9
Teh Homeless Are Causing Global Warming
America’s Shittiest Website™ is, of course, the blogging home to America’s Shittiest Global Warming Denier™ Iain Murray, who faxed in this piece of nonsense:
Even the American homeless emit twice as much carbon dioxide as the world average, the wastrels. That’s the finding of a new report from MIT:
[T]he “floor” below which nobody in the U.S. can reach, no matter a person’s energy choices, turned out to be 8.5 tons, the class found. That was the emissions calculated for a homeless person who ate in soup kitchens and slept in homeless shelters.
As our own Steve Hayward pointed out in his recent WSJ piece, to reduce American emissions by 80 percent by 2050 with a reasonable guess at population of 400 million, that would mean an individual emission limit of 2.5 tons. And you know what? Switching over to twisty lightbulbs and driving Priuses isn’t likely to acheive [sic] that for the homeless…
Effing homeless. If I’d known they were causing so much global warming, I’d stop giving them my spare quarters!
Of course, 8.5 tons per homeless person does seem like a figure that’s, well, a teensy bit large. After all, if you live in an average size apartment in California and drive around a mid-size car, you would be emitting 7.22 tons of carbon annually. (Calculate that here). Or perhaps the average homeless guy has a better lifestyle than any of us knew about. The reason that we aren’t seeing a line of Hummers parked in front of the Central Union Mission is apparently because the homeless are smart enough to park their gas-guzzlers several blocks away and then walk to the soup kitchen.
Let’s just follow Murray’s link and find out what’s really up with all those megatons of carbon dioxide being spewed out of soup kitchens. First, we have the issue of a “report from MIT.” Er, no:
A Massachusetts Institute of Technology class has studied the carbon emissions of Americans in a wide variety of lifestyles and estimated that people in the United States contribute much more than the global average.
Not to be overly critical of undergraduates or anything but a class project isn’t really conclusive of much of anything other than the grades that the students received.
Not only isn’t this really an MIT report but also it wasn’t really a study of what homeless people actually “emit” but rather what they emit plus an allocation of a large part of the carbon output of state, federal and local governments:
While it may seem surprising that even people whose lifestyles don’t appear extravagant–the homeless, monks, children–are responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions, one major factor is the array of government services that are available to everyone in the United States. These basic services–including police, roads, libraries, the court system and the military–were allocated equally to everyone in the country in this study.
Only a bunch of engineering students could imagine that military carbon emissions should be allocated to the homeless, I suppose because the homeless are so grateful for having their way of life preserved by our troops. And only America’s Shittiest Global Warming Denier™ could think that this undergraduate class project proves anything at all.
Mr. Murray, there’s a call on line 3. Exxon-Mobil wants its money back.
sagra said,
May 9, 2008 at 16:43
Carbon sequestering the entire staff of the Corner, great idea or greatest idea? Discuss.
g said,
May 9, 2008 at 16:48
But..but…but…I’m flabbergasted. So you figure out the carbon footprint of all government services (including the military!) and you divy up an equal share for each individual, and at the end, the worst offenders are the guys sleeping under sheets of cardboard in the park, instead of the guy sleeping under an electric blanket in a central-heated 3,000 sq. foot home with the TV left on to help him nod off?
Just wanted to clarify that.
Matt said,
May 9, 2008 at 16:51
I’m going to go with greatest idea, really. They should not be allowed to exhale carbon dioxide. Ever.
Simba B said,
May 9, 2008 at 16:53
Well, with those ears on, shouldn’t he be Iain Furray?
pedestrian said,
May 9, 2008 at 16:53
Shouldn’t votes and/or donations to Republicans be weighted somehow?
D.N. Nation said,
May 9, 2008 at 16:55
Wow. So this is the point of his post:
Well no, but it certainly will for people who can afford to do so. As for the government-allocations-count-for-everyone, well…fight for more efficient governmental practices, then. Isn’t that what the free marketeers would like, anyway? Or does the ALGORESUX!!!!!!1 knee-jerk override everything else?
Friedman/Instapundit/Freakanomics Lite arguments are friggin pointless. Yes, you made me raise an eyebrow. So?
Blue Buddha said,
May 9, 2008 at 16:55
I think the
reportclass project stated that 8.5 tons was the “floor”, which was determined by dividing all government services equally amongst the population. Anything above that (such as guy in 3,000 sq ft. home driving Hummer, etc.) is in *addition* to the 8.5 tons.Of course, I’m sure Murray interpreted this as the homeless are the worst polluters in the world.
Davis said,
May 9, 2008 at 16:56
So, if the government switched to “twisty light bulbs and …Priuses” the allocation would fall, perhaps to that 2.5 tons/person some day.
Iris said,
May 9, 2008 at 16:58
It’s clear to me and the majority of people (who are Hillary supporters….yes Obama has the lead now, but we’re getting 6000% of the remaining votes) that an Obama administration would be devastating to the environment, because the majority of Obama supporters are creative class people who drive huge cars and don’t live frugal lives like the working class white people, who Obama can’t get support from.
This is why Obama is a horrible choice for the nomination. That and your misogyny, which you practice when you insult me. The more you insult me, the more people will vote for McCain, who has a true coalition of voters.
henry lewis said,
May 9, 2008 at 16:59
1) Are your sources truthfully represented? No.
2) Did you provide proper context for your statistics? No.
3) Does this article help us further understand the issues? No.
4) Does this article even make sense? No.
….
Fine then. Let’s publish.
g said,
May 9, 2008 at 16:59
Actually, maybe if more of us were homeless, we’d collectively reduce the carbon footprint of the guys in the 3000 sq. ft. houses.
I’m sure this is an idea the WSJ will gladly promote on behalf of their readership.
g said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:01
The more you insult me, the more people will vote for McCain, who has a true coalition of voters.
Wow, you must be really really important, Iris!
[snicker]
Iris said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:03
I am important. I am an example of voters that Obama can’t reach, because he’s bla…an elitist.
MrSparkle said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:04
Sorta-but-not-really-OT: Well, now I know why I saw this book in my local Barnes & Noble recently. I guess Mr. Murray really wants that check from ExxonMobil. One of the funniest (but not “HA-HA” funny) bullet points Murray put on the front cover flap was “how Rachel Carson killed several Africans because she wanted to ban DDT.”
montysano said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:07
On my drive home, I like to call up the local wingnut radio station, drop a choice Lib-bomb (”Jeremiah Wright? The man’s a saint”), then sit back and enjoy (hey, a man’s got to have a hobby, right) as a great gaseous bellow arises. Little did I know that I’m helping to murder our Earth Mother.
D.N. Nation said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:07
Ooh, I can combine that with the Magnum Doughpus for less than $40.
J— said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:09
I think the report class project stated that 8.5 tons was the “floor”, which was determined by dividing all government services equally amongst the population. Anything above that (such as guy in 3,000 sq ft. home driving Hummer, etc.) is in *addition* to the 8.5 tons.
Yeah, according to the Environmental Protection article, the study found the annual individual average to be 20 metric tons.
Also from the article (Gutowski is the MIT professor who taught the class):
A tax increase? No! A thousand times times no! Thirty-dollars worth of Ramen per month no!
g said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:10
Don’t forget the dollar-store spaghetti sauce!
henry lewis said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:13
“how Rachel Carson killed several Africans because she wanted to ban DDT.”
And pointing out the nutritional dangers of fast food is denying employment to thousands of pimply teenagers.
Blue Buddha said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:19
Oh yeah, the good ol’ “libruls killed 3rd world babies by banning DDT” argument. This has been debunked several times over:
– The DDT ban wasn’t global, it only affected industrialized countries and a handful of developing countries. Third world countries still used it.
– DDT caused other unintentional disasters in some 3rd world countries. Namely, they killed insects that were natural predators to the pest insects, but didn’t kill the pest insects.
– DDT was on its way out anyway, because bugs were developing an immunity to it. (Of course, rightiwng nuts deny evolution, so you could see why this would make them scratch their heads.)
– Virtually every country today no longer uses it because of the two previous points.
El Cid said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:21
Don’t Cheetos give you gas? We must ban it to slow the human-emitted gas contribution to global warming.
Brandi said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:23
Man, Iris– with all that wanking your clitoris must look like a Vienna sausage that’s been pressed up against a belt sander.
henry lewis said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:26
Don’t Cheetos give you gas?
Cheetos AND a foot-long all-meat sammich and you’re going to need to buy emissions credits.
Blue Buddha said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:31
What’s worse is that gas is methane, which is supposedly 25-70 worse than CO2 in global warming. Fortunately, natural gas is mostly methane, so this means that we can stick a capturing unit on Jonas’ ass and have an alternative source of fuel.
Blue Buddha said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:33
Dammit. Wordpress ate my link. >:(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane
Hysterical Woman said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:35
I think that is Fake Iris. (Geez, now we get Fake Concern Trolls? Oh spare us.)
Tom said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:36
So, if the government switched to “twisty light bulbs and …Priuses” the allocation would fall, perhaps to that 2.5 tons/person some day.
A step in the right direction would be to get the government to stop invading other countries unless we go in with Priuses instead of tanks and F-16’s.
Blue Buddha said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:40
True. Fighter jets dump a metric fuckload of carbon in the air.
Susan of Texas said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:41
Yeah, this Iris is so rote that she’s almost surely a Garybot. It isn’t Iris without a dash of name-calling and a shot of self-pity.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:45
I only wish Iris had a catchphrase such as “The fact is,” or “Shalom, gentlemen” or “Over the past few weeks, I’ve learned to look past Iris’s snarky, annoying analects. I’ve learned to look past some of the crass things Iris has said. I’ve even learned to look past its attempts to subject human beings to indignities. But I cannot stay silent about Iris’s incomprehensible and unforgivable audacity regarding a specific event that recently occurred.”
You know. So we can mock him/her/it!
liberalrob said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:49
This type of sexism is driving voters away from Obama, who can’t win unless he acknowledges progressives’ issues with his campaign. Hillary ran as a true progressive, and that is why her supporters are leaving the Democratic party.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:51
That Iaian has scraped the bottom of the barrel so asdiously that he has splinters under all his fingernails… including the thumbs!
Iris TrollBot 1.0 said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:52
Greetings! Iris is indeed a fake concern troll. We’re still tinkering with catch phrases- great ones like “Shalom” and “The fact is,” don’t just spring up overnight. And let’s be frank, Matt McMahon’s use of the complaint generator is an easy out.
Although the real Iris had some good ones (various incorrect riffs about the “creative class,” for example), they’re tough to start with. We’ll test some catch phrases in the coming weeks to see what sticks.
We here at Sadly, No! Robotics know you have a choice in fake trolls, and we’re appreciate your business. Thank you.
Righteous Bubba said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:55
Sadly, No! Robotics
OBOTICS you completely-in-the-tank cultists.
Simba B said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:56
That Iaian has scraped the bottom of the barrel so asdiously that he has splinters under all his fingernails… including the thumbs!
Let’s not assume Iain has (opposable) thumbs now. That’s a bit of a leap if you ask me.
Wordpress said,
May 9, 2008 at 17:57
The fact is, I eat <cite> tags.
Righteous Bubba said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:00
I must say I am going to give the next homeless person I see a darned good talking to. They can purchase carbon credits like the rest of us.
jim said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:00
Actually climate change may pan out as net COOLING in temperate zones, as “climate belts” form … which won’t help to mitigate the warming in the Arctic & Antarctic much. Especially if the cool belts start to shrink away to nothing. The tropics might just become humanly uninhabitable, period - just think about how many of us live there, or how few of us that do have any means to leave.
Also, the damage to the poles won’t take long to be felt everywhere else (parts of Pakistan & Bangladesh are eroding into the sea right NOW); about 90% of humanity lives within sight of or ON a coastline.
Not shaking shit out of your pantleg yet? This has the very real potential to create weather that makes Katrina look like a gentle spring breeze. Real hardcore superstorms haven’t been around since the early prehistoric period, but we might just be inviting them to make a comeback. A superstorm isn’t like a hurricane, it’s more like a hyper-big-ass tornado. Not to mention that, if it either comes out of or creates a hyperstabile system, like Jupiter’s Red Spot, rather than blowing itself out after a week or two it might just keep going, for a very long time. If we don’t wise up soon enough, those upcoming superstorms might make for some reeeeally interesting times.
But hey, it’s nice to know Iain Murray is doing his part for the environment by actively composting - in the above-the-neck area.
acrannymint said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:10
OT but it looks like the Duggars are at it again.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:12
Now that I’ve actually read the ’study’ in question, it strikes me as incredibly defeatist and incomplete.
The students concluded that because the choices the government agencies and entities make, we will not be able to reduce Carbon Dioxide* emissions to a significant degree without raising taxes (which they say is not likely to happen).
Bullshit.
Government can create tax credits, create incentive schemes, create demonstration programs and fund research into conservation and alternative energy - the carrot. They can set fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, appliances, industries, and its own agencies and entities - the stick.
The military, for example, is incredibly wasteful. Its energy usage can be directed by Congress through law. The President can regulate its energy usage through regulations. Tax increases have nothing to do with it.
This kind of stuff was happening under Jimmy Carter after the oil shocks of the 1970’s. For example, there was a Solar Energy/Energy Conservation Demonstration Program for small businesses funded by DOE in the late 70’s and early 80’s.
It worked like this: the program lent money to the businesses, who paid back the loans out of their energy savings. The money paid back went to more businesses in that same state to create a positive ripple effect.
There was at least one demo project in each state and the program more than paid for itself. It was so successful, it was expanded to include non-profits, so they could spend more money on their missions and not on their energy bills.
But Reagan put an effective stop to it and programs like it. And the Clinton administration short-sightedly failed to revive those kinds of efforts after the Reagan-Bush years. And this was not the only successful project to get canned in the name of ‘free market forces’ and ‘let’s give the oil companies more money’.
In short, either the article leaves a lot of stuff out or that class didn’t do a very thorough analysis of the options we have to make a substantial decrease in our energy waste and thus our Carbon Dioxide emissions.
I give ‘em a D.
*Yes. I forgot the ASCII for subscripts. Damn!
Susan of Texas said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:12
Global warming is also affecting the Gulf Stream, as cold water is dumped into the Atlantic. In time the huge influx of cold water will stall the warm water-meets-cold-water engine driving the Gulf Stream. That will affect the growth of plankton, which needs the nutrients dragged up by the water churning. And the entire marine food chain depends on plankton, as well as much of the land food chain, since so many people live on the coasts, partially for the food.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:14
I forgot to mention it, but there is a very active prof at MIT who is preaching that nuclear power is our only hope. I fergit his name, but I’d make a bet that class was his.
Low-level Obotics Researcher said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:15
We’ll test some catch phrases
I SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING (gleaned from actual Iris comments):
~Almost 50% of Democrats have voted for her
~I — a proud liberal — am tired of hearing how racist I am
~I am at pains to point out
~If things have to get worse for the Democratic party to learn a lesson, so be it.
~This just isn’t the time (not yet) for unity and reconciliation.
~You can’t argue that we have to follow the “rules”
~not to pander or anything
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:15
OT but it looks like the Duggars are at it again.
I thought the Duggars were always at it!
Oregon Guy said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:24
My wife is a Smart Science Person, and she has been coming around to the idea that, in the short term, nuclear power is the only real solution in our toolbox to stop/slow carbon emissions while maintaining developed-world economy. So there’s that for ya.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:26
I — a proud liberal — am tired of hearing how racist I am
I prefer this one as I have run into the wingnuttiest of wingnuts — for example, religious nuts protesting against gay marriage — who have declared that they were proud liberals!
IMHO, the hypocrisy and crazy just kind of ooze out of that catchphrase like the creepiness oozes out of the McCain Mother’s Day spot.
[shudder]
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:28
Sorry, Mrs. Oregon Guy, but there is no ’short term’ with nuclear power. Tons to time are needed to build ‘em. Tons of time are needed to decommision them. Tons of time are needed before the waste is non-fatal.
Conservation, solar, wind, hydro, on the other hand, are quicker, cheaper and much less dangerous.
Righteous Bubba said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:31
I like ~not to pander or anything because it’s more broad: any old bullshit can go after it.
Righteous Bubba said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:32
The Chernobyl museum in Kiev is a very depressing place to visit. No more of those please.
Oregon Guy said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:33
Well, there’s some book by some scientist somewhere, maybe even your MIT guy, that she’s been reading.
Far be it from me to represent my lovely wife’s views as my own as I lack her erudition on the subject… but…
when we wuz talking about it the other day she mentioned that hydro has huge externalities (see China), wind is very polluting in terms of land use… I think all of your solutions (conservation/wind/solar/hydro) should be used myself - but by themselves probably won’t get us all the way there. Believe me, I’d love to be wrong.
Righteous Bubba said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:35
Believe me, I’d love to be wrong.
I’m somewhat on the fence as regards the nuclear issue, but the down side is so so down.
henry lewis said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:36
Isn’t the greatest source of potential energy conservation?
If I may put it that way.
JGabriel said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:40
It’s rare that the Republicans hand us such a wonderful gift on a platter, but check this out:
Republicans Vote *Against* Mother’s Day
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050802999.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/09/republicans-vote-against-mothers-day/
Next up, a bill to condemn Cindy Who of Whosville as a trollop.
.
Oregon Guy said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:46
Okay - here’s something on the nukes topic. I think that France is a big nuke plant builder, and to my knowledge, none of their plants have blown up yet.
I also know that they have huge investments in public transit infrastructure that we Americans can only dream about (well, this one does anyway)…
So I got on the Wikipedia and saw that France has the 15th highest carbon emissions in the world, well below those of comparably-populated Italy and the UK.
If we got our carbon footprints down to where the French are, the US carbon footprint would be
2.24 millions (in thousands of metric tons)
down from
6.04 millions (in thousands of metric tons)
which would reduce global carbon output by 15%. Not shabby. Too bad we have so many polluting homeless people, tho’.
Blue Buddha said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:46
What’s next? The “Snuff Out Puppies and Kittens Act”? It doesn’t surprise me that the GOP would do something like this.
pedestrian said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:54
The reason doesn’t really help, either. Republicans have been trying to gum up the machinery so that they can force Congress to pass immunity for AT&T and the other telecoms - and basically out of spite because they aren’t in charge anymore.
This could make some great campaign commercials.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:54
I’d bet that the book is by this MIT guy. He’s very persuasive, I understand. But when she says “that hydro has huge externalities (see China)” and minimizes the even huger externalities of nukes, ya gotta wonder. And to neglect the effectiveness of small hydro projects is typical wingnut thinking. Here in the Northeast, for example, there are thousands of old dams which could be retrofitted with generators with virtually no additiona environmental impact.
And as for “wind is very polluting in terms of land use”, I really don’t think ‘pollution’ is the concept here. It’s not like the wind generators are oozing oil into the soil or belching chemicals into the air. So that statement is more like “Wind power uses land”. Yes, it does. So does nuclear power plants and the buffer areas around them. And the nukes will thermally pollute cooling water, amongst other negative externalities
And yes, conservation is probably our best bet for incredibly large reductions in our energy use and emissions, Henry. And, in many cases, it has little or no negative impact on conservation. In many cases, conservation has a positive impact on your lifestyle (for example, if you weatherstrip your windows or insulate your home, you will be more comfortable winter or summer!).
When I get a chance, I’ll track that nuke-prophet MIT prof’s name down. One of my friends went to a talk he gave last year, so I’ll start there.
In Vino Veritas said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:55
Speaking of the Corner, does anyone know if K-Lo is married? If not, this is really sad:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWI0YWQ4M2ExN2QzYTY4Njg1OGFiY2ZmNTk2OTBhYzg=
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:55
Damn! ‘additional’. ‘do.’
Damns!
Righteous Bubba said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:56
Okay - here’s something on the nukes topic. I think that France is a big nuke plant builder, and to my knowledge, none of their plants have blown up yet.
The problem in Chernobyl was that incompetents had stupid ideas and tried them out one day. It was running fine (although I understand that the general design was kind of dumb as these things go). I can accept that certain nations - for now - will have tight enough controls to prevent their plants from exploding, but I have a tough time trusting that the needs of the globe can be met.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 18:59
Oregon Guy,
Who’s the author of the book?
