Blatantly political rant

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

We have a politically made resource gap currently. You seem to be happier with the limitations of the resource gap than changing the politics to allow more resources to be produced to narrow it. So be it. Don't expect me to not point out the factual reality.

The "resource gap" isn't politically made, it's man-made, that is, demand outstripping supply. Politics is certainly delaying the closing of the gap, but the fact is, we are demanding power much, much faster than we have the capacity to supply it, and unless we change our habits (and somehow prevent countries like China and India from duplicating our bad habits), that situation will continue to prevail, and to collectively drag us all down.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

As for global warming, rerun the Connections about growing wines in England in 1000 A.D. It's barely getting warm enough to do that now. The world didn't come to an end in 1000 A.D.

No... but there are about a million-fold more people on the planet, producing much more than a million-fold unchecked pollution than in 1000 A.D. Their situation was a pale example of what's in store for us.

[Spartacus2112]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

I=

All politicians lie. I hate that they do. This administration governs based on lies. That, in my estimate is the thing that makes them reprehensible. Clinton was an idiot and I voted against his wife. McCain is a man of integrity , as is Obama. We finally have an actual choice and I welcome either one of them to take the reins in 202 dayds.

Absolutely! But unfortunately, they have to lie. They don't care about the folks who have an opinion, they lie to change the minds of people who don't know any better. They people what they want to hear, they give them a reason, a cause, a noble effort, something to be hopeful for. Change....how many politicians have run on that exhausted cause????
Wow...that's original.
Why can't they come out and say "Hey, I'm full of crap...vote for me anyway!"
At least they'll be up front about it....and it will cost a hell of a lot less campaign funds to do so.
Come out and say, "You know, it sucks for you folks. I'm here, with all the money, and you don't have any. So here's what we're going to do. We're going to try to do X, by doing Y. We're going to try to do Y, by doing Z. Our goal is XYZ."
How about some damn honest BS once in a while?
After all, it all depends on what the definition of the word "is", is!
Is it not?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The "resource gap" isn't politically made, it's man-made, that is, demand outstripping supply. Politics is certainly delaying the closing of the gap, but the fact is, we are demanding power much, much faster than we have the capacity to supply it, and unless we change our habits (and somehow prevent countries like China and India from duplicating our bad habits), that situation will continue to prevail, and to collectively drag us all down.

Not political, but man-made? Politicians aren't people? (Well, that explains a lot about our world!)

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

No... but there are about a million-fold more people on the planet, producing much more than a million-fold unchecked pollution than in 1000 A.D. Their situation was a pale example of what's in store for us.

A million-fold increase? 6 billion divided by 1 million = ? 6,000,000,000 / 1,000,000 = 6000. There was 6000 people in 1000 A.D.?


We have a problem, let's solve it. The current problem wouldn't be so bad it those (non-human) politicians had allowed the free market to start solving the problem 7 years ago, instead of thowing every spanner they could find into the works. (and then saintly saying "Oh my, we've got a problem that can't be solved.") This bottleneck will be worked thru, despite the best effort of (non-human) politicians and urbanites who have totally lost sight of production chain of civilization. There's too much money to be made from people (like me) who refuse to give up their suburban lifestyle.

[hidari]

[QUOTE=Steve Jordan;208642]The "resource gap" isn't politically made, it's man-made, that is, demand outstripping supply. Politics is certainly delaying the closing of the gap, but the fact is, we are demanding power much, much faster than we have the capacity to supply it, and unless we change our habits (and somehow prevent countries like China and India from duplicating our bad habits), that situation will continue to prevail, and to collectively drag us all down.


Peak Oil, Peak Oil, Peak Oil

[hidari]

As Kunstler said, The Suburbs are the greatest waste of resources in the history of mankind. That experiment is over or will be for a large number of people... Unless you have the money to maintain it...



"There's too much money to be made from people (like me) who refuse to give up their suburban lifestyle."

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by hidari

As Kunstler said, The Suburbs are the greatest waste of resources in the history of mankind. That experiment is over or will be for a large number of people... Unless you have the money to maintain it...



"There's too much money to be made from people (like me) who refuse to give up their suburban lifestyle."

I disagree with Kunstler. What does a suburban lifestyle take? Cheap energy, cheap land, and limited political demands. Currently we're choking on cheap energy part. Will this be always?

I'll use myself for an example. a 220 sq meter (2200 sq foot) single story house, built in 1983, in an affluent suburb 30 miles from a major city downtown in North Texas. Peak monthly energy usage was 3150 Kw hours in an extremely hot (avg 108 F for highs) August, with no energy efficiency retrofiting done. Somewhat over 3000 sq ft roof area of which 750 sq ft is prime southern exposure, 1600 sq ft E/W exposure, the rest is useless northern exposure.

