Columnist Thomas Friedman notes on today’s Opinion pages how Republicans have been blocking tax incentives for wind energy. That includes Kansas Sens. Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback, who helped prevent a vote last week on a bill to extend wind energy production tax credits beyond 2008. The senators say they support the credits but also want to expand offshore oil drilling. “The problem with this is that it was going to take us off the energy bill and a focus that I think we clearly need on more energy production,” Brownback said. Yet on the same day the senators were blocking this bill, Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens was in Kansas promoting wind energy and warning that we can’t drill our way out of our energy problem.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
195 Comments
Oh yes, Kansas needs all those offshore drilling platforms to generate revenue for the state of Kansas. Clearly Roberts and Brownback remember who they are supposed to be representing.
I as a Kansas Senator feel its my duty to promote “Pie in the sky” over “Pie on the table” !
Yes pie on the table could feed many more people and become more effective in the needs of the people in Kansas. But where is the mindless hope in that? Pie in the sky takes some imagination to see and more hope than to see the pie laying on a table.
Pie on the table means there is something we can see and realize for a long time. But pie in the sky means we can set in the darkness, close our eyes and dream that it is true and a real long term solution to all our problems. WE Kansas Senators have big ideas and ideas come not from what is real and could be reached but what can be imagined and has no substance! It has been said that it is not our job to provide solutions but to continue the problems. Otherwise we would be out of a job and you would no longer need us.
We are working very hard to continue your problems from now until the future. If that future is dark and hungry that is not a matter for concern as we are here for you.
And yet the Republicans are acting all put out because they were sitting in a darkened congress because the democrats decided to go on to recess.
You can’t work with them.
Yet another indication of how 2-faced these republicans are. If they can’t shovel butt loads of money to big oil, they’re not interested.
Keep in mind Roberts was paid $300,000 by the oil companies for his vote against renewable energy. How much was Brownback paid to sell out Kansas’ future?
W. Dog: Put another way, when you hear a knock at the door and find two guys in dark suits saying “We are from the government and we’re here to help you.”
Grab that chocolate coconut pie off the table and run for your life!
What’s up XXX? Haven’t seen your large presence around here in awhile.
Welcome back and may your shadow keep behind you to provide shade for the lesser beings. :D
Just goes to show how gullible the left is. You swoon over Boone Pickens because he says “we can’t drill our way out”. This is the same Boone Pickens who bankrolled the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The same man who is one of the most feared corporate raiders on Wall Street. An oil and gas man for Gods sake.
Pickens is taking you down the garden path and you are too stupid to know it. The wind power he is promoting is not reliable base load power supply for obvious reasons. We will be forced to dot the country side with gas turbine generators to pick up the load when the wind power is not available. Guess who is sitting on vast amounts of natural gas. Thats right, your boy Boone Pickens. Starting to get the picture? Natural gas is currently priced at eleven or twelve dollars per thousand cubic feet and set to go higher. Imagine not being able to run your AC right now because the electricity is too expensive. Thats your future.
Now you know how a lot of us felt when K.S. and Co. denied the coal plants on a phony premise.
Coming from one who relies on the oil refinery?
You mean, like wind turbines are uglier than all those oil wells all over around mcpherson?
give me a break. We’re about to find an answer to the storage issue for wind and solar power. And when it comes, you’ll be looking for another job.
“The wind power he is promoting is not reliable base load power supply for obvious reasons” — Chris from blah blah.
Several European countries produce well over ten percent of their electricity now with wind generators. No you can’t produce all of your power, but most say you can produce up to 20 percent. However, I wouldn’t trust T. Boone either. But what he says is true. We can’t drill ourselves out. Anyone with a brain can see that. We possess a tiny portion of the world’s oil reserves, but use 25 percent of the oil. The only way out of our dependence on foreign oil is to use less oil. With all-out total efforts to exploit domestic sources, we might be able to produce a few percentage points more of the total mix, if nothing changed.
“Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback, who helped prevent a vote last week on a bill to extend wind energy production tax credits beyond 2008. The senators say they support the credits but also want to expand offshore oil drilling.”
Well XXX said it better than me. And I’m glad to see him posting!
But what is it I always say?
Republicans are like 3 year olds. You can’t get them to do even what they KNOW is right unless they get to demand a cookie for the doing.
You have been missed XXX! Hope to see more of you.
