Re: If You Think Clean Coal Technology Is The Answer

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ray, Dec 31, 2008.

  1. ray

    ray Guest

    On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 17:54:53 -0500, Larry Thong wrote:

    > Just ask the folks in Tennessee about it. It seems the dumb bastards
    > that thought of "Clean Coal Technology" haven't yet found a way to
    > dispose of the millions of tons of solid waste it generates. And to
    > think we have a fifty year supply of coal that will break our addiction
    > to Middle Eastern oil. I hope that disaster isn't near Spike's home.
    >
    > <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html>


    Well, of course clean coal technology is not "the answer". Solar is also
    not "the answer" - wind power also is not "the answer". There is no "the
    answer". "The answer" consists of several technologies in different mixes
    at different times. What we need right now is to use what we have and
    develop other technologies for the future.
    ray, Dec 31, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ray

    mj Guest

    "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:44:00 -0600, "mj" <lakediver@dd..net> wrote in
    > <jQQ6l.10015$>:
    >
    >>"ray" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...

    >
    >>> Well, of course clean coal technology is not "the answer". Solar is also
    >>> not "the answer" - wind power also is not "the answer". There is no "the
    >>> answer". "The answer" consists of several technologies in different
    >>> mixes
    >>> at different times. What we need right now is to use what we have and
    >>> develop other technologies for the future.

    >>
    >>To bad solar is so expensive. The cost of a system to run my A/C in the
    >>summer from solar would be $30,000 installed. I would like to see the
    >>cost
    >>of solar and wind to a point where each home would take at least half of
    >>their power from either.

    >
    > We're nearly there -- check out Nanosolar.
    >

    Thanks John. I would be happy to install a solar system if the pay back
    wasn't 15 years.
    mj, Dec 31, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ray

    mj Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > mj wrote:
    >
    >> To bad solar is so expensive. The cost of a system to run my A/C in the
    >> summer from solar would be $30,000 installed. I would like to see the
    >> cost of solar and wind to a point where each home would take at least
    >> half of their power from either.

    >
    > The first step is to reduce your cooling demand through an efficient
    > building. For example a recent German building technology uses very
    > little energy for heating or cooling.
    >
    > Is the house shaded with trees to reduce heat loading. Is the roof
    > painted to reflect IR? Is the sun side of the house designed to reject
    > sun load?
    >
    > The second step is install a cooling loop using the ground to sink the
    > heat. A nearby pool, pond, lake or stream can do wonders for this and
    > just takes a little pumping power.
    >
    > If it's cool enough at night, do you cross ventilate the house? (You're
    > in Houston per the IP address, so maybe not...).


    lol...... I cross ventilate during most of our winter. As for the rest I am
    working on several projects as money is available. My home was built in 71
    so there is a lot to be done.
    One of several issues here is that most all subdivisions have deed
    restrictions which
    as I read them do not allow anything on a roof larger than a satellite dish
    or that can be seen from the street.
    I think this could be changed to accommodate solar system if there were
    enough interest.

    >
    mj, Dec 31, 2008
    #3
  4. ray

    J. Clarke Guest

    ray wrote:
    > On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 17:54:53 -0500, Larry Thong wrote:
    >
    >> Just ask the folks in Tennessee about it. It seems the dumb
    >> bastards
    >> that thought of "Clean Coal Technology" haven't yet found a way to
    >> dispose of the millions of tons of solid waste it generates. And
    >> to
    >> think we have a fifty year supply of coal that will break our
    >> addiction to Middle Eastern oil. I hope that disaster isn't near
    >> Spike's home.
    >>
    >> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html>

    >
    > Well, of course clean coal technology is not "the answer". Solar is
    > also not "the answer" - wind power also is not "the answer". There
    > is
    > no "the answer". "The answer" consists of several technologies in
    > different mixes at different times. What we need right now is to use
    > what we have and develop other technologies for the future.


    If the problem is greenhouse gases, the fix is not to burn something
    whose major combustion product is CO2 and then store the CO2.

