Earth: The Sequel, Environmental Chicanery

[amicus]

From the book by the same title, one of the authors: "Fred Krupp is president of Environmental Defense Fund," is a fascinating study of alternative energy...if you are blind in one eye,(figuratively speaking)

A new, Discovery Channel offering, airing 3/11/09, for the first time.

A one-sided and starry eyed effort to convince you that wind, solar, geo thermal, tidal action and more varieties of alternative energy, is the best thing since sliced bread.

What they don't tell you is insidious and mean-spirited and like all things left wing, very complicated and obfuscated.

Most of the Research and Development of alternative energy sources has been by European Government subsidization as those forms of energy production are not economical, they don't pay for themselves and do not compete with conventional or traditional sources.

The 'experimental' alternative sources in the US, are also largely, if not totally supported in the beginning, by government grants and subsidies through public and private corporations and Universities.

This interest was driven by the environmental lobby, of which, the Environmental Defense Fund, publisher of said book, is but a small part.

Common sense, in and out of government would have dictated an economical and feasible expansion of energy sources through conventional means, save one very large caveat.

That of the 'global warming scare', and the anti-industrial left that is in opposition to all industry, including, amusingly, power transmission lines to convey power from solar and wind fields to consumers.

Ideology, not reality, has driven the quest for alternative energy as a cure for global pollution and the invasive nature of conventional energy sources, such as Hydro-Electric, Coal, Oil and Gas fired plants and even the non-polluting Nuclear industry, including storage of exhausted fuel rods.

The new administration has in effect joined with the Euro nations who have come fully under the influence of the environmental lobby to the extent of the Kyoto Accords, which are a travesty to the industrial world.

Before you read any more, if you have read this far, take note, any rational person cognizant of energy use, conservation and future demands by an increasing global population would readily accept non polluting, alternative sources of energy, if it were in the least, economical and feasible.

It is not.

If it were efficient, Exxon-Mobil and BP, would be in the forefront building wind and solar farms and the environmentalists would be picketing them in every location.

The only way alternative sources of energy are cost effective at this point in time, is if the government subsidizes the construction by tax monies and grants.

For those of you with a soft place in your heart for a pristine environment and who have a distaste for Strip Malls and expanding housing projects, you will most likely say, 'fine, I'm happy to have my taxes used for a cleaner environment.'

Not that simple.

Unless you have a strategy to decrease the population of the United States by about ninety percent, and the world population by the same percentage, then, and only then, could alternative sources of energy meet the demands of the population.

Don't take my word, do the math. The wind does not blow twenty four seven, nor does the sun shine all night. Geo-thermal is neat, but limited and very expensive, and the technology for the storage of energy doesn't exist.

Good intentions, of course, it always is, with the master race and eugenics or the Chinese and one child.

Your good intentions, paid for by taxes on the existing energy industry will bring blackouts, starvation, pain and suffering, all for your grand idea of clean, renewable energy.

I can't stop you, or even change your thinking. This Discovery Channel film will be force-fed to students from grade one up and used as propaganda in every possible place and you will have your way and turn off the lights and freeze the people in half the country before you realize what you have done.

And you won't even remember I told you so.

Amicus...

 

[Guest]

The only way alternative sources of energy are cost effective at this point in time, is if the government subsidizes the construction by tax monies and grants.

Amicus...

Y'know, I thought that sounded familiar, so I went looking:

"The relative speed and ability to travel regardless of the weather made rail travel attractive to travelers and businesses. By 1840, 2,818 miles of track were laid down; by the start of the Civil War 30,000 miles of track had been laid. This increase reflected the increasing federal government loans to railroad companies and the availability of free land grants through which to extend tracks." (Emphasis added)

http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/adaccess/rails-history.html

Oh, and let's not forget:

The Pacific Railway Act
July 1, 1862
(U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. XII, p. 489 ff.)
An Act to aid in the Construction of a Railroad and Telegraph Line from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean. . . .