Solar at 14 per cent efficency is around 10 watt per sq foot. At 5 hrs at this location (Dept. Of Energy estimate for the area). 750 sq ft x 5 hrs x 30 days x 10 watts per sq ft / 1000 (conversion to Kilowatts) = 1125 Kw hours. E/W gives 1600 sq ft x 2.5 hrs (half of the southern exposure) x 30 days x 10 watts per sq ft / 1000 = 1200Kw hours. combined = 2325 KW hrs. The reality will be somewhat more, as extreme peak loads in Texas alway occur under a clear sky, and long days (increasing the 5 hrs per day average somewhat) - say 2500 Kw hrs. I'm short 650 Kw hours. Swapped out incandesent for compact fluorescent - saved 100 Kw Hrs (measured!). Placed solar (light/heat reducing screens) on the window. Based on other people's estimates (I just got them installed last week) - 400 to 500 Kw hrs off peak air-conditioning bill. Next spring, radiant barrier in attic, should save another 300+ Kw hours. Peak load (probably) reduced to 3150 - 100 - 400 - 300 = 2350 Kw hrs. Solar at peak = 2325 (2500 maybe). Energy breakeven for the house, using wasted rooftop area and no whining about carbon footprint.

But what about the price? Currently it would cost around $120,000 US dollars.
Way too expensive - today. 5-10 years, probably half that. My breakeven estimate is $50,000 USD (20 yr amortization). Coming soon...

The car. Well, the Tesla has an electric car with a 200 mile range and 185 Kw hrs of batteries. Or just under a Kw hr a mile. At 2000 miles a month 1850 Kw hrs. Double that for a 4 dr car and you're talking, say, 4000 Kw hrs for transportation. Build some more nuke plants to go with Comanche Peak....

This is all based on last year's technology. There are so many new breakthroughs occuring in both solar and batteries that is almost frightening. I might be getting 30 percent efficentcy on my rooftop installation. (The Germaniun/Lens with heat exchanger setup is talking north of 40 per cent efficent. Who knows?) And I'm not even looking at the new horizontal wing wind generators....

Cheap land? Well, you could give every person in the US a 1000 Sq meter lot in Texas and still have a lot of Texas left over. No problem here in Texas.

Limited political demand. Here's the real sticking point. Command and control works much better in an urban environment than a suburban environment. People who want command and control politics hate the suburbs. And the current energy shortage/global warming is an excuse to disrepect the suburban lifestyle. Give up you space, give up your freedom to go anywhere, anytime. (your car) Live in a little world with no way out. Well, this Texan's not a sheep.

[vivaldirules]

If it comes to abiding by decisions made by all for a good that's greater than me, I can only say BAAAAAAA.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

If it comes to abiding by decisions made by all for a good that's greater than me, I can only say BAAAAAAA.

Well, since I'm obviously not agreeing with them, they're not made by all...

And bye the bye, who decides what's the greater good? And who gave them that power? (I know, details, details....)

The middle class is not so easily gotten rid of.

[hidari]

Parts of Kunstler I do not like either. Good Points you made. I hope that things do get more efficient and affordable for everyone. Like you said too expensive for many alternatives at the moment.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I disagree with Kunstler. What does a suburban lifestyle take? Cheap energy, cheap land, and limited political demands. Currently we're choking on cheap energy part. Will this be always?

I'll use myself for an example. a 220 sq meter (2200 sq foot) single story house, built in 1983, in an affluent suburb 30 miles from a major city downtown in North Texas. Peak monthly energy usage was 3150 Kw hours in an extremely hot (avg 108 F for highs) August, with no energy efficiency retrofiting done. Somewhat over 3000 sq ft roof area of which 750 sq ft is prime southern exposure, 1600 sq ft E/W exposure, the rest is useless northern exposure.