    --
    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    J. Clarke, Dec 31, 2008
    #4
  5. ray

    mj Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > mj wrote:
    >
    >> lol...... I cross ventilate during most of our winter. As for the rest I
    >> am working on several projects as money is available. My home was built
    >> in 71 so there is a lot to be done.
    >> One of several issues here is that most all subdivisions have deed
    >> restrictions which
    >> as I read them do not allow anything on a roof larger than a satellite
    >> dish or that can be seen from the street.
    >> I think this could be changed to accommodate solar system if there were
    >> enough interest.

    >
    > Well again, the absolute fastest return on solar in a place like Houston
    > has got to be solar water heating. It doesn't HAVE to be roof mounted
    > (thought that's the easiest). IAC, it mounts flat and quite unobtrusively,
    > so I can't see why it would be much different than solar electric panels.
    >

    My cost to heat water is a *lot* less than the A/C, a lot less.
    mj, Jan 1, 2009
    #5
  6. ray

    mj Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > mj wrote:
    >> "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> mj wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> lol...... I cross ventilate during most of our winter. As for the rest
    >>>> I am working on several projects as money is available. My home was
    >>>> built in 71 so there is a lot to be done.
    >>>> One of several issues here is that most all subdivisions have deed
    >>>> restrictions which
    >>>> as I read them do not allow anything on a roof larger than a satellite
    >>>> dish or that can be seen from the street.
    >>>> I think this could be changed to accommodate solar system if there were
    >>>> enough interest.
    >>> Well again, the absolute fastest return on solar in a place like Houston
    >>> has got to be solar water heating. It doesn't HAVE to be roof mounted
    >>> (thought that's the easiest). IAC, it mounts flat and quite
    >>> unobtrusively, so I can't see why it would be much different than solar
    >>> electric panels.
    >>>

    >> My cost to heat water is a *lot* less than the A/C, a lot less.

    >
    > Exactly why reducing the heat load takes precedence over cooling.
    >

    Maybe in Canada. Here in Texas A/C 1. used for humidity control and 2. for
    cooling.
    Also I have found through visiting several solar sites that there is an
    optimum operating temperature, I believe about 80 degrees, above which the
    current cells began to lose their efficiency. I do need to check the temp.
    My biggest issue is that the deed restrictions where I live will not allow a
    roof top solar system, trust me if they did I would be heating water.

    > As to hot water, why not make it nearly free? I assume you heat water
    > with NG, so not only does it cost something (albeit NG prices are low
    > right now) but it also emits CO2. (And if heated by electric, then in TX
    > it would have a high CO2 component from coal and NG electric plants).
    >
    > TX (2000)
    > 13% nuclear
    > 86% coal, lignite and NG.
    > 1% solar/wind.
    >

    Actually Texas uses 72% NG, 19% coal, 6% nuclear and 3% other.
    http://www.unt.edu/cedr/PowerDiversification.pdf

    Texas is also a fast growing state which, thankfully, has not suffered this
    recession to the extent of many of the other states.



    > Even if heating water is so cheap, you'd still recover your investment in
    > less than 5 years while avoiding CO2 production.


    Still takes power to run the pumps either down the power line or solar.
    mj, Jan 2, 2009
    #6
  7. ray

    ray Guest


    >
    > If the problem is greenhouse gases, the fix is not to burn something
    > whose major combustion product is CO2 and then store the CO2.
    >
    > --


    I don't think that IS the problem. You may have noticed that the last
    couple of years have been cooler rather than warmer - has mainly to do
    with sunspot activity.
    ray, Jan 2, 2009
    #7
  8. ray

    J. Clarke Guest

    ray wrote:
    >> If the problem is greenhouse gases, the fix is not to burn
    >> something
    >> whose major combustion product is CO2 and then store the CO2.
    >>
    >> --

    >
    > I don't think that IS the problem. You may have noticed that the
    > last
    > couple of years have been cooler rather than warmer - has mainly to
    > do
    > with sunspot activity.


    If that's not the problem then the problem is something someone pulled
    out of their bums.

    --
    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    J. Clarke, Jan 2, 2009
    #8
  9. ray

    Mr.T Guest

    "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > If that's not the problem then the problem is something someone pulled
    > out of their bums.