Be it enacted, That [names of corporators]; together with five commissioners to be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior... are hereby created and erected into a body corporate... by the name... of "The Union Pacific Railroad Company"... ; and the said corporation is hereby authorized and empowered to lay out, locate, construct, furnish, maintain and enjoy a continuous railroad and telegraph...

Sec. 2. That the right of way through the public lands be...granted to said company for the construction of said railroad and telegraph line; and the right... is hereby given to said company to take from the public lands adjacent to the line of said road, earth, stone, timber, and other materials for the construction thereof; said right of way is granted to said railroad to the extent of two hundred feet in width on each side of said railroad when it may pass over the public lands, including all necessary grounds, for stations, buildings, workshops, and depots, machine shops, switches, side tracks, turn tables, and water stations. The United States shall extinguish as rapidly as may be the Indian titles to all lands falling under the operation of this act...

Sec. 5. That for the purposes herein mentioned the Secretary of the Treasury shall... in accordance with the provisions of this act, issue to said company bonds of the United States of one thousand dollars each, payable in thirty years after date, paying six per centum per annum interest... to the amount of sixteen of said bonds per mile for each section of forty miles; and to secure the repayment to the United States... of the amount of said bonds... the issue of said bonds... shall ipso facto constitute a first mortgage on the whole line of the railroad and telegraph...

Of course, we all know that the government had absolutely no business interfering in the free market this way.

Shocking. Truly shocking.

Hey, Ami... didn't Rand's protagonist in Atlas Shrugged run a railroad?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

GNOME

Yep. The Feds gave the railroads land to sell, to raise cash to build the railroads.

But not everywhere. Mostly the money went to pay for transcontinental routes thru huge, unsettled areas.

One of my ancestors built railroads in the 1830s. One of them he built using investor money. Another he built in payment of land. The state wanted the railroad, didnt have the cash to build it, and they paid for the track in land.

 

[amicus]

Gnome...so you read the history of the railroads in American...there is much more you could have added about the corruption of of business and government representatives, it was rife, corruption, graft, payoffs, politicians and businessmen alike cashed in all along the route.

But...apples and oranges...there was also the Great Northern Railroad corporation, you might want to research that also, but there was no competing transportation service available at the time, save Clipper Ships sailing around South America between New York and San Francisco.

Comparing 19th century railroads to 21st century energy production is not a rational or meaningful comparison as there already exists electrical production from coast to coast.

As I pointed out, the interest in alternative energy is driven by ideology, not reality. The energy crisis was created by government intervention, it is only laws, taxes and restrictions that have forbidden energy companies to increase the supply.

Rather than criticize and support your ideology, why not address the issue in my post? Alternative energy is not a source to replace energy created by the use of fossil fuels.

Amicus...

 

[DesertPirate]

Gnome...so you read the history of the railroads in American...there is much more you could have added about the corruption of of business and government representatives, it was rife, corruption, graft, payoffs, politicians and businessmen alike cashed in all along the route.

But...apples and oranges...there was also the Great Northern Railroad corporation, you might want to research that also, but there was no competing transportation service available at the time, save Clipper Ships sailing around South America between New York and San Francisco.

Comparing 19th century railroads to 21st century energy production is not a rational or meaningful comparison as there already exists electrical production from coast to coast.

As I pointed out, the interest in alternative energy is driven by ideology, not reality. The energy crisis was created by government intervention, it is only laws, taxes and restrictions that have forbidden energy companies to increase the supply.

Rather than criticize and support your ideology, why not address the issue in my post? Alternative energy is not a source to replace energy created by the use of fossil fuels.

Amicus...

The biggest problem with solar is efficiency of the panels. The cost per kwhour is not workable yet.
Until a storage system that doesn't use lead acid batteries is devised, anything that doesn't produce electricity around the clock is not workable.
We have enough lead poisoning from batteries now.

 

[amicus]

An interesting, 'crawler' on news television today, Americans for the first time, 41-28 percent believe the Global Warming scare is an exaggeration. A small piece of good news that the public is rising above the rampant rhetoric of the left.

How bout them apples?



Amicus...

 

[DesertPirate]

An interesting, 'crawler' on news television today, Americans for the first time, 41-28 percent believe the Global Warming scare is an exageration. A small piece of good news that the public is rising above the rampant rhetoric of the left.

How bout them apples?



Amicus...

Damn, the intelligence level is rising!

 

[SeaCat]

Ami,

An interesting thread and one that shows some of the things I dislike about the alternative energy situation.

There are some things that aren't discussed though. There are energy sources that are economical and can be used for small areas. Unfortunately these are stopped by the big energy corporations.

Two examples of this are Cape Wind on Cape Cod and the use of Tidal Generators. (Also on Cape Cod.)

Cape Wind is a corporation that is trying to erect Wind Generators, ie. Windmills in the nearshore waters around Cape Cod. They have no government moneys. They are being blocked so far by several groups, the largest of which is managed by the former head of one of the Coal Companies.

Another example is the Tidal Generators. These are basicly large underwater turbines that were to be placed in the Cape Cod Canal and use the Tidal flow through the canal to create electricity. This was blocked by the Mirant Corporation which runs the local power plant.

If you wish for any documentation on this let me know and I'll start digging. I've been following this for a while out of curiosity as I used to live there.

Cat

 

[Guest]

Gnome...so you read the history of the railroads in American...there is much more you could have added about the corruption of of business and government representatives, it was rife, corruption, graft, payoffs, politicians and businessmen alike cashed in all along the route.

But...apples and oranges...there was also the Great Northern Railroad corporation, you might want to research that also, but there was no competing transportation service available at the time, save Clipper Ships sailing around South America between New York and San Francisco.

Comparing 19th century railroads to 21st century energy production is not a rational or meaningful comparison as there already exists electrical production from coast to coast.

As I pointed out, the interest in alternative energy is driven by ideology, not reality. The energy crisis was created by government intervention, it is only laws, taxes and restrictions that have forbidden energy companies to increase the supply.

Rather than criticize and support your ideology, why not address the issue in my post? Alternative energy is not a source to replace energy created by the use of fossil fuels.

Amicus...

Actually, I did address your point, which is why I picked railroads as an example:

The only way alternative sources of energy are cost effective at this point in time, is if the government subsidizes the construction by tax monies and grants.

A transcontinental railway system wasn't economically viable at the time, either, hence government intervention.

However, your statement that "the interest in alternative energy is driven by ideology, not reality" is typically short-sighted. As much as you might wish it otherwise, oil and coal are finite resources and when they're gone, they're gone. In the shorter term, when the costs of recovering oil and coal from increasingly deep and inaccesible deposits exceed the value to be derived from extracting them, they're essentially gone. The time to do the research and development to make alternative energy sources viable is now, not just before oil and coal become non-viable. And by the way, I include nuclear power as an alternative energy source; the technology is proven but the means of safely dealing with the resulting byproducts over the loooooong haul (in the thousands of years) is not.

And, there are extremely promising advances in battery technology that you may not be aware of that look to offer superior, workable solutions for storing wind and solar energy. I'll watch with interest to see how those play out.

Speaking of ideology, you keep alluding to mine. I don't have one. I'm a rational empiricist (with, admittedly, some mystical leanings in a few areas not related to economics). I'm not promoting a particular philosphy; from your previous writings, I suspect you consider that the equivalent of a mortal sin. However, I'm not anti-business; I work for a for-profit and making money is good.

If I have an axe to grind , it's against the ideologues--such as yourself--who insist on viewing current events through the distorting lenses of their particular philosophies when an objective look reveals that those philosophies are fundamentally flawed... as recent events have demonstrated in the area of inadequately regulated free markets.

 

[JackLuis]

Amicus, such sweeping generalizations.

Leave it to SeaCat to point out the obvious. There is no one alternative energy solution for the whole country. Here is in California one, at least, company is leasing Solar power systems for residential roof tops and selling the excess energy back to the Grid. They produce a lot of energy in lots of locations and relieve the grid of the load for a few hours each day. This allows the dams to back off their water flow and save water for peak hours. A friend has one and says that he always generates more than he uses. His bills are about the same as buying power from the utility and he has power when the sun shines and the grid is otherwise down.

