascoes related to the "green movement." Nothing in practice is simple...only in theory.

I think that a better approach to many of these issues are mechanisms such as the X-Prize...

Put a "bounty" on solving a particular problem (instead of a limited "government grant" for a study, as is normally done). Let investors vie for the Prize, out of their own pockets... (and get both bragging rights, as well as patents/IP).

Many of the largest corporate polluters, such a mining companies, give little back to the local citizens.

I don't know about that. I've lived in mining communities, and when the mines are operating, they create quite an economic "boom" -- providing a number of jobs, in addition to support industries. The locals in those areas are generally quite saddened by the mining company's departure.

Could mining operations be cleaner? Probably. Many are already quite good at protecting or restoring the local region.

Others obviously need some work...

[RetroTechGuy]

Oh, and before anyone mentions solar, those photovoltaic panels that everybody and their brother are installing tend to have a lifetime too. They DO burn out -- and silicon in most forms is highly toxic to just about everything.

So no matter what, the planet is a losing player here.

25-30 years

That's improved.

I think what we really need to pursue is some of the ink-jet technologies, for solar "panels". If we can get a 5-10 year life, for 1/10th to 1/20th the cost, we can implement more quickly (the up front cost is much lower, even if the "maintenance" is slightly higher). You lower the barrier to entry, and you will get far more people to join.

Consider: you roll out a sheet of plastic, and "spray" the active semiconductor grid onto it. These are often organics (which evades the impending issue that we have a limited world Indium resource).

Granted, this organic material has a shorter lifetime in the environment (UV will eventually consume/destroy the organics, even with UV stabilizers), but it also is likely to be vastly cheaper, and easier to work with...

Better still is producing an improved heat-engine, and use solar heat, rather than the very narrow spectral band of sunlight that solar PV operate (capture upwards of 100% of the energy, rather than vie for 100% of the energy in a narrow band-gap).

Regarding solar heat. One difficulty is that, in general, highly absorptive surfaces are also highly emissive surfaces. For example, white/shiny surfaces have both low emissivity, and low absorption -- black/dull surfaces have both high absorption, and high emissivity.

However, there is one material that tends to break this symmetry... The patina finish of heated/oxidized copper tends to have a high absorptivity, and a low emissivity. And that's nice, because we also like to use it for water pipes...

[RetroTechGuy]

There are more paradoxes, such as farming corn for ethanol, etc., etc.

Yes, but that is just because of trying to implement half-arsed, short-sighted "solutions" (just like saying nuclear energy is "clean").

Nuclear is actually quite clean.

Even from a radioactive emission standpoint, nuclear is cleaner than coal...

"Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger"
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev ... lmain.html

Numbers I have heard is that 1/2 kg of uranium exits the flue, each year from each coal plant (take the yearly quantities reported above, calculate scrubber efficiencies of around 99.9% and see what you get).

Then look up the status of "pebble bed" nuclear reactors...

[jpeps]

I don't know about that. I've lived in mining communities, and when the mines are operating, they create quite an economic "boom" -- providing a number of jobs, in addition to support industries. The locals in those areas are generally quite saddened by the mining company's departure.

Could mining operations be cleaner? Probably. Many are already quite good at protecting or restoring the local region.

Others obviously need some work...

Here's a few. A friend wired me recently during a trip to Peru...thing's got very dangerous. Then I made the mistake of writing Newmont Mining puts (which I will soon be the proud owner of). I'd rather take the lead from the locals than the corporate news any day.

http://www.mining.com/2012/04/16/civil- ... rca-again/

http://www.riskadvisory.net/analysis/st ... ng-reforms

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/ ... N020111125

http://travel.mongabay.com/topics/new/mining1.html

[RetroTechGuy]

I don't know about that. I've lived in mining communities, and when the mines are operating, they create quite an economic "boom" -- providing a number of jobs, in addition to support industries. The locals in those areas are generally quite saddened by the mining company's departure.

Could mining operations be cleaner? Probably. Many are already quite good at protecting or restoring the local region.

Others obviously need some work...

Here's a few. A friend wired me recently during a trip to Peru...thing's got very dangerous. Then I made the mistake of writing Newmont Mining puts (which I will soon be the proud owner of). I'd rather take the lead from the locals than the corporate news any day.

http://www.mining.com/2012/04/16/civil- ... rca-again/

http://www.riskadvisory.net/analysis/st ... ng-reforms

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/ ... N020111125

http://travel.mongabay.com/topics/new/mining1.html

They all appear to be pretty much 3rd world countries. And we really don't have much control over them.