    Actually what comes out of cows bums is a far bigger problem.
    Chopping down rain forests to raise cattle for "Big Macs" just increases the
    problem.

    MrT.
    Mr.T, Jan 2, 2009
    #9
  10. ray

    mj Guest

    "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 18:58:56 -0600, "mj" <lakediver@dd..net> wrote in
    > <iFd7l.9284$>:
    >
    >>Also I have found through visiting several solar sites that there is an
    >>optimum operating temperature, I believe about 80 degrees, above which the
    >>current cells began to lose their efficiency.

    >
    > Where are you getting that? It's just not true.
    >
    > --

    What did I say? " I believe about 80 degrees, above which the
    current cells began to lose their efficiency. *I do need to check the temp.*
    John IF you are going to edit then include ALL the statement.
    As I stated I will find out where I heard or read that and I will post it
    here, ok?
    mj, Jan 2, 2009
    #10
  11. ray

    DRS Guest

    "ray" <> wrote in message
    news:
    >> If the problem is greenhouse gases, the fix is not to burn something
    >> whose major combustion product is CO2 and then store the CO2.
    >>
    >> --

    >
    > I don't think that IS the problem. You may have noticed that the last
    > couple of years have been cooler rather than warmer - has mainly to do
    > with sunspot activity.


    DAVID KAROLY: Yes, the climate system did cool from January 2007 to January
    2008 quite dramatically. That cooling was associated with changes in the
    ocean temperatures in the Pacific, a well known phenomenon, the El Nino to
    La Nina switch. It isn't unprecedented.

    EMILY BOURKE: But you're not attributing that in any way to sunspot
    activity.

    DAVID KAROLY: We know it is not due to sunspot activity. Sunspot variations
    do not lead to the sorts of temperature variations seen from January 2007 to
    2008. They don't lead to those large temperature variations, even on an
    11-year sunspot cycle.

    And so in terms of increasing greenhouse gases, we can also see that effect
    because the most recent La Nina, the current La Nina, is warmer than earlier
    La Nina episodes of the same strength. We're actually seeing a warming even
    in these cool periods associated with La Nina.

    http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2225759.htm

    NB: David Karoly is Professor of Meteorology at the University of Melbourne.
    DRS, Jan 2, 2009
    #11
  12. ray

    ray Guest

    On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:15:32 -0800, John Navas wrote:

    > On 2 Jan 2009 01:42:40 GMT, ray <> wrote in
    > <>:
    >
    >>> If the problem is greenhouse gases, the fix is not to burn something
    >>> whose major combustion product is CO2 and then store the CO2.

    >>
    >>I don't think that IS the problem. You may have noticed that the last
    >>couple of years have been cooler rather than warmer - has mainly to do
    >>with sunspot activity.

    >
    > Can you cite any serious scientists in support of that?
    >
    > I'll save you the effort: no, because they don't agree.


    Don't have to. All you have to do is look at the climatic record.
    ray, Jan 2, 2009
    #12
  13. ray

    DRS Guest

    "ray" <> wrote in message
    news:
    > On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:15:32 -0800, John Navas wrote:
    >> On 2 Jan 2009 01:42:40 GMT, ray <> wrote in
    >> <>:


    [...]

    >>> I don't think that IS the problem. You may have noticed that the
    >>> last couple of years have been cooler rather than warmer - has
    >>> mainly to do with sunspot activity.

    >>
    >> Can you cite any serious scientists in support of that?
    >>
    >> I'll save you the effort: no, because they don't agree.

    >
    > Don't have to. All you have to do is look at the climatic record.


    DAVID KAROLY: Yes, the climate system did cool from January 2007 to January
    2008 quite dramatically. That cooling was associated with changes in the
    ocean temperatures in the Pacific, a well known phenomenon, the El Nino to
    La Nina switch. It isn't unprecedented.

    EMILY BOURKE: But you're not attributing that in any way to sunspot
    activity.