The country will be on a path to improvement in:
5 months, 19 days, 22 hours, 51 minutes
Things they are a changin! ;-)
Not in Kansas Ms. Inks: Last night at the local bar, “the boys” were sneering about the “coon” president. I used to think Obama had a 15 percent race penalty. Now I think it’s more like 30 percent. This country won’t change until it destroys itself over nothing.
boo whoo wind power is unreliable boo whoo it doesn’t work 24/7
http://news.cnet.com/Saving-wind-power-for-later/2100-11392_3-6170659.html
A start-up says it’s devised a system to produce electricity from wind turbines even when there is no wind, taking on the major challenge of storing wind-generated power.
General Compression, based in Attleboro, Mass., last week said it received a $5 million round of seed funding to commercialize a wind-power storage system that uses compressed air.
Wind turbines typically have an onboard power generator that sends electricity down the tower and onto the grid. General Compression plans to break with that basic design and place an air compressor in the nacelle, the housing on a turbine where the generator usually sits.
Its plan calls for sending highly compressed air down the tower and into underground storage, such as caves or depleted gas wells, or through pipelines. The pressurized air can be released when needed to power an electricity generator, even if wind is not spinning the turbine’s blades.
General Compression is one of a wave of companies trying to meet a growing demand for clean sources of power. Like others, the company is trying to commercialize concepts that have been around for decades but not fully pursued because they were considered too expensive or technically difficult. Now, with higher prices of energy forecast, these ideas are being applied to the clean-energy market.
Company executives argue that a compressed-air energy storage system will allow wind farm operators to charge more for their product.
Rather than get paid for electricity only when the wind is blowing, they can now make wind-generated power available when the demand–and price–is highest, say company executives.
“The problem with wind is intermittency,” said company president Michael Marcus. “It does not garner high prices from power purchasers because it is not schedulable…(but) you can get a higher price if it’s available on demand.”
For example, if the wind is blowing hardest at 11 at night, a wind farm operator could store the energy generated from the wind and release it at 10 o’clock the next morning when demand for power starts spiking up.
The compressor was designed by Mechanology, a compressor research and development firm which spun off General Compressor in 2005 and remains a shareholder.
The company now has a prototype device and plans to build a large-scale version of put it through testing later this year. The plan is to test the “compressor array” in a turbine in the field next year, Marcus said.
The problem with you democrats is you think we have to keep paying high prices for gasoline while we wait for new energy markets to come available. You complain that it will take 10 years or more just to get the offshore drilling started but you don’t mind waiting maybe another 40 more years to come up with new ideas for our energies. Didn’t they tell us that back in the 70s.
There is no reason why we can’t start drilling and work on new ideas at the same time. If the government cannot handle two things at one time then I say we fire them and put some people in there that can.
jwink have you not hear, the Government no longer has to knock before they come in. They are not required to even let you know they were even there and rifled through your stuff. But that may explain what has happen to my pie!
This article has pictures so the wingnuts might be able to understand it.
http://greenlight.greentechmedia.com/2008/07/01/in-iowa-compressed-air-to-be-source-of-electricity/
Michael Kanellos
In Iowa, Compressed Air to Be Source of Electricity July 1, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Talk about your power burp.
The Department of Energy, Sandia National Labs, and a host of municipal utilities in the Midwest are in the midst of designing a compressed air generation plant in Iowa. The plant is expected to be operational by 2012 and produce 268 megawatts of power or 50 hours of power storage. That could enough to save a municipal utility $5 million a year.
It works like this. Air compressors force air into underground caves. When power is needed, the air gets released to power a turbine, which generates electricity. The air compressors can run on fossil fuels or wind power. The technique uses about 50 percent of the natural gas that a normal natural gas power plant would use, so greenhouse gases would be cut there.
Powering the compressors with wind turbines would of course generate even fewer greenhouse gas emissions. More importantly, the power generated from the turbines at night could run the compressors. Wind turbines tend to be somewhat active at night and utilities don’t know what to do with that power since few people are awake to use it. Storing night energy in caves gives them an opportunity to generate cheaper power during peak times.
beber, I know we seem to be blessed in Kansas with a disproportionate number of “negatives.” It will take another couple of generations for Kansans but I think they will catch up! Younger people who are better educated are leaving the old stereotypes behind. Meanwhile here in Kansas our local school board wants public education to be for training aircraft workers. We do have some backward thinking to overