OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote:

> I expect we could carve out a few dozen thousand acres outta Nevada,
> build some sort of breeder* reactor farm, use the output to convert
> biomass to fuel oil and gasoline equivalents. With a few umpety
> gigawatts, you can probably do about anything you like.
>
> *or something self-sustaining.
>
> Then there is this:
>
> * dvice . com /archives/2007/12/power_your_home.php
>
> Too cheap to meter, baby.

Heh....
Reminds me of tabletop fusion....
When Pons and Fleishmann came out with their "demonstration" of cold
fusion back in the late '80s, I was working in the (pretty small)
corporate research lab of a major aerospace corporation (which merged
several years ago with another major aerospace corporation).....
Anyway, the folks that ran the place got the message from corporate
HQ -- "drop everything and do that". And being good management types,
they didn't raise any objections but simply passed the message along.

"But sir, the laws of physics say...."
"Screw the laws of physics, there's money to be made!"

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

RichL wrote:
> Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote:
>
>> I expect we could carve out a few dozen thousand acres outta Nevada,
>> build some sort of breeder* reactor farm, use the output to convert
>> biomass to fuel oil and gasoline equivalents. With a few umpety
>> gigawatts, you can probably do about anything you like.
>>
>> *or something self-sustaining.
>>
>> Then there is this:
>>
>> * dvice . com /archives/2007/12/power your home.php
>>
>> Too cheap to meter, baby.
>
> Heh....
> Reminds me of tabletop fusion....
> When Pons and Fleishmann came out with their "demonstration" of cold
> fusion back in the late '80s, I was working in the (pretty small)
> corporate research lab of a major aerospace corporation (which merged
> several years ago with another major aerospace corporation).....

They do that. The animated Dilbert... well, never mind.

> Anyway, the folks that ran the place got the message from corporate
> HQ -- "drop everything and do that". And being good management types,
> they didn't raise any objections but simply passed the message along.
>
> "But sir, the laws of physics say...."
> "Screw the laws of physics, there's money to be made!"
>

That's a lyric. Thanks, bro.

--
Les Cargill

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary


"RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote in message
news:hxsXj.5014$4K5.3483@trnddc03...
> Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote:
>
>> I expect we could carve out a few dozen thousand acres outta Nevada,
>> build some sort of breeder* reactor farm, use the output to convert
>> biomass to fuel oil and gasoline equivalents. With a few umpety
>> gigawatts, you can probably do about anything you like.
>>
>> *or something self-sustaining.
>>
>> Then there is this:
>>
>> * dvice . com /archives/2007/12/power_your_home.php
>>
>> Too cheap to meter, baby.
>
> Heh....
> Reminds me of tabletop fusion....

Ah, the Farnsworth Fusor! Worked, IIRC...
__
Steve
.

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

RichL wrote:

> Maybe, maybe not. I'm all for increased energy efficiency, but moving
> the pollution to the power station is a reality, and until someone
> shows me an analysis that says that it's actually dealt with more
> effectively *and* that deals with the additional efficiency hit
> (because *no* energy conversion operation is 100% efficient), color
> me skeptical.

Clarification, it hasn't been dealt with more effectively in the past but
the technology exists to do so today if the utilities can be made to spend
the money. We'd better hope they decide to do the work, because the U.S. is
going to be burning a lot of coal in a couple of decades unless somebody
comes up with a jim-dandy alternative. Coal we got, centuries worth, it's
just a little on the dirty side. When it comes to a choice between lights
out and burning coal, how do you think most Americans will vote?

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

DGDevin <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> RichL wrote:
>
>> Maybe, maybe not. I'm all for increased energy efficiency, but
>> moving the pollution to the power station is a reality, and until
>> someone shows me an analysis that says that it's actually dealt with
>> more effectively *and* that deals with the additional efficiency hit
>> (because *no* energy conversion operation is 100% efficient), color
>> me skeptical.
>
> Clarification, it hasn't been dealt with more effectively in the past
> but the technology exists to do so today if the utilities can be made
> to spend the money. We'd better hope they decide to do the work,
> because the U.S. is going to be burning a lot of coal in a couple of
> decades unless somebody comes up with a jim-dandy alternative. Coal
> we got, centuries worth, it's just a little on the dirty side. When
> it comes to a choice between lights out and burning coal, how do you
> think most Americans will vote?

Nuclear. It's the least of the evils ....as long as we close our eyes
and don't worry about the waste disposal problem. Besides, if Lucas is
any indication, the good folks in Nevada seem to be willing to suck it
up and have it all buried in one of their mountains!