Also, to jump from “France has a lot of nukes” to “France has the lowest carbon footprint” requires a bit more than faith to prove causation. The French also use incredibly efficient cars and trucks, for example. Many homes do not have central heating, for another.
mikey said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:00
The last american commercial reactor to come on line was 1996. That means it was at best a 1980s design. While they have done remarkable things with the old commercial reactors to increase their uptime, efficiency and safety, they are still obsolete.
In the meantime, a great deal of research has gone into designing new generations of nuclear power generation systems, which are now available for use. Things like PBRs and more efficient use of fuels.
These reactors can be smaller and much more contained. They pretty much cannot create a TMI or Chernobyl. The only real remaining downside, other than the HUGE upfront costs, is spent fuel and decommisioning costs. While these provide important grounds for debate, I think it’s obvious that nuclear power is going to be a necessary component of power generation over the next 100 years…
mikey
Blue Buddha said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:08
According to her wiki page, she’s not.
Also, she’s only in her early 30’s! All the pictures I’ve seen of her made me think she’s at least ten years older than that. O_o
Susan of Texas said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:12
Uranium is a limited resource too. The price of uranium has shot sky-high recently. There is a lot of it, but most of it is low grade, according to what I”ve read.
Most important of all, you need oil to run mines. Look at South Africa.
Gary Ruppert said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:15
The fact is, Iris can find some other place to do “her work”. This place is mine. And that goes for liberalrob as well. The fact is, get the hell out of her
Susan of Texas said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:17
Gary, darlin’, how do you know liberalbob is inside Iris? Is the circle jerk metaphor a sickening reality???
Stemler said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:22
Sweet i’m at 2.27 metric tons a year, why don’t the rest of you jerks stop killing my planet already.
The problem is it only takes one, and then you have a whole of people who are really really sorry, but you know, no one could have seen it coming. Plus as far as I know (which is very little) they still don’t have any where to put all the waste.
sagra said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:31
Our energy industry is into addiction, so of course they like nuclear better. If you manufacture solar panels and sell them to everyone with a roof, you make a few billion, but then you can’t charge them every month for electricity. The same thing happens if you manufacture windmills and sell them to any farmer who doesn’t mind plowing around them.
These are people who’d charge us for air if they could get away with it.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:40
Ack! These same old arguments from the 1970’s and 80’s!
How about an analogy? It’s like you need to get from point A to point B and you have two choices: You can order a Vargon-class land cruiser which will be ready in 10 years, cost $100,000, and, although it emits a toxic gas right into the cockpit, has a complicated filtering system which should (fingers crossed) keep you safe. In addition, there is a special $250,000 disposal cost once the land cruiser becomes decrepit. Oh, and repair costs are 10x what you might expect. On the bright side, you can go 5 years between re-fuelings!
Or you can go online today and order a Smart Car for $13,000 which will be delivered in 3 months and can be repaired at any garage at the expected cost level. Yes, you’ll have to fill it up every month and it does emit CO2. And you may have to pay $100 to get it towed away when it gets decrepit.
Are you really going to choose the Vargon-class land cruiser because the toxic gas it emits is not CO2 and the SmartCar emits a small amount of CO2?
Sorry. It just doesn’t make sense to me. We have limited time, money and resources. Let’s make choices which will benefit people and the environment over huge corporations.
Because that is another component of this issue: huge companies such as GE, Westinghouse and Brown & Root (Halliburton) make money off of nukes. Smaller companies make money from small hydro projects, solar, wind and conservation.
And don’t get me started on how vulnerable centralizing our power sources makes us to terrorism…
Kathleen said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:40
We’ll test some catch phrases
I kind of liked “NEW RULE” myself.
PeeJ said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:41
There aint gonna be any ONE measure that will answer all our problems. Nuclear Power is not a magic pony, nor are hydro, wind, solarr, geothermal, um….wave, etc. etc. They ALL have their good points, some have a few bad points as well.
As an aside, (pay attention Doodle!) back in 19*cough*splutt* I worked for USDA ARS (Agricultural Research Services) doing computer geek stuff for hydrologists. One of the research projects showed pretty conclusively that small scale hydro, especially in the NE, made so much sense it was stoopid to NOT fit all those small dams with generators.
And by the way, the real problem with the Gulf Stream isn’t cold water but fresh water. As the polar and Greenland sheets melt it changes the density of the ocean to where the GS will just go away. Thus will “global warming” cause a new ice age in Europe. That that, France!
And finally, yes, there’s akvavit in Portland. It’s the micro-distillery’s own interpretation; much like other akvavit I’ve had but it’s got a markedly different character to it than any others I’ve had.
See also for more about PDX drinking habits and opportunities.
Oh, right. Also, good morning everyone.
Randomfactor said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:43
The problem with nukes is that the safety system which broke down at Chernyobl is duplicated in all nuclear plants around the world.
The guy holding the control knob.
PeeJ said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:44
Er, “
thattake that, France”Righteous Bubba said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:47
Iris is still on:
That first sentence is a pretty awesome catchphrase for anything that comes after:
I’d also like to throw out a lament to what used to be the ‘reality-based’ community and a wonderful forum for exchanging ideas. Why does the fur of bats clog my faucet?
Doctorb Science said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:48
I don’t understand this group’s hostility toward obvious parody commenters. I mean, do you guys watch the Colbert Report and get all angry because he says anti-intellectual things like “sorry, Darwin-huggers”? Iris isn’t that great but she’s at least somewhat amusing.
PeeJ said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:48
Fuck you Wordpress. Just fuck you is all.
Snorghagen said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:51
She also reveals that we’re all doomed to become fascists.
Susan of Texas said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:51
Thank, PeeJ. I”ve been reading simple explanations of the problems that usually don’t get into details. Or maybe I just don’t’ understand them….
Susan of Texas said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:53
Eh, not amusing enough. Concern trolls need to act sympathetic, not look for sympathy. She has the dynamic off.
Righteous Bubba said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:55
She also reveals that we’re all doomed to become fascists.
Pffft. There already.
henry lewis said,
May 9, 2008 at 19:58
There’s also this (from Iris @ 19:38 in That Thread™):
Let the flaming begin…..
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 20:04
Doctorb,
Colbert has wit; Iris does not.
Doctorb Science said,
May 9, 2008 at 20:06
What are you talking about? Iris is a shining wit.
mikey said,
May 9, 2008 at 20:06
Peej is right.
I don’t know anybody who thinks we should ONLY generate power using one methodology. The problem is, you’re trying to offset a truly gargantuan amount of fossil fuel generation (oil, gas, coal), so you’re really not going to be able to take any alternative off the table. Each has a contribution to make.
Sagra, if you think about it, local generation schemes cannot work. Power must be generated and supplied 24×7 and must have additional available capacity to account for fluctuations in demand. Your on-site solar or hydro or wind generator can help offset some of that usage, but without storage and demand buffering solutions, will not provide a solution.