    DAVID KAROLY: We know it is not due to sunspot activity. Sunspot variations
    do not lead to the sorts of temperature variations seen from January 2007 to
    2008. They don't lead to those large temperature variations, even on an
    11-year sunspot cycle.

    And so in terms of increasing greenhouse gases, we can also see that effect
    because the most recent La Nina, the current La Nina, is warmer than earlier
    La Nina episodes of the same strength. We're actually seeing a warming even
    in these cool periods associated with La Nina.

    http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2225759.htm

    NB: David Karoly is Professor of Meteorology at the University of Melbourne.
    DRS, Jan 2, 2009
    #13
  14. ray

    mj Guest

    "ray" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:15:32 -0800, John Navas wrote:
    >
    >> On 2 Jan 2009 01:42:40 GMT, ray <> wrote in
    >> <>:
    >>
    >>>> If the problem is greenhouse gases, the fix is not to burn something
    >>>> whose major combustion product is CO2 and then store the CO2.
    >>>
    >>>I don't think that IS the problem. You may have noticed that the last
    >>>couple of years have been cooler rather than warmer - has mainly to do
    >>>with sunspot activity.

    >>
    >> Can you cite any serious scientists in support of that?
    >>
    >> I'll save you the effort: no, because they don't agree.

    >
    > Don't have to. All you have to do is look at the climatic record.


    Which record published by whom? As for me, I believe that globally the
    earths climate is multi faceted (multi layered if you will) and cyclical to
    boot. Various parts of the earths climates ( northern and southern
    hemisphere, ocean vs. ocean, etc.) all cycle at the same and various times.
    I do not believe we people are responsible for "global warming", crappy air
    quality? yes but not global warming. And before you jump up and down about
    cow farts, fish farts, etc. think about the pollution that China and India
    have and continue to create. Watch Al Gore and crowd running around like
    Chicken Little all the while good ole Gore is looking for *easy* ways to
    earn a living through carbon credit.....give me a break.
    mj, Jan 2, 2009
    #14
  15. ray

    J. Clarke Guest

    DRS wrote:
    > "ray" <> wrote in message
    > news:
    >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:15:32 -0800, John Navas wrote:
    >>> On 2 Jan 2009 01:42:40 GMT, ray <> wrote in
    >>> <>:

    >
    > [...]
    >
    >>>> I don't think that IS the problem. You may have noticed that the
    >>>> last couple of years have been cooler rather than warmer - has
    >>>> mainly to do with sunspot activity.
    >>>
    >>> Can you cite any serious scientists in support of that?
    >>>
    >>> I'll save you the effort: no, because they don't agree.

    >>
    >> Don't have to. All you have to do is look at the climatic record.

    >
    > DAVID KAROLY: Yes, the climate system did cool from January 2007 to
    > January 2008 quite dramatically. That cooling was associated with
    > changes in the ocean temperatures in the Pacific, a well known
    > phenomenon, the El Nino to La Nina switch. It isn't unprecedented.
    >
    > EMILY BOURKE: But you're not attributing that in any way to sunspot
    > activity.
    >
    > DAVID KAROLY: We know it is not due to sunspot activity. Sunspot
    > variations do not lead to the sorts of temperature variations seen
    > from January 2007 to 2008. They don't lead to those large
    > temperature
    > variations, even on an 11-year sunspot cycle.
    >
    > And so in terms of increasing greenhouse gases, we can also see that
    > effect because the most recent La Nina, the current La Nina, is
    > warmer than earlier La Nina episodes of the same strength. We're
    > actually seeing a warming even in these cool periods associated with
    > La Nina.
    >
    > http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2225759.htm
    >
    > NB: David Karoly is Professor of Meteorology at the University of
    > Melbourne.


    Perhaps they should have asked a professor of climatology instead.
    Climatology and meteorology are not the same thing, although they are
    related.