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

In article <ozsXj.5016$4K5.1275@trnddc03>, RichL <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote:
>DGDevin <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> RichL wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe, maybe not. I'm all for increased energy efficiency, but
>>> moving the pollution to the power station is a reality, and until
>>> someone shows me an analysis that says that it's actually dealt with
>>> more effectively *and* that deals with the additional efficiency hit
>>> (because *no* energy conversion operation is 100% efficient), color
>>> me skeptical.
>>
>> Clarification, it hasn't been dealt with more effectively in the past
>> but the technology exists to do so today if the utilities can be made
>> to spend the money. We'd better hope they decide to do the work,
>> because the U.S. is going to be burning a lot of coal in a couple of
>> decades unless somebody comes up with a jim-dandy alternative. Coal
>> we got, centuries worth, it's just a little on the dirty side. When
>> it comes to a choice between lights out and burning coal, how do you
>> think most Americans will vote?
>
>Nuclear. It's the least of the evils ....as long as we close our eyes
>and don't worry about the waste disposal problem. Besides, if Lucas is
>any indication, the good folks in Nevada seem to be willing to suck it
>up and have it all buried in one of their mountains!
>
>

And if *you* are any indication, the "scientists" will spend all
their time pushing propaganda and whining rather than providing
any real solutions to any of our problems.

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

Claude V. Lucas <claudel@sonic . net > wrote:
> In article <ozsXj.5016$4K5.1275@trnddc03>, RichL
> <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote:
>> DGDevin <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> RichL wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe, maybe not. I'm all for increased energy efficiency, but
>>>> moving the pollution to the power station is a reality, and until
>>>> someone shows me an analysis that says that it's actually dealt
>>>> with more effectively *and* that deals with the additional
>>>> efficiency hit (because *no* energy conversion operation is 100%
>>>> efficient), color me skeptical.
>>>
>>> Clarification, it hasn't been dealt with more effectively in the
>>> past but the technology exists to do so today if the utilities can
>>> be made to spend the money. We'd better hope they decide to do the
>>> work, because the U.S. is going to be burning a lot of coal in a
>>> couple of decades unless somebody comes up with a jim-dandy
>>> alternative. Coal we got, centuries worth, it's just a little on
>>> the dirty side. When it comes to a choice between lights out and
>>> burning coal, how do you think most Americans will vote?
>>
>> Nuclear. It's the least of the evils ....as long as we close our
>> eyes and don't worry about the waste disposal problem. Besides, if
>> Lucas is any indication, the good folks in Nevada seem to be willing
>> to suck it up and have it all buried in one of their mountains!
>>
>>
>
> And if *you* are any indication, the "scientists" will spend all
> their time pushing propaganda and whining rather than providing
> any real solutions to any of our problems.

Hey, I actually worked on some stuff way back when related to storage of
nuclear materials. Besides, I thought I remember you commenting at one
point that the proposal to store the stuff in Yucca Mountain wasn't a
big deal. If that wasn't you, my apologies.

Like it or not, the "scientists" are going to be part of the solution.
Of course, there's the alternative of paying no attention to the man
behind the curtain....

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

Claude V. Lucas wrote:
> In article <ozsXj.5016$4K5.1275@trnddc03>, RichL <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote:
<snip>
>
> And if *you* are any indication, the "scientists" will spend all
> their time pushing propaganda and whining rather than providing
> any real solutions to any of our problems.
<snip>

This just in... people are about getting paid. And here's
Ice T with the weather...

Pay 'em to do stuff. Ve could haff, mebbe a seriess of mineshafts...

--
Les Cargill

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

RichL wrote:
> DGDevin <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> RichL wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe, maybe not. I'm all for increased energy efficiency, but
>>> moving the pollution to the power station is a reality, and until
>>> someone shows me an analysis that says that it's actually dealt with
>>> more effectively *and* that deals with the additional efficiency hit
>>> (because *no* energy conversion operation is 100% efficient), color
>>> me skeptical.
>> Clarification, it hasn't been dealt with more effectively in the past
>> but the technology exists to do so today if the utilities can be made
>> to spend the money. We'd better hope they decide to do the work,
>> because the U.S. is going to be burning a lot of coal in a couple of
>> decades unless somebody comes up with a jim-dandy alternative. Coal
>> we got, centuries worth, it's just a little on the dirty side. When
>> it comes to a choice between lights out and burning coal, how do you
>> think most Americans will vote?
>
> Nuclear. It's the least of the evils ....as long as we close our eyes
> and don't worry about the waste disposal problem.

4th of July. Northern Nevada. Biiiiiig fireworks show. Really
big. *What* disposal problem?

I mean big as in ***FOOOOM***.