And Doodle, your analogy falls apart if you look at the cost of all kilowatt hours generated over the lifespan of the powerplant, particularly in an era of $100/bbl oil, the economic argument actually mitigates in favor of the nuclear solution.
Does it take a long time to build a nuke plant? Sure does. So in 2017 will our energy problems be all solved, or should we start doing things today that will make contributions to the solution longer term. If we are increasingly desperate in 2015 and start then, we will have lost another decade…
mikey
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 20:10
Re: The Safety of the French Nuke Program (paragraphs are about a ‘60 Minutes’ program named ‘Vive Les Nukes’):
“Though she was totally ignored, Linda Gunter of Beyond Nuclear told 60 Minutes of radioactive contamination in the marine life off Normandy where the French reprocessing center sits, leukemia clusters in people living along that coast, and massive demonstrations in French cities earlier in the year protesting construction of new nuclear power plants.
The Union of Concerned Scientists was upset by 60 Minutes’ downplaying of alternative energy technologies such as wind and solar…
Click the link for much more.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 20:13
Mikey,
Look at the kilowatt hours saved and generated by alternatives and you’ll see my analogy is sound…
As for the ‘we need to get started NOW!’ argument. I agree. Let’s get started now.
And not just with tepid measures such as finally killing the SUV subsidy for small businesses, but major, sweeping, new conservation and alternatives programs and policies.
By 2017 we’ll be in much better shape than we will be if we devote massive resources to nukes.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 20:13
Doctorb,
I’ll grant you that she/he/it is a shining twit!
sagra said,
May 9, 2008 at 20:15
Other possible Iris catchphrases:
A. If I might offer a constructive criticism to liberals and progressives in general,
B. Smear me as a GOP’er all you want…it makes you look even worse.
C. As a final comment in tis thread, and as a warning to Obama supporters. (I noticed a lot of “final comments”)
D. Look carefully before you jump off this cliff, and vote Hillary!
E. Oh, but I’m just practicing the ‘politics of fear’, I’m sure someone will say.
F. And I’ll just say this one more time.
Susan of Texas said,
May 9, 2008 at 20:19
I think she’s also Hattie, and her catchphrase should be “because I need to be accepted first.”
“I’d love to fight global warming, but I need to know it accepts me first.”
“I would vote for national health if it begged me to and I know it accepts me first.”
MileHi Hawkeye said,
May 9, 2008 at 20:24
Nuclear power consumes vast, vast amount of water. Not an ideal source of power here in the semi-arid Mountain West that has been stuck in a drought for the last decade.
I don’t think that it is going to get much better with global climate change around here either. The day is coming when water will be even more valuable than oil.
Not to mention the fact that we’re battling to clean up the uranium mine waste and trailings already.
We have lots and lots of sun (over 300 days per year) and a pretty steady wind. You’ll see Colorado develop as a leader in these technologies.
Doctorb Science said,
May 9, 2008 at 20:28
Power needs are *typically* a lot smaller at night, and there are ways to store energy without crippling losses in efficiency (around 80%-95% efficiency for a battery, compared to 92% for power lines for non-local generation). Plus there’s a lot of stuff that we regularly do with power that doesn’t actually require constant availability.
I still question the need to increase nuclear power generation, though, in part because of the tremendously expensive waste and in part because of the catastrophic nature of failure. I recognize that if you add up all the cost and death and morbidity from fossil fuel power (counting coal miners, but not counting Operation Iraqi Liberation and the like) it’s really really awful, but I am not ready to go nuclear — until we’ve maximized our renewable energy production.
Doctorb Science said,
May 9, 2008 at 20:31
Doodle — I was kind of going for “whining shit” but yeah.
Iris said,
May 9, 2008 at 20:31
NEW RULE: You Obots who think that your demagogue is going to lead you to the misogynistic paradise will deserve nothing but my scorn, as you couldn’t possibly believe that your beloved “candidate” is anything more than a Republican tool. Hillary is the way! It’s not too late; we can still win West Virginia and Kentucky, which will put Hillary, the true candidate of change, over the top! Soon the superdelegates will start breaking for Hillary’s camp, and then what happens, Obama fanboys? I’ll tell you- you become fascists, but we’ll win the Democratic nomination and then beat McCain and then stop you. Hillary’s proven time and again this election season that she can capture a majority of voters, and the fact that you ignore this shows the sickening bias in the heart of Obotism. You people should be ashamed, the way you’ve raked progressivism through the mud, but I don’t think you will be…as you’re nothing more than pathetic non-working class elites.
mikey said,
May 9, 2008 at 20:32
Easy question, Doodle. Can we replace our total power generation demand with conservation and alternatives?
If we can, we’d be stupid to build a nuke plant, let alone another coal or gas-fired plant.
I have no idea of the answer to that question. My gut tells me it’s “no”, but my gut was certain the giants would win the world series in ‘02. Proving again that the size of the gut is unrelated to the wisdom of the gut.
But it seems like somebody should figure out the total contribution of various non-fossil fuel energy generation schemes and some likely conservation scenarios and determine exactly WHAT we do need to do…
mikey
sagra said,
May 9, 2008 at 20:33
I’m saying Conventional Wisdom will inevitably wobble to a stop pointing toward nuclear power because that solution results in the largest profits for the fewest corporations.
There aren’t solid buffering and storage solutions and there won’t ever be any while the energy industry can hope for nuclear. The stakes are too high for them to allow it.
Patkin said,
May 9, 2008 at 20:36
And if you don’t believe her, she’ll just have to vote for McCain to instigate that misogynistic paradise even faster.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 21:12
Easy question, Doodle. Can we replace our total power generation demand with conservation and alternatives?
Conservation and alternatives other than nukes? Yes. There are individuals and small businesses all over which are thriving off the grid right now, for example. Multiply that by many orders of magnitude, and you’re all set.
The challenge will be to overcome the resistence of corporations… well and folks like you — or folks even more stubborn than you!
We would have to make radical changes. Government will have to make decisions based on the common welfare and not on the ‘free market forces’. And the oil companies and utility companies won’t let any of it happen easily.
When I get home, I’ll dig out the proposal someone made when the Seabrook (New Hampshire) nuke was being planned in the 1970’s. Essentially, IIRC, it showed that if the utility had put the proposed budget for the plant into buying everyone in New England insulation for their homes and solar panels for their roofs, they would have completely prevented the need for the plant… and that was before the massive construction cost overruns on that ugly, toxic piece of shit.
No promises, but it gives an idea of the kind of thing we can do now if only we take back our government. I’ll get off my soapbox now. My knees hurt.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 21:14
I was kind of going for “whining shit” but yeah.
Yean, premature submission again! I thought I had changed ’shining’ to whining’ but did I check before I hit ‘enter’? No.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 21:15
Ya see? I did it again! S/B ‘Sadly, No!’