    --
    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    J. Clarke, Jan 2, 2009
    #15
  16. ray

    ray Guest

    On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:21:09 -0800, John Navas wrote:

    > On 2 Jan 2009 16:17:16 GMT, ray <> wrote in
    > <>:
    >
    >>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:15:32 -0800, John Navas wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2 Jan 2009 01:42:40 GMT, ray <> wrote in
    >>> <>:
    >>>
    >>>>> If the problem is greenhouse gases, the fix is not to burn something
    >>>>> whose major combustion product is CO2 and then store the CO2.
    >>>>
    >>>>I don't think that IS the problem. You may have noticed that the last
    >>>>couple of years have been cooler rather than warmer - has mainly to do
    >>>>with sunspot activity.
    >>>
    >>> Can you cite any serious scientists in support of that?
    >>>
    >>> I'll save you the effort: no, because they don't agree.

    >>
    >>Don't have to. All you have to do is look at the climatic record.

    >
    > All the many scientists are wrong and you are right? Uh huh.


    You mean 'other scientists' - and yes, that has happened before. Oh, and
    BTW there is hardly universal consensus on global warming. It now appears
    that the human contribution is most likely not the major one.
    ray, Jan 2, 2009
    #16
  17. ray

    DRS Guest

    "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    news:
    > DRS wrote:


    [...]

    >> DAVID KAROLY: Yes, the climate system did cool from January 2007 to
    >> January 2008 quite dramatically. That cooling was associated with
    >> changes in the ocean temperatures in the Pacific, a well known
    >> phenomenon, the El Nino to La Nina switch. It isn't unprecedented.
    >>
    >> EMILY BOURKE: But you're not attributing that in any way to sunspot
    >> activity.
    >>
    >> DAVID KAROLY: We know it is not due to sunspot activity. Sunspot
    >> variations do not lead to the sorts of temperature variations seen
    >> from January 2007 to 2008. They don't lead to those large
    >> temperature
    >> variations, even on an 11-year sunspot cycle.
    >>
    >> And so in terms of increasing greenhouse gases, we can also see that
    >> effect because the most recent La Nina, the current La Nina, is
    >> warmer than earlier La Nina episodes of the same strength. We're
    >> actually seeing a warming even in these cool periods associated with
    >> La Nina.
    >>
    >> http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2225759.htm
    >>
    >> NB: David Karoly is Professor of Meteorology at the University of
    >> Melbourne.

    >
    > Perhaps they should have asked a professor of climatology instead.
    > Climatology and meteorology are not the same thing, although they are
    > related.


    Does that make him wrong? No.
    DRS, Jan 3, 2009
    #17
  18. ray

    DRS Guest

    "ray" <> wrote in message
    news:
    > On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:21:09 -0800, John Navas wrote:


    [...]

    >> All the many scientists are wrong and you are right? Uh huh.

    >
    > You mean 'other scientists' - and yes, that has happened before. Oh,
    > and BTW there is hardly universal consensus on global warming. It now
    > appears that the human contribution is most likely not the major one.


    No, it doesn't. You're confusing denialist ideology with science.
    DRS, Jan 3, 2009
    #18
  19. ray

    ray Guest

    On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:22:01 +1100, DRS wrote:

    > "ray" <> wrote in message
    > news:
    >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:21:09 -0800, John Navas wrote:

    >
    > [...]
    >
    >>> All the many scientists are wrong and you are right? Uh huh.

    >>
    >> You mean 'other scientists' - and yes, that has happened before. Oh,
    >> and BTW there is hardly universal consensus on global warming. It now
    >> appears that the human contribution is most likely not the major one.

    >
    > No, it doesn't. You're confusing denialist ideology with science.


    You're confusing lack of proof with a popular theory.
    ray, Jan 3, 2009
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Laura A. Robinson

    Think you know the "Microsoft answer"?

    Laura A. Robinson, Sep 9, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    563
    Laura A. Robinson
    Sep 13, 2004
  2. Mr.T
    Replies:
    188
    Views:
    2,825
  3. Keith nuttle

    Re: If You Think Clean Coal Technology Is The Answer

    Keith nuttle, Dec 29, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    277
  4. Rol_Lei Nut

    Re: If You Think Clean Coal Technology Is The Answer

    Rol_Lei Nut, Dec 30, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    261
    ASAAR
    Dec 31, 2008
  5. DRS
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    238
    ASAAR
    Dec 31, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page