> Besides, if Lucas is
> any indication, the good folks in Nevada seem to be willing to suck it
> up and have it all buried in one of their mountains!
>
>

Give 'em water, they follow you anywhere....

--
Les Cargill

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary






<Paint drying break>




DGDevin wrote:
>
> Rich Koerner wrote:
>
> > * w w w .worldnetdaily . com /news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59298
> >
> > It doesn't matter that gas bulbs are the majority, and go through
> > with this feel good home use of incandescent light bulbs.
>
> We switched to CFLs a couple of years ago and saw an immediate and
> substantial decrease in our power bill, easily a third less. Is paying less
> money to the electric company a "feel good" scenario? Yup, it sure is.
>
> > Any time you plug anything that has anything to do with moving that
> > car into the power grid, you moved the pollution to the power station.
>
> Where it can be dealt with more effectively than would be possible with
> small, mobile internal combustion engines.

Gee, I thought that was already under control with all the laws, regulations, advances in engine
technology, refining technology, tire technology, etc.... since 1968?

How come we are having this conversation about auto pollution?

Could it be, that we really didn't change the laws of physics with the stroke of the pen from the
law makers?

Damn that pesky gas burner.


> It isn't a difficult concept
> Rich, and since you're a bright guy I have to think you're making a special
> effort to pretend you don't get that.
>
> Never mind Rich, summer is almost here, you won't have to carry in coal for
> the furnace for months and months. Of course there's all that mess and fuss
> when the iceman delivers every few days, but that's the price you pay for
> not being suckered in by this new-fangled feel-good technology.

Well, I grew up as a kid in a house that was coal fired from below and in the kitchen.

Yes, there was an ice box, and a window box for the winter season.

The heat was turned down at 9:00 pm. and you had to get under the blankets while the heat lasted.
In the mornings, the heat from below got a few shovels of coal and the draft adjusted. The klinkers
were thrown into the stove, and helped heat the house.

Saturday was bath day for the family.

No air conditioning in the summer.


<side bar>

But, what cracks me up today is that there are people who have the living space colder in the summer
than they have heat in the winter. Imagine that. That can't be healthy for ya in the summer time.
Not to also mention, ENERGY WASTING. How cold are all those air conditioned places you go to in the
summer really?

<to continue>


Some people in this world still live that way, and I see nothing bad or wrong about it either. I
really didn't mind it.

I've done my share of wood stove cooking in my time up in the mountains. I'm not really a city boy.

And, I've slept on the floor with a blanket many times in my life.

It didn't kill me.

<paints dry. Time to spray some more>


Regards,

Rich Koerner,
Time Electronics.
* w w w .timeelect . com

Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering,
Music & Studio Production,
Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

Rich Koerner wrote:

> Gee, I thought that was already under control with all the laws,
> regulations, advances in engine technology, refining technology, tire
> technology, etc.... since 1968?

Technology often advances at a greater rate than politics. Just because
technology is available doesn't mean it has been put to use, corporations
with well-paid lobbyists are often able to get the whores in govt. to cut
them a lot of slack--an oil indistry that is still getting subsidies in the
form of tax breaks at a time of record profits would be a good example.

> How come we are having this conversation about auto pollution?
>
> Could it be, that we really didn't change the laws of physics with
> the stroke of the pen from the law makers?

As we have discussed before, there have been developments in automotive
technology whether you want to admit that or not. The new-technology diesel
engines combined with low-sulphur fuel being one example. Technology aside,
people can make a big difference with what sort of vehicle they buy and what
they do with it. I had the traditional teenage love affair with hots cars,
but these days when I see some mid-life-crisis goof driving a Hummer or
muscle car I just shake my head. All that money, all that steel, all that
gas being burned just to fortify some middle-aged paper-pusher's ego, what a
waste.

> Well, I grew up as a kid in a house that was coal fired from below
> and in the kitchen.
>
> Yes, there was an ice box, and a window box for the winter season.

So do you still use that technology? No? Then why this theatrical
suspicion of other improved technology? CFLs will save you money, they last
longer and burn way less electricity, their only downside is disposal but
many communities have already made arrangements for that. You've going out
of your way to avoid things that make sense in a way that looks like plain
old orneryness for the sake or orneryness.

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary



DGDevin wrote:
>
> Rich Koerner wrote:
>
> > Gee, I thought that was already under control with all the laws,
> > regulations, advances in engine technology, refining technology, tire
> > technology, etc.... since 1968?
>
> Technology often advances at a greater rate than politics. Just because
> technology is available doesn't mean it has been put to use, corporations
> with well-paid lobbyists are often able to get the whores in govt. to cut
> them a lot of slack--an oil indistry that is still getting subsidies in the
> form of tax breaks at a time of record profits would be a good example.