Wonder if there are meds for that kind of thing…
stryx said,
May 9, 2008 at 21:18
We would have to make radical changes. Government will have to make decisions based on the common welfare and not on the ‘free market forces’.
[Sound of giant Cheeto-based methane release followed by the crackling sound of wingnut heads assploding...]
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 21:24
…local generation schemes cannot work. Power must be generated and supplied 24×7 and must have additional available capacity to account for fluctuations in demand. Your on-site solar or hydro or wind generator can help offset some of that usage, but without storage and demand buffering solutions, will not provide a solution.
Ack! Old argument from the 70’s! Power is being generated and stored so it is available 24×7. Electricity is being stored and buffered. We have the technology. On-site solar and hydro and wind are supplying the solution for people all over right now.
Please. Update your arguments.
Typical Republican said,
May 9, 2008 at 21:25
What’s your point?
Don’t you libs have anything to offer except more politically-correct enviromentalist tree-hugging and class warfare?
I bet if Hugo Chavez or your buddies in Iran or Hamas wanted to build nuclear plants, you’d be all for it.
Liberals. Hmf.
(Truth, Gary, Saul, you guys can take a break on this thread. I covered all the talking points already.)
g said,
May 9, 2008 at 21:27
“misogynisticparadise?” “Hillary is the way?” “sickening bias in the heart of Obotism”? “pathetic non-working class elites.”?
I’ll give her points for effort, but she’s really trying too hard. Quit showing off, Iris, you’re making the other trolls look sane.
Typical Republican said,
May 9, 2008 at 21:34
I think I’ve just been insulted.
Liberals. Hmf.
stryx said,
May 9, 2008 at 21:38
National Geographic Greendex is now on line:
59.
Bring it, you planet killers.
Typical Republican said,
May 9, 2008 at 21:56
I got 40.
Which makes me a REAL AMERICAN!
Bring it on, hippies! I will bury you in unrecycled beer cans.
Liberals. Hmf.
Rugged in Montana said,
May 9, 2008 at 21:58
Circumcision leaves the homeless without the shelter of a foreskin, whose physical area is easily large enough for two to shelter under. This anti-foreskin conspiracy is being directed by a Jewish cabal intent on leaving Heartland homeless who have no homes without the natural resources that G-d has granted all male human men. A classy MIT study proves that circumcised people have a carbon footprint of size 14 while foreskin retaining patriots of the USA of America average size 8 1/2. While Hitlery and Hussien Obama X are calling for circumcision of all Americans, George Willard Bush, the president-patriot of the Heartland is proposing The American Foreskin Refurbishment Act, which would use 500 billion dollars worth of Chinese money to install, reinstall and refurbish foreskins on every living American, regardless of political party or religion. Since this isn’t coming out of our taxes and has wide support from both parties (the Right-wing and the extreme Right-wing wings of the GOP party), it should be signed into law immediately. As Democrats naturally have their heads-in-the-sand, they may be unaware that Democratic policies have brought about a housing crisis that will leave all non-bankers homeless. This situation would be untenable without the natural shelter of a foreskin, so I hope that even you LIE-bruls will see the sense of this legislation and vote for George Willard Bush and John Fauntleroy McCain to bring about CHANGE in this country, as you socialists have scr-wed things up so badly!
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:02
CO2. Ha! Did it!
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:03
Nope. Didn’t.
Subscript code worked in Preview. Oh well.
Sorry.
stryx said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:07
The American Foreskin Refurbishment Act, which would use 500 billion dollars worth of Chinese money to install, reinstall and refurbish foreskins on every living American, regardless of political party or religion.
Why do Republicans hate the clitoris?
SomeNYGuy said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:09
You’ve got to give NRO some credit for being smart enough not to allow comments. The copious scorn that would be heaped on a post like Murray’s (or La Lopez’s cri de couer) would cripple the intertoobs for weeks.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:12
CO?. Yes?
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:14
No.
Even WordPress, the prince of darkness incarnate, disapproves of my tests. I just received this message via hamster:
You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down.
Oh well.
PeeJ said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:15
Sadly, NO!
stryx said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:16
Sadly, NOx
g said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:16
52 for me. It’s a little deceptive, though. I don’t own or plan to own a new energy saving central air conditioning system but that doesn’t mean I run an old non-energy saving one; it just means I don’t have airconditioning and can’t afford to install it in the future.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:20
Ah! I see the trouble. Western European hamsters recognize NO subscripts.
Damn you for starting this website in Germany, Seb!
[shakes fist and goes back to muttering as part of discussion of um... uh... 'mortgage legislation'... yeah, that's the ticket... with an underling]
Rugged in Montana said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:21
Why do Republicans hate the clitoris?
The what? I don’t know what you think you’re saying but you must’ve spelled it wrong. I’ve never heard of anything like that (stupid LIE-brul).
D.N. Nation said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:21
Wow. This week at S,N! completely pwns.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:21
Stryx, tell me how you did the subscript please?
g said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:23
Please - I’ve thought it was and I was wrong, but then I thought it was and I was still wrong.
PeeJ said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:26
How the fuck will we ever top 1000 comments if Doodle has to slow down? Iris can’t carry the load all by itself.
stryx said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:34
Sleight of hand, DB. Mixed case.
stryx said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:44
Praise the Great Gazoogle
Subscript: x2
Superscript: x2 or x²
or in projects with the templates sub and sup:
Subscript: x{{sub|2}}
Superscript: x{{sup|2}}
ε0 =
8.85 × 10−12
C² / J m.
1 [[hectare]] = [[1 E4 m²]]
Susan of Texas said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:47
Is this going to be on the final?
stryx said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:50
Subscript: x2
is how it’s supposed to work
x (sub)2(/sub)
stryx said,
May 9, 2008 at 22:57
or maybe \x_2
no. how about
Subscript: x2
works in preview, but no. how about
CO2
stryx said,
May 9, 2008 at 23:02
The force is weak with this one.
Gary Ruppert said,
May 9, 2008 at 23:05
The fact is, Lain Murray looks like the guy in the picture wearing a viking helmet and holding an axe and making a face. The fact is, if you put that picture next to Lain’s, it would look like the same person.
Now go to hell. Heartland.
stryx said,
May 9, 2008 at 23:07
Latex code on WordPress.com post should start with $latex and end with a $. To make a character Subscript or Superscript you can add an underscore “_” or an accent “^” respectively. See codes below and their respective Latex rendering.
Sure, Wordpress can deepfry a water buffalo in 30 seconds, but it can’t render LaTex code?
Maybe it needs to be fed Cheetos.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 23:10
Ya see how maddening it is, Stryx!?!?!?!?!
But I’m glad you couldn’t get it to work, either. Misery loves company.
I wonder if it’s just alpha subs which work… Me
Also, never underestimate the power of energy conservation (pun intended)!