Cape Wave is another good local idea. If the underwater turbines pan out I wonder how much power can be generated at the Golden Gate? maybe enough to relieve the load even further?

Are these ideas more expensive than Large Coal fired plants, yes but the cost of the coal pollution has to be considered. That is a price the environment pays for coal. It is a real cost unaccounted for in most equations.

 

[trysail]

...There are energy sources that are economical and can be used for small areas. Unfortunately these are stopped by the big energy corporations.

Two examples of this are Cape Wind on Cape Cod and the use of Tidal Generators. (Also on Cape Cod.)

Cape Wind is a corporation that is trying to erect Wind Generators, ie. Windmills in the nearshore waters around Cape Cod. They have no government moneys...

Jayzuuuuus, Cat!
C'mon! You're far too smart to swallow that old conspiracy hogwash.

You know perfectly well what the single biggest obstacle to the construction of a wind generation farm offshore Cape Cod is—

It's spelled T-E-D-D-Y K-E-N-N-E-D-Y !!!!!


BP is the largest manufacturer of solar photovoltaic cells in the U.S. ( and has been for more than 25 years ) through their ownership of Solarex.

Chevron is the largest producer of geothermal energy in the U.S.
( correction— [ see below ] the Geysers generating facility was developed by Union Oil of California [ Unocal ], not Chevron. The facility is currently owned by Calpine )

 

[amicus]

SeaCat...I most always sense a sincerity in your posts, a rational, common sense approach to things, that I admire and respect.

But in this age of Liberal dominated media, and I mean all of it, from PBS to cable news to newspapers, magazines and school teachers at all levels that 'teach' the ideology of the left, the built in bias against free market capitalism, business and corporations in general, one has to go the extra mile to even begin to get an objective, rational vision of current events.

The Kennedy opposition to the 'unsightly' wind turbines of Cape Cod, was in the news during the past year, hushed up, of course, quickly, but still available with a little searching. My thanks to Trysail for pointing this out.

I would be happy, as would most, to welcome alternative sources of energy to produce electricity. And yes, burning coal is nasty business and always has been and with a full half of all electricity generated in the US being from coal fired plants, we all wish there were alternatives.

There is of course, with Nuclear, and as an aside to another, there is no 'storage problem' with nuclear waste, it is an anti-industrial environmentalists paradigm that conflicts with pollution free Nuclear energy which is the lowest cost, overall, including decommissioning and storage of waste, second only to Hydro-Electric power, which the environmentalists have stymied as they will not allow more dams to be constructed.

I implore those of you who are not bound by ideology to just do the math, look at the industry, learn the costs of alternative sources, look who financed them and how much more they cost and realize, please, that those least able to pay higher energy costs are the ones who will be hurt the most.

I truly dread what I suspect will happen, Americans will have to learn the hard way, with brown outs, blackouts and days without electricity before they finally realize the tragedy could have been prevented.

The sad equation is that alternative energy sources, at the maximum possible, might serve a centrally located ten to twelve percent of the total population of the United States. What then, one might properly ask the proponents, what about the rest....and their answer is, in general, we are over populated and greedy, energy gluttons, and that 85-90 percent of the population deserves what it gets.

In other parts of the world that is called genocide.

Amicus...

 

[Liar]

The biggest problem with solar is efficiency of the panels. The cost per kwhour is not workable yet.

Pardon my metrics...

The total amount of energy in sunlight at non-tropical latitudes is roughly 1000W or less. So at 100% efficiency, you'd get 1 KW/h.

At peak hour once/day.

So reduce that by 75% (half the day it's datk, and half of the light time, it's gloomy) over the course of a day. A 250W average.

If it's sunny. Or else reduce it even more. A fair assessment would be to reduce it by half. 125W on average.

Then consider that solar cells today have about 20% efficiency. 40% is on the way, but they are insanely expensive. And if I recall correctly, pretty damn toxic. So 20%. Which lands us at 25W on average during a full day, per square meter or solar cells.

What kind of effect do you need to, say, run a fridge?