Solar at 14 per cent efficency is around 10 watt per sq foot. At 5 hrs at this location (Dept. Of Energy estimate for the area). 750 sq ft x 5 hrs x 30 days x 10 watts per sq ft / 1000 (conversion to Kilowatts) = 1125 Kw hours. E/W gives 1600 sq ft x 2.5 hrs (half of the southern exposure) x 30 days x 10 watts per sq ft / 1000 = 1200Kw hours. combined = 2325 KW hrs. The reality will be somewhat more, as extreme peak loads in Texas alway occur under a clear sky, and long days (increasing the 5 hrs per day average somewhat) - say 2500 Kw hrs. I'm short 650 Kw hours. Swapped out incandesent for compact fluorescent - saved 100 Kw Hrs (measured!). Placed solar (light/heat reducing screens) on the window. Based on other people's estimates (I just got them installed last week) - 400 to 500 Kw hrs off peak air-conditioning bill. Next spring, radiant barrier in attic, should save another 300+ Kw hours. Peak load (probably) reduced to 3150 - 100 - 400 - 300 = 2350 Kw hrs. Solar at peak = 2325 (2500 maybe). Energy breakeven for the house, using wasted rooftop area and no whining about carbon footprint.

But what about the price? Currently it would cost around $120,000 US dollars.
Way too expensive - today. 5-10 years, probably half that. My breakeven estimate is $50,000 USD (20 yr amortization). Coming soon...

The car. Well, the Tesla has an electric car with a 200 mile range and 185 Kw hrs of batteries. Or just under a Kw hr a mile. At 2000 miles a month 1850 Kw hrs. Double that for a 4 dr car and you're talking, say, 4000 Kw hrs for transportation. Build some more nuke plants to go with Comanche Peak....

This is all based on last year's technology. There are so many new breakthroughs occuring in both solar and batteries that is almost frightening. I might be getting 30 percent efficentcy on my rooftop installation. (The Germaniun/Lens with heat exchanger setup is talking north of 40 per cent efficent. Who knows?) And I'm not even looking at the new horizontal wing wind generators....

Cheap land? Well, you could give every person in the US a 1000 Sq meter lot in Texas and still have a lot of Texas left over. No problem here in Texas.

Limited political demand. Here's the real sticking point. Command and control works much better in an urban environment than a suburban environment. People who want command and control politics hate the suburbs. And the current energy shortage/global warming is an excuse to disrepect the suburban lifestyle. Give up you space, give up your freedom to go anywhere, anytime. (your car) Live in a little world with no way out. Well, this Texan's not a sheep.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The middle class is not so easily gotten rid of.

No. Mostly, they're just bought off.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

A million-fold increase? 6 billion divided by 1 million = ? 6,000,000,000 / 1,000,000 = 6000. There was 6000 people in 1000 A.D.?

Sorry. I was on vacation. (Hand me another rum-runner, Bob.)

[Greg Anos]

Here's the latest solar breakthrough from MIT...

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/solarcells-0710.html

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Say... shouldn't this go into the Blatantly Technological Rant?

For that matter: Do we have one?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Here's another interesting development (used this in my new book):
Harvesting the Sun's Energy With Antennas

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I disagree with Kunstler. What does a suburban lifestyle take? Cheap energy, cheap land, and limited political demands. Currently we're choking on cheap energy part. Will this be always?

Energy was never that cheap... just subsidized. There are many hidden costs, not the least of which is the cost of pollution cleanup from that energy production, that should be figured into all energy costs, and has not been. Adjust the equation, and you see why solar, wind, hydro/tidal, etc, have such value.

As for land...

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Cheap land? Well, you could give every person in the US a 1000 Sq meter lot in Texas and still have a lot of Texas left over. No problem here in Texas.

I'll take it. Thanks!

But these still don't take into account a wasteful lifestyle. We need to improve how we use (and not waste) energy and resources, and alter our perceptions of things like disposables, foods, packaging, transportation/commuting, work, play, etc.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Say... shouldn't this go into the Blatantly Technological Rant?

For that matter: Do we have one?

Since we don't have one, it seemed logical to put it here, after my earlier rants in the thread....

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Here's another interesting development (used this in my new book):
Harvesting the Sun's Energy With Antennas

Another breakthrough. In 10 years, the entire energy landscape will be changed. We just have to get to there....and that means dirty, ugly sources until then.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

But these still don't take into account a wasteful lifestyle. We need to improve how we use (and not waste) energy and resources, and alter our perceptions of things like disposables, foods, packaging, transportation/commuting, work, play, etc.

Who decides what is wasteful? Who enforces it? How did this power get granted? These aren't trivial questions. I consider them more important, actually, that the problem to be solved. What I usually see is a pressure group who want to run other people's lives, ostentationably for some noble good, but actually because they want to run other people's lives, period. How do I tell the difference? Is there an objective ongoing measurement of all consequences of the changes, and a clear automatic path to back them out if they are causing more harm than good. I haven't seen that ever, but if you're rationally trying to solve a problem, it needs to be there. Otherwise, it's just a group of bullies forcing their views down somebody elses throat, because it make the forcers feel better.