…a recent study shows that trying to accumulate load on some [computer] servers can improve energy efficiency because the other servers will be mostly unused during off-peak periods and then able to make better use of power saving methods. Specially, where load involves lots of concurrent power-consuming TCP connections, which was the case in the study, a new load-balancing algorithm resulted in an overall 30% power savings.
30 freakin’ percent! Awesum!!
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 23:11
I tell ya! It’s the Yurpeen hamsters!!
pedestrian said,
May 9, 2008 at 23:13
The math on this thread is too advanced for me
SadlyNo Hamsters said,
May 9, 2008 at 23:14
What is this load balancing you speak of?
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 23:18
Ha! Saved from the taint of hypocricy by Greendex! 65, suckas!
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 23:20
$latex CO_2$
Yeah. Right.
Rugged in Montana said,
May 9, 2008 at 23:22
What is this load balancing you speak of?
I has to do with the wide, bowlegged stance one needs to develop when lugging around a normal foreskin, suitable for sheltering at least two full sized human adults.
MileHi Hawkeye said,
May 9, 2008 at 23:24
I was told there would be no math.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 23:25
Is this going to be on the final?
Yes.
mikey said,
May 9, 2008 at 23:29
But I KNOW this is false. I cannot install enough solar capacity to run my house during the day AND store power for the night. I cannot install a big windmill, and if I could there is not enough wind to turn it. I have no flowing or falling water.
I don’t know how many people have the space and the environmentals to install that much local generation capacity, but it’s going to prove to be less than 25%. Especially if at the same time you are encouraging efficient high-density urban centers that can be walked and support useful public transportation.
As to your assertion that there are technologies extant today that solve the problems of local energy storage and demand buffering, I pay pretty much attention and I’m unaware of them, so I’ll need a few links, or at least the name of the technologies so I can google them.
But what would average out to about $5000 a year in lead acid or Lithium Ion storage batteries per household is frankly gonna play hell with your economics…
mikey
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 23:31
CO2
Yeah. Right.
whateverdude said,
May 9, 2008 at 23:35
But what would average out to about $5000 a year in lead acid or Lithium Ion storage batteries per household is frankly gonna play hell with your economics…
FWIW………I live in an area that’s loaded with “off-grid” homes. These homes supply all of their own power (not 25% of it) and $5000.00 of battery-bank generally lasts about a decade. What’s the problem again?
Blue Buddha said,
May 9, 2008 at 23:45
Besides, there are ways to store energy in compressed air, as the compressed air car demonstrates. It probably takes up more space and a few kinks need to be worked out, but it is entirely possible.
As for windmills in the urban environment, the traditional HAWT (Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine) sucks ass because it depends on a steady, one direction laminar flow wind to work well. VAWTs are far superior in an urban setting, as they don’t depend on wind direction to work, work in turbulent winds, can self start in winds as low as ~3 mph, and some models look pretty damned cool.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 23:46
But I KNOW this is false. I cannot install enough solar capacity to run my house during the day AND store power for the night. I cannot install a big windmill, and if I could there is not enough wind to turn it. I have no flowing or falling water.
Mikey, You THINK it is false, which is quite different. Maybe you need more information or maybe you need help to implement a scheme which will work for you or maybe you need a source of financing, but it is possible. People are doing it right now.
I know that it would mean big changes. You’d have to get much more efficient appliances for example. And for storage, batteries.
Yes, it would take money. But in the 80’s it took less money for individuals because of PURPA. PURPA required utilities to accept your excess so you feed excess power to the grid when you didn’t need it and then draw it back when you did. So, you didn’t need a battery bank.
So that’s one idea for policy changes: revive the small-scale energy source aspects of PURPA (and decouple the feasibility of small-scale alternative energy production from contracts and other ‘free market’ crap).
Here’s another: fund programs which help homeowners finance and implement small-scale alternative energy projects. So people would KNOW they can do it instead of thinking it’s impossible.
Doodle Bean said,
May 9, 2008 at 23:54
Mikey, one more thing before I need to go home using public transportation (Greendex = 65, suckas!):
There are bigger buildings than your home using alternatives. Right now.
Here is just one. It started out as a home and was re-purposed, as we say.
Mo's Bike Shop said,
May 9, 2008 at 23:55
I vote for
C. As a final comment in tis thread, and as a warning to Obama supporters.
because I was going to nominate it.
My Noms! LEt me Show Tehm U
Mo's Bike Shop said,
May 10, 2008 at 0:01
Tehm UTehm 2 U
Christ, I can’t hardly spell…
Gary Ruppert said,
May 10, 2008 at 0:01
The fact is, liberals fail it, again. There is no win in liberalism, only fail. Your bias in the media=fail, your classwar=fail, your hateGodandUSA=fail.
PS said,
May 10, 2008 at 0:02
65 is impressive. I got 61.
PeeJ said,
May 10, 2008 at 0:12
Ha! Saved from the taint of hypocricy by Greendex…
Greendex’s taint is hypocritical? Makes me wonder whether one could have a critical or hypercritical taint. And that’s something I do NOT want to think about.
NEW RULE: If foreskins are out of bounds, taints are as well.
Smut's liver said,
May 10, 2008 at 0:14
The 2008 Oregon Brewers Festival will take place Thursday, July 24 through Sunday, July 27.
This is very bad news.
PeeJ said,
May 10, 2008 at 0:21
The 2008 Oregon Brewers Festival will take place Thursday, July 24 through Sunday, July 27.
This is very bad news.
Just change your schedule. It’s worth it. Trust me. I’ll treat you to the local akvavit and maybe some local grappa/eau de vie as well.
mikey said,
May 10, 2008 at 0:28
FWIW………I live in an area that’s loaded with “off-grid” homes. These homes supply all of their own power (not 25% of it) and $5000.00 of battery-bank generally lasts about a decade. What’s the problem again?
1. What method are they using? Wind? Solar?
2. How much area is available to them for power generation?
3. $5000 of battery bank? The average american household uses about 30 kWH per day. Now, I have no idea what voltage you are generating at and converting down to but I would think you’d need about 1500 amp hours of standby as a reasonable number. Based on what I know generating and storing power on sailboats, that’s gonna be pretty close to ten grand with no chance of holding capacity and efficiency anywhere near ten years. Along with the installation and the intelligent power management systems and the difficulties of finding a way to dispose of lead acid or Li-ion batteries, I honestly have to question your assertion, but more importantly, how it applies to us apartment/condo dwellers in urban environments.
It is pretty demonstrable that power generation as a process scales very well, and lends itself quite well to centralized providers who can do large scale generation, storage and delivery. Whether they are power companies, co-ops or neighborhood projects, individual distributed generation will not be a viable economic solution.
One proviso. If we had an abundent supply of cheap hydrogen, small scale hydrogen fuel cells would very likely change that equation. That may be the key breakthrough science..
mikey
mikey said,
May 10, 2008 at 0:42
Whether they are power companies, co-ops or neighborhood projects, individual distributed generation will not be a viable economic solution.