 

[amicus]

There was a thing on Science channel, not so long ago, some 'science guy', who, along with his Hollywood neighbor, installed solar panels all over the place on their property, did other things to conserve electricity, heat water, cool the home, etcetera...cost was over $50,000. Since they still needed to be on the grid at night, the 'payback time', for the investment was some rediculous amount of time, over 50 years, I think, not counting the lifespan of the solar cells, or the daily labor to sweep them clean of dust and debris.

Fine for rich liberals, I guess, who wanna feel good about the environment and their contributions to whatever....but still?

C'mon, folk, get real.

Amicus...

 

[SeaCat]

SeaCat...I most always sense a sincerity in your posts, a rational, common sense approach to things, that I admire and respect.

But in this age of Liberal dominated media, and I mean all of it, from PBS to cable news to newspapers, magazines and school teachers at all levels that 'teach' the ideology of the left, the built in bias against free market capitalism, business and corporations in general, one has to go the extra mile to even begin to get an objective, rational vision of current events.

The Kennedy opposition to the 'unsightly' wind turbines of Cape Cod, was in the news during the past year, hushed up, of course, quickly, but still available with a little searching. My thanks to Trysail for pointing this out.

I would be happy, as would most, to welcome alternative sources of energy to produce electricity. And yes, burning coal is nasty business and always has been and with a full half of all electricity generated in the US being from coal fired plants, we all wish there were alternatives.

There is of course, with Nuclear, and as an aside to another, there is no 'storage problem' with nuclear waste, it is an anti-industrial environmentalists paradigm that conflicts with pollution free Nuclear energy which is the lowest cost, overall, including decommissioning and storage of waste, second only to Hydro-Electric power, which the environmentalists have stymied as they will not allow more dams to be constructed.

I implore those of you who are not bound by ideology to just do the math, look at the industry, learn the costs of alternative sources, look who financed them and how much more they cost and realize, please, that those least able to pay higher energy costs are the ones who will be hurt the most.

I truly dread what I suspect will happen, Americans will have to learn the hard way, with brown outs, blackouts and days without electricity before they finally realize the tragedy could have been prevented.

The sad equation is that alternative energy sources, at the maximum possible, might serve a centrally located ten to twelve percent of the total population of the United States. What then, one might properly ask the proponents, what about the rest....and their answer is, in general, we are over populated and greedy, energy gluttons, and that 85-90 percent of the population deserves what it gets.

In other parts of the world that is called genocide.

Amicus...

Amicus,

Nuclear is great as far as it goes, if and only if we can make our power plants more efficient. The Nuclear Power Plants allowed to be built here in the United States are very inefficent. If I recall correctly they only use some 20% of the fuel in the rods before the rods have to be changed out. We need to increase the efficency of our nuclear power plants for them to be truly usefull. As for the fuel for these plants, well that too is a finite resource with most of it being currently mined in foreign countries. (South Africa comes to mind but I could be wrong.)

As for the opposition to Cape Wind, yes it was started by Teddy but it has taken on a life of it's own. Many of those opposed to it are not even from Cape Cod, they have been dragged into the fight by groups such as "Save our Sound". (This kind of reminds me of the fight to make Race Point Beach a clothing optional beach on Cape. The majority of people against this were from off cape and wouldn't be affected by it.)

The other type of non conventional means of producing electricity on Cape that I mentioned was underwater dynamo's. These were ducted bi-directional generators that would be anchored on the bottom of the Cape Cod Canal. Studies were done and the turbines were sized so they would not pose a threat to canal traffic. The original idea was shut down by the Mirant Corporation which ran the local power plant. Their arguments were varied but included a danger to navigation, (proved false) to slowing the current through the canal, (again proved false) to a danger to the local Striped Bass because they might get sucked into the turbines and chopped into Sushi. The company that was proposing this finally gave up, it was getting too expensive in the courts for them to fight against a state supported entity.

Like you I don't believe that alternative forms of power are the total answer. None of them will be a complete source of power but all of them can help as long as their costs are kept down.

I do not advocate government spending on these forms of power, I don't want to see the government spending a dime on any of them. I would however like to see the government breaking the roadblocks to alternative forms of power. Stop the lawsuits. Let it truly be a free market.

