Politics | Politics of Energy


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: i-node who wrote (30348)3/14/2012 6:36:41 PM
From: Peter Dierks2 Recommendations   of 40034
 
Particularly, considering most of these vehicles are being bought by people who have money! We've got this strange situation where those who make 60 or 80k are subsidizing cars for those who make 150 or 250k. And for no reason at all.

Not for no reason. They are ll democrats. No sane person would do it, so only liberals are collecting the subsidy. That is political payback.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Brumar893/14/2012 10:21:28 PM
1 Recommendation   of 40034
 
"Fact"Check.org tries to argue that CO2 is dangerous to plants



FactCheck.org : Santorum’s Science

Santorum’s “tell that to a plant” crack begs the question — how dangerous can carbon dioxide be? Too much is definitely a bad thing. Exposure to high levels of CO2 can cause “headaches, dizziness, restlessness, a tingling or pins or needles feeling, difficulty breathing, sweating, tiredness, increased heart rate, elevated blood pressure, coma, asphyxia to convulsions,” warns the Wisconsin Department of Health, “and even frostbite if exposed to dry ice,” which is solid CO2. Poor air circulation in buildings and high carbon dioxide in soil seeping into basements can lead to high levels of the gas.

Plants do, in fact, absorb CO2. But even plants might not like too much of it. A 2008 study conducted at the University of Illinois found that instead of increasing organic matter in soil, higher carbon dioxide levels actually led to less organic matter. Increased CO2 also may limit plants’ ability to cool the air. A 2010 article in Science Daily said that a study by researchers at the Carnegie Institution for Science found that carbon dioxide’s effect on vegetation was causing some of the earth’s warming.

Maximizing Your Plant Growth With CO2

Plant growth requires a tremendous amount of carbon dioxide (CO2). At the center of every plant cell is an atom of carbon, which the plant has absorbed from the surrounding atmosphere. When all other growth influencing factors are kept in their ideal ranges, CO2 becomes the limiting factor. This means as you increase the CO2, you will also increase growth rates and yields.

...The ideal level of CO2 supplementation to maximize plant growth in a well maintained garden is generally 1500 ppm


tomnelson.blogspot.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: Eric3/14/2012 11:56:22 PM
   of 40034
 
Amory Lovins Lays Out His Clean Energy Plan

For four decades, Amory Lovins has been a leading proponent of a renewable power revolution that would wean the U.S. off fossil fuels and usher in an era of energy independence. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, he talks about his latest book, which describes his vision of how the world can attain a green energy future by 2050.

e360.yale.edu 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Brumar89 who wrote (30351)3/15/2012 12:00:06 AM
From: Bilow   of 40034
 
Hi Brumar89; Re CO2 and plants; I would think they could come up with something better than that.

For example, "Increased CO2 also may limit plants’ ability to cool the air." Well of course, since higher CO2 means plants need less water, they will provide less evaporative cooling (per plant). However, more efficient water use means more plants (over those parts of the planet that are water limited in terms of agriculture, which is probably most of the planet).

Hey, even I know that if a plant's roots are exposed to too much CO2 and not enough oxygen they will die.

And it will take a WHOLE LOT of fossil fuel burning to get to 1500ppm.

-- Carl

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Brumar893/15/2012 7:47:07 AM
1 Recommendation   of 40034
 
1 degree temp drop 2009-2020?


Weakening sunspot activity could cause a 1 degree temperature drop 2009-2020
March 15th, 2012 by Warwick Hughes
New paper -

sciencedirect.com 

“The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24? – Jan-Erik Solheima, Kjell Stordahlb, Ole Humlum. Full paper to read – if only all scientific papers were so easy to access.
A 1 °C or more temperature drop is predicted 2009–2020 for certain locations. Solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase.
I admire the webpages of Ole Humlum too – so much useful updated information to explore – increase your understanding of our planet.

warwickhughes.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Eric3/15/2012 11:36:42 AM
   of 40034
 
Minnesota Could Meet 100% Of Its Power Demand With Wind, Solar Energy

by NAW Staff on Wednesday 14 March 2012

Wind and solar energy resources, combined with improvements to the state's electric grid and energy-efficiency policies, could meet 100% of Minnesota's electricity generation needs, finds a new report released by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.

According to the report, Minnesota has more than enough wind and solar resources to meet its electricity demand. In addition, the researchers found that a renewable-energy-based electricity sector is technically feasible using proven technologies.

Notably, they found that if efficiency improvements are made, a renewable-energy-based electricity system would cost about the same as it does currently.

"We have identified a number of steps that can help position Minnesota to utilize its available renewable energy resources,” says Dr. Arjun Makhijani, one of the report’s authors. “These actions will achieve a significant reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions. Transitioning to a renewable-energy-based electricity sector will require the creation of a more informed technical and cost framework.

The report makes several recommendations, including the following:

  • Initiate a statewide energy-efficiency study, including technical and economic aspects, and examine the effect of efficiency investments on electricity demand;
  • Require utilities to include increased renewable energy and storage in their integrated resource plans; and
  • Develop and implement a timeline for achieving a 100% renewable energy standard, including achievable benchmarks and milestones.
http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.9530

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Eric who wrote (30355)3/15/2012 1:16:14 PM
From: i-node4 Recommendations   of 40034
 
>> Minnesota Could Meet 100% Of Its Power Demand With Wind, Solar Energy

Except when the wind's not blowing and it is dark outside.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: teevee3/15/2012 1:53:20 PM
2 Recommendations   of 40034
 
Here it is folks: Obama's energy policy spelled out in black and white by congresswoman Maxine Waters:

xa.yimg.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: i-node who wrote (30356)3/15/2012 3:02:05 PM
From: Eric   of 40034
 
Except when the wind's not blowing and it is dark outside.

Not a problem at all for me.

You can just go ahead and pay an ever increasing electrical bill!

:)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Eric who wrote (30358)3/15/2012 4:32:33 PM
From: i-node1 Recommendation   of 40034
 
Not a problem at all for me.

You can just go ahead and pay an ever increasing electrical bill!


Realistically, for the foreseeable future, Solar is a daytime-only proposition until someone creates a cost-effective way of conserving the energy. Even then, reliability would be a problem for large-scale deployment.

Aside from that fact, there is also the fact that it just costs too damned much. Perhaps that will change someday, but the idea that you're going to power the country to any significant extent on huge subsidies of cost-prohibitive technologies is ridiculous.

As to wind, I have no issue with it but once again, you can only mitigate a small fraction of our power requirements with it.

At the end of the day you need hydro, nuclear and fossil fuels to carry the vast majority of the burden. As of now, and for the next decade or two, there is nothing remotely on the horizon that would change this basic fact of physics and economics.

PS. You powering your home on so-called renewables that you paid way too much for is nothing at all like like generating power to run an industrial facility like an aluminum processing plant or a chemical factory or any other heavy industry.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.