Man, that’s a crappy sentence.
Try it this way:
Whether they are power companies, co-ops or neighborhood projects, larger-scale power generation solutions will always be more economically viable than individual distributed solutions…
mikey
Gary Ruppert said,
May 10, 2008 at 0:49
The fact is, we should either burn homeless people for heat or feed them to livestock, they are useless for anything else.
mikey said,
May 10, 2008 at 0:54
But Gary, if we feed the homeless to the livestock, aren’t you afraid of “Black Cow Disease*”?
* Bovine negriform encephalopathy
mikey
whateverdude said,
May 10, 2008 at 0:56
1. What method are they using? Wind? Solar?
Solar, for the most part, though some tack on a homebuilt wind generator.
2. How much area is available to them for power generation?
Area? It varies. Some use free-standing, sun-tracking PV mounting solutions on others just put PV and solar hot water on their roofs, the area involved is never an issue.
3. $5000 of battery bank? The average american household uses about 30 kWH per day.
(heh) Mikey, when you go off grid you don’t carry electric ovens, electric hot water and electric heat along with you. The normal off-grid house, save for the rare ones put together by wealthy dudes who want to live “without compromise”, is vastly more energy conservant than the *average* American household. Hot water is solar and or propane, cooking is via propane and refrigeration is via super efficient Sunfrost type models.
Working at keeping battery banks above damaging voltage levels requires more attention to what you’re doing than it does with a grid-connected house, but not *that* much more. Folks often have a standby generator (slow-speed, diesel powered) for topping off their batteries every week or two and use the extra power at that time to vacuum or use power tools and other power sucking appliances.
It takes a little adjustment but to claim that one can’t live off grid is simply wrong, there is a sizable community of them doing it every day (My sister-in-law and her family have been comfortably off-grid for over 20 years now), so you might want to re-adjust your perception of all of this.
Kathleen said,
May 10, 2008 at 1:03
I got a Greendex 62. I think it overstated my greeness.
Oregon Guy said,
May 10, 2008 at 1:09
I came out at 60. Tiny apartment, no heating or cooling.
Good morning Honolulu!
Smut's liver said,
May 10, 2008 at 1:09
Just change your schedule. It’s worth it. Trust me.
The last day is a possibility.
PeeJ said,
May 10, 2008 at 1:18
I came out at 60.
Congratulations. How’d your wife take it?
[I'm slow this afternoon; double entendres are the best I can manage]
mikey said,
May 10, 2008 at 1:28
It takes a little adjustment but to claim that one can’t live off grid is simply wrong, there is a sizable community of them doing it every day (My sister-in-law and her family have been comfortably off-grid for over 20 years now), so you might want to re-adjust your perception of all of this
Wow. I must have done a DREADFUL job of communicating. That has never been my premise, and if I gave that impression it’s only because I suck.
I know people who live “off the grid”. The conversation I was having was about supplying the electricity requirements for the entire country, and whether not doing so without or with much reduced fossil fuel usage was possible without nuclear power.
And that led to a discussion about what alternative generation methodologies are usable or appropriate for people who live in higher density urban environments, condo complexes and apartment and dual-use neighborhoods.
While it is interesting and admirable for people to make such extreme changes, and we all agree that major changes in lifestyle have to be made, eliminating the use of electric appliances, for example, is not going to happen. It’s simply unrealistic to think so. If the average household uses 1000 kWH a month, then a 30% reduction in usage due to increased efficiency and conservation methodologies would have to be considered pretty damn good. So you still need something on the order of 700 kWH a month, and we still don’t have a practical way to get there…
mikey
acrannymint said,
May 10, 2008 at 1:32
I worked for USDA ARS (Agricultural Research Services)
PeeJ - were you in Beltsville, MD?
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
May 10, 2008 at 1:44
What is being measured?
Metric tons of CO²?
Doodle Bean said,
May 10, 2008 at 1:53
Mikey, I
‘m glad you admitted you suck. The wilful ignorance is getting old.
For example, “…and we still don’t have a practical way to get there…”
Yes. We do. It’s just a way which is decentralized and non-profit for large corporations.
Although on reflection, you’ll probably find a way to define ‘practical’ as ‘the status quo’ or ‘free market driven’.
Which leads me to my next question: what do you do for a living? And with what industry? And is your living dependent on oil, gas, nuclear power and/or any of the utilities?
Be honest, now.
Doodle Bean said,
May 10, 2008 at 1:55
Blue Buddha,
Thanks for the links. They are full of savory goodness!
Malignant Bouffant said,
May 10, 2008 at 1:57
Now read, all you poseurs, & read well!
I am a real homeless person.(Typing from the library in L. A. that overlooks the cemetary where F. Zappa & M. Monroe molder; it is all glamour!) I’m much more worried about my methane emissions than the carbon dioxide. (They feed us bean soup in those soup kitchens.) On the other hand, having to buy pre-packaged, ready to eat food at the stupor-mart w/ my Food Stamps may jack up my carbon footprint more than those who buy in bulk or “fresh.” And I am sorry about those buildings that caught fire when I was squatting in them.
Which is not to deny that you horrid Americans, in debt to China up to your morbidly obese triple chins, are responsible for much of the shit pumped into the atmosphere every day.
AkaDad said,
May 10, 2008 at 2:01
I guess this means I’m helping the environment by living in my mom’s basement.
acrannymint said,
May 10, 2008 at 2:03
Don’t forget green roofs
I live in Maryland and BG&E (Baltimore Gas and Electric) also offers energy alternatives such as 50 or 100% wind power.
mikey said,
May 10, 2008 at 2:06
Which leads me to my next question: what do you do for a living? And with what industry? And is your living dependent on oil, gas, nuclear power and/or any of the utilities?
Be honest, now.
Wow. Sometimes I’m a little surprised at how little it takes to get slammed.
“Willful ignorance”? I don’t think anybody who reads this board at all would classify me that way, even if I didn’t accept their stated premise as fact.
Insinuating I’m in the pocket of oil? Y’know, doodle, I’ve read your posts and never noticed you were an asshole.
I’m a marketing guy in the semiconductor industry. So fuck you.
And now? You can prove your point. Just answer two questions.
How do you replace the requirements for energy now being generated by fossil fuels. And you really can be specific - if you can. Or you can wave around vague assertions, but then it’s pretty obvious what you’re doing.
Second. How do you apply green alternative generation methodologies to high density urban environments in a manner that is available today and deployable today?
I’m sorry you find it so troublesome that I’m unaware of the answers to these questions, but based on your inability to provide answers and/or links and your immediate wingnut-like attack/insult/ad hominem response, I’m becoming convinxed you are unable to answer them either.
So, sorry youngster. You can either respond with some facts that will show me something I don’t know, or you can insult me some more.
Whatcha got?
mikey
acrannymint said,
May 10, 2008 at <