Cat

 

[amicus]

Good points all, SeaCat...I mention from time to time a friend, Nuclear Engineer, who has worked in the field for a long while. I mentioned that the new administration is not likely to license any new plants and break a 40 year drought of new energy sources.

Among the information he provided, was the increased efficiency of the process and further that instead of 'one off', facilities, the industry has matured through the French and Japanese experiences, that the industry has become standardized which will decrease the cost of construction and operation.

Few people would have the ignorant audacity to advise their physician on how to treat them, yet some of these nitwits are advising 'government' on how to solve the energy problem.

My response is that those who have been producing energy for a hundred years who are schooled, trained and experienced in the production and transmission of electricity ought to be given free reign to produce energy in any damned way they can and as fast as they can to stave off the catastrophe lurking just ahead.

Amicus

 

[SeaCat]

Jayzuuuuus, Cat!
C'mon! You're far too smart to swallow that old conspiracy hogwash.

You know perfectly well what the single biggest obstacle to the construction of a wind generation farm offshore Cape Cod is—

It's spelled T-E-D-D-Y K-E-N-N-E-D-Y !!!!!


BP is the largest manufacturer of solar photovoltaic cells in the U.S. ( and has been for more than 25 years ) through their ownership of Solarex.

Chevron is the largest producer of geothermal energy in the U.S.

Trysail,

Yes I know the Kennedy Clan is firmly behind the effort to block Cape Wind just as I understand why. On the other hand you only have to look at some of the people who both support and lead the group that is in the van of those fighting against Cape wind to understand what I mean. Bill Koch, (Oil) and Glenn Wattley (Coal) come to mind.

I knew that about British Petroleum but I didn't know that about Chevron. I'll have to look into that a bit more. Thanks.

Just to clear up any possible misunderstanding. While I am an advocate of alternative forms of energy I am not a fanatic. I understand the economics just as I understand the realities. There is and will be no one single source, no panacea. There are however things that can and will help if they are allowed to. Even the Holy Grail of alternative energy, cold fusion will not be enough.

Cat

 

[trysail]

... I didn't know that about Chevron. I'll have to look into that a bit more.

Just to clear up any possible misunderstanding. While I am an advocate of alternative forms of energy I am not a fanatic. I understand the economics just as I understand the realities. There is and will be no one single source, no panacea. There are however things that can and will help if they are allowed to. Even the Holy Grail of alternative energy, cold fusion will not be enough.

Cat

... and I have to confess to an error .

I thought Chevron owned the Geysers generating facility. I was wrong ( though I think it was once connected with Chevron, regrettably my memory ain't what it used to be ). According to Wikipedia ( not always reliable in these matters, of course ), Calpine now owns it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geysers

I know you're rational on the subject— which is why I was surprised by your earlier post.

ETA:
It was Unocal that developed the Geysers; Calpine bought it in 1999: http://www.geysers.com/history.htm

 

[DesertPirate]

Geothermal is good to a point but very difficult to deal with. NMSU installed a geothermal system to provide hot water to the dorms and heat the swimming pools in 1980. When the wells were in we ran them into pools for testing. After each pool was filled 4 times and had evaporated/leached into the sand, there was a quarter inch thick mineral crust! Seriously not potable water by any means. Water temp was 142 at the well head. 4 miles of insulated concrete pipe down the road we built a heat exchanger building. The heat was transfered to potable water and then piped to a 25,000 gallon hot water tank under a parking lot on campus for distribution. The geothermal water was sent down an old well at the golf course for disposal. This system is still in use today and has been cost effective for the last 10 years. I spent the summer of 80 digging ditches, laying pipe, welding, and pouring concrete on that project. Best student job on campus that year.

 

[amicus]

I wonder sometimes, or suppose, those terms could easily be reversed; if I simply fail to make my points or whether those who read and respond choose not to address the seminal issues I present.