Places like China actually have problems with "pirate mining", where criminal groups come in, pillage the metals and bail out. IIRC, I ran across references to a large fraction of the commercial Indium coming from such sources (note: China holds almost all of the world's known Indium reserves).

But here in the US, the mining is a substantially different story.

This is not a "one size fits all" problem.

[Lazy JW]

... What I'm saying is that there really isn't any "better" for the planet, not unless you want to get an Amish buggy and go everywhere at 10-12mph....

I "believe" the day will come when we will see the wisdom of the Amish as being pretty advanced.

Cuba very nearly starved when Russia cut off the oil. They went back to oxen powered agriculture, and would be reluctant to become indebted to big oil again.

Face it, we had our day in the sun, and now the day of reckoning looms. Our lazy western culture cannot continue, and it most certainly will not. We are mining the fertility of our soil and draining the aquifers; we are artificially forcing food to be grown by drenching the soil with petroleum based fertilizers and herbicides. We grow corn here, truck it there, feed it to cattle that were grown elsewhere and trucked in, then truck the fat cattle to a slaughterhouse, then truck the meat to a warehouse and finally truck it to a store. Stupid. Just plain stupid. Trucking lettuce for thousands of miles to market. LETTUCE! Global warming will be far from our minds when Big Oil gets shut down.

[jpeps]

They all appear to be pretty much 3rd world countries. And we really don't have much control over them.
=
But here in the US, the mining is a substantially different story.

This is not a "one size fits all" problem.

Newmont is based in CO, and has A LOT to say regarding control....think bribes to the local officials.....same old, same old....

[RetroTechGuy]

Trucking lettuce for thousands of miles to market. LETTUCE! Global warming will be far from our minds when Big Oil gets shut down.

Weather is nice. Have you started your garden yet?

Some claim they don't have the space, but you can grow a lot in containers. And for locations with sun, but poor soil, raised beds are the answer...

http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu//pub ... ainers.pdf

http://urbanext.illinois.edu/containergardening/

Raised beds:
http://www.sunset.com/garden/perfect-ra ... 000039550/

[Lazy JW]

We don't dare plant the garden until roughly the end of May due to late Spring frosts. We produce about half of what we eat right here on the homestead with a combination of traditional garden, raised beds and greenhouse. We also raise chickens (eggs and meat), keep a milk cow (butter, cream, meat) and have a few sheep too (meat, wool). A team of medium sized horses that we ride, drive, and pack (Norwegian Fjords). I have plans to build a windmill for pumping water and possibly generate electricity.

The American agricultural model is badly broken and cannot be fixed without a major change in philosophy. I highly recommend looking up a publication called "The Small Farmer's Journal" published by a gentleman named Lynn Miller.
Joe

[sickgut]

solution to global warming:

everyone this is important!!!

turn on all your air conditioners and wind the window down when you drive, your car is part of the earth, keep it cool. Also have cold showers

[jpeps]

solution to global warming:

everyone this is important!!!

turn on all your air conditioners and wind the window down when you drive, your car is part of the earth, keep it cool. Also have cold showers

sickgut, there are other very funny topics along with exponential destruction of the planet, such as nuclear proliferation, clean water, fiat economies, etc., etc.

[Dougal]

Internal combustion engines are not what I would consider efficient.

I meant relatively, having had a century of development to improve them (if you follow science news you'll see that researchers keep coming up all kinds of new materials to improve batteries -- since now they've started investing more into it).

What I'm saying is that there really isn't any "better" for the planet, not unless you want to get an Amish buggy and go everywhere at 10-12mph...

Don't forget the methane... (and there's always the bicycle)

Oh, and before anyone mentions solar, those photovoltaic panels that everybody and their brother are installing tend to have a lifetime too. They DO burn out -- and silicon in most forms is highly toxic to just about everything.

While I do think it can be a problem (when I see the rush to build all the solar power stations etc. I just think "what are they gonna do with all those in 10-15 years when they're depleted?"), I'd say you're a little exaggerating with silicon... and it's used in just about everything these days.

[Dougal]

Nuclear is actually quite clean.

Even from a radioactive emission standpoint, nuclear is cleaner than coal...

If it were "clean", Somali fishermen wouldn't be making a career change to piracy.