Business, is about money. Government, is about people.

The two, should not mix.

When the two mix, it yields corruption.






> > How come we are having this conversation about auto pollution?
> >
> > Could it be, that we really didn't change the laws of physics with
> > the stroke of the pen from the law makers?
>
> As we have discussed before, there have been developments in automotive
> technology whether you want to admit that or not. The new-technology diesel
> engines combined with low-sulphur fuel being one example. Technology aside,
> people can make a big difference with what sort of vehicle they buy and what
> they do with it. I had the traditional teenage love affair with hots cars,
> but these days when I see some mid-life-crisis goof driving a Hummer or
> muscle car I just shake my head.


Stop right there. You are talking about a minority Hummer and Hummer wanna be type drivers. Not to
mention an even smaller minority of old time muscle car drivers who drive the few remaining cars
that qualify as museum pieces?

What, is that the race card you're playing. Watch it!

Where's your support for minorities now?



> All that money, all that steel, all that
> gas being burned just to fortify some middle-aged paper-pusher's ego, what a
> waste.

Yo, get over it. Move on!!!!!

ROTFLMAO.





> > Well, I grew up as a kid in a house that was coal fired from below
> > and in the kitchen.
> >
> > Yes, there was an ice box, and a window box for the winter season.
>
> So do you still use that technology? No?

There is only one small air conditioner in my place in the bedroom to keep the wife happy.

It only runs when the heat is over the top. I don't even use it in the car even when it's over the
top.

Can you live without air conditioning?

I do. I don't NEED it.

I avoid it.

How about you?



> Then why this theatrical
> suspicion of other improved technology? CFLs will save you money, they last
> longer and burn way less electricity, their only downside is disposal but
> many communities have already made arrangements for that.

Boy you assume a lot about me. All you guys do. LOL, I have a few of those CFL's. I have no
problem with them.

What I have a big freaking problem with is that government has to get into the act of passing laws
to ban one thing to get another thing into action.

THAT, is NOT our government's job function or place, under the Constitution, to regulate, instate,
or address by enacting laws on social and/or life style issues.

Is this a free country or not?

Get the duck out of here.


> You've going out
> of your way to avoid things that make sense in a way that looks like plain
> old orneryness for the sake or orneryness.

I can't stand social engineering through the use of any government action.

I can make a good environmental case against CFL's as qualifying as legalized toxic waste production
in glass containers for public distribution, and make a case for the use of incandescent light
bulbs, or even candles.

So, what do we have here?

Government legislation for the lesser of two evils?

The CFL or the incandescent light bulb.

Yeah, let's have this issue put on the voting ballet made as a public question.

This, is an issue that has to be made a government issue!!!!!!!??????

Get the duck out of here with that crap.



When a people are provided a REAL education, the people on their own know the right thing to do in a
free country. It is when that education was not provided, that government feels, through the power
of law, they will make you do the right thing.


Education and Freedom is a nice thing when they go hand in hand.



Regards,

Rich Koerner,
Time Electronics.
* w w w .timeelect . com

Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering,
Music & Studio Production,
Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter - energy visionary

Rich Koerner wrote:

> Yet, another reason for mandatory drug testing for anyone holding
> public office.

How about a Constitutional Amendment outlawing quoting an 80-line post just
to add a one-sentence reply?

Or I.Q. testing for anyone who owns a V8 muscle car? Maybe a DNA check for
anyone who thinks guzzling all the gas we can get our hands on is not only
our right, but our duty?

Re: OT - Jimmy Carter -One question IQ Test

On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:12:59 -0700, "DGDevin"
<dgdevin@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Rich Koerner wrote:
>
>> Yet, another reason for mandatory drug testing for anyone holding
>> public office.
>
>How about a Constitutional Amendment outlawing quoting an 80-line post just
>to add a one-sentence reply?
>
>Or I.Q. testing for anyone who owns a V8 muscle car? Maybe a DNA check for
>anyone who thinks guzzling all the gas we can get our hands on is not only
>our right, but our duty?
>


Here's a one-question IQ Test to help you decide how you should
spend the rest of your day......

There is a mute who wants to buy a toothbrush.

By imitating the action of brushing one's teeth, he successfully
expresses himself to the shopkeeper and the purchase is done.

Now, if there is a blind man who wishes to buy a pair of sunglasses,
how should he express himself?

Think about it first before scrolling down for the answer...



















He opens his mouth and says. 'I would like to buy a pair of
Sunglasses.' If you got this wrong, please turn off your computer and
call it a day.

I(You know you missed it too, so shut down your computer