I could stipulate that my sparse and general knowledge of the energy situation is such that another 'Katrina' like disaster, could darken the half the nation for days or possibly weeks. I consider statements like that to be 'scare-mongering', as I prefer to present more logical, objective and rational perspectives to deal with a looming situation.

Sometimes I cannot believe that this nation has allowed itself to witness the decay of infrastructure and the lethargy of energy creation that it has.

Does no one save me see the writing on the wall? Is it that there is no solution, the scenario is already set and you are just waiting for the axe to fall?

I am not one to 'cry wolf', when there is no wolf, nor scream 'fire' when there is no fire, so, somone please explain to me how you see the future of energy production in terms of meeting the demand to just keep even with current conditions?

Amicus....

 

[trysail]

Geothermal is good to a point but very difficult to deal with. NMSU installed a geothermal system to provide hot water to the dorms and heat the swimming pools in 1980. When the wells were in we ran them into pools for testing. After each pool was filled 4 times and had evaporated/leached into the sand, there was a quarter inch thick mineral crust! Seriously not potable water by any means. Water temp was 142 at the well head. 4 miles of insulated concrete pipe down the road we built a heat exchanger building. The heat was transfered to potable water and then piped to a 25,000 gallon hot water tank under a parking lot on campus for distribution. The geothermal water was sent down an old well at the golf course for disposal. This system is still in use today and has been cost effective for the last 10 years. I spent the summer of 80 digging ditches, laying pipe, welding, and pouring concrete on that project. Best student job on campus that year.

NMSU ?? = New Mexico State University ?? =Northern Michigan State U ??

The chattering class believes these things are as simple a matter as the ease with which pundits produce hot air. The solution to the totally unproven theory of anthropogenic global warming is simple: all that's required is a snap of the fingers, the passage of laws and— presto— cheap, abundant "green" energy appears as if by magic!

The Lesser Antilles island of St. Lucia sits atop the eastern edge of the Caribbean tectonic plate. The island, like most of the rest of the chain, is volcanic in origin. A dormant volcano in the center of the island is a tourist attraction; those who have never seen one are fascinated by its small emissions of sulphur dioxide and bubbling lava. In the late '70s, private enterprise attempted to capitalize on this resource by drilling two wells ( injection and exhaust ) with the intent of exploiting the heat source. To their woe, they discovered that the intense acidity resulting from the sulphur and its derivatives rapidly destroyed the well casings and made the whole project impractical. It's a bit of a shame the effort failed because the island has to import fossil fuel to power its electricity plant.

Very few people appreciate the miraculous metallurgical technology required to develop and manufacture steel with the hardness, tensile strength and physical properties necessary to withstand the harsh conditions and extreme temperatures and pressures encountered in wells.

P.S., I have a sneaking suspicion that all submariners are keenly aware of and deeply appreciative of the advances that have taken place in the science of metallurgy.

 

[DesertPirate]

Trysail, New Mexico State.

Sub Sailors were very glad they developed HY-80, strong and flexible!

 

[amicus]

Gnome..."

Speaking of ideology, you keep alluding to mine. I don't have one."

~~~

I thought to respond to the above a few days back and also to extend my appreciation for the effort expended on the 'railroad' beginnings in the US.

I have not read 'every' history of railroads in America, but many, some supportive, others in opposition to methods and procedures of financing and ownership.

I do not consider myself paranoid, but it does appear, over the years, that most here take excruciating pain to criticize the free market and all adjacent concepts since the formation of the orginal nation.

As I consider capitalism just an extension into the trading aspect of human behavior, an extension that, among all other economic systems, offers the best in terms of maintaining the fragile concepts of invididual liberty as expressed by early Classical Liberals, I take those accumulated assaults on free market ideology as an attack on human individual liberty. Which I consider. as do many others, as the fundamental premise upon which this nation was built.

The statement of yours I pasted at the top, is of course, an oxymoron. An ideology can be defined as just an accumulation of choices one makes concerning how one chooses to live ones life.

If a person is mentally challenged (uhm, PC), or was dumb enough to be born in a slave society, then of course, since an ideology is a matter of choosing, one would not have one.

Assuming you are neither, then you dohave an ideology, like it or not, well defined or not, consistent, congruent and non contradictory or not, you do have an ideology. It goes hand in glove with being human and, ahem, do I dare, male.

I do love the female of the species, but not in the realm of rational thinking, Ms. Rand only partially so. heh.

Amicus...

 

[SeaCat]

I wonder sometimes, or suppose, those terms could easily be reversed; if I simply fail to make my points or whether those who read and respond choose not to address the seminal issues I present.

I could stipulate that my sparse and general knowledge of the energy situation is such that another 'Katrina' like disaster, could darken the half the nation for days or possibly weeks. I consider statements like that to be 'scare-mongering', as I prefer to present more logical, objective and rational perspectives to deal with a looming situation.

Sometimes I cannot believe that this nation has allowed itself to witness the decay of infrastructure and the lethargy of energy creation that it has.

Does no one save me see the writing on the wall? Is it that there is no solution, the scenario is already set and you are just waiting for the axe to fall?

I am not one to 'cry wolf', when there is no wolf, nor scream 'fire' when there is no fire, so, somone please explain to me how you see the future of energy production in terms of meeting the demand to just keep even with current conditions?

Amicus....

AMicus,

There is a serious problem with the infrastructure, one that hs been building for many years and is only now being addressed in some areas. Yet how does one cure this problem?

In many ways because the degradation and/or vulnerabilities of that same infrastructure is varied.

We have power lines running above ground in areas that are known for high winds. ie Florida and California. These power lines need to be enhanced then buried away from the wind.

We have the same problem with Transformer Stations. They are too small and are exposed to the elements.

We also don't have adequate back up lines or generators. A lack of power plants is now also becoming evident.

Do I need to address such things as the water suplies and transportation systems? They also have their problems and weaknesses.

They all have their problems and need to be fixed as soon as possible. The problem though is not with the knowledge of the problem but the finances to fix them. Where is the money going to come from? Who pays and how? I know the current answer and I also know that many people aren't happy about this.

Cat

 

[amicus]

Hmmm...Hello Seacat...I was addressing just the pending failure of producing enough power to meet the demand, but, if you wish...and you may not appreciate it...but...

When electricity and transmission lines were the new kid on the block, the technology, from our vantage point, was primitive. In general, one can say the same about all aspects of the infrastructure, water, roads, all of it.

I can only create a comparison or an analogy that makes rational sense to me, although it may not others.

'Public Utilities', is a term that came into use long ago that basically places the control and management of the infrastructure under the guidance of government at various levels.

In the world of business, the market place, the free market, ventures survive and sustain themselves by constant change as new technology appears.

As a small example, IBM, was at one time the leader in the field, as was Detroit in manufacturing automobiles, IBM was in business electronics.

Neither held their place and were replaced by others more astute in keeping up with change and modernizing their operations.

I became acquainted with several layers of government in my newspaper reportage over the years and it comes as no surprise to me that the infrastructure is failing. Government is the least capable of all in managing roads, electric lines, water supplies and sewage treatment.

Although the budgets and the taxes continue to increase, government is barely able to just 'maintain' the services at the current level. Any foresight or change or even adopting new technology is beyond the beaurocrats 'bible', as they are instructed only to follow the book, not to innovate or change.

That is the inherent reason that governments fail and slowly but inevitably decline and begin to deliver less and less of the services they were given to provide.

A small example I have referred before; government mandated building codes, electrical codes, to employ aluminum wiring in new construction. After a few years of corrosion, as aluminum is wont to do, fires began breaking out all over the place.

It took an act of Congress almost to permit builders to bury power lines in new subdivisions way back when. Government is torn between aluminum towers and wooden poles to support power lines within their precincts or power base.

One cannot know every nuance of everything and no doubt some smartass will post and tell me I am wrong about something, but the heart of the issue is simple. If the generation and transmission of electricity were totally in the hands of the energy industry, there would be no shortage and no failing infrastructure.

People would pay as they used the service by the amount they used, the industry would prosper and all would be well. But with the layer upon layer of beaurocratic red tape, corruption and mis management, that anything works at all is a miracle.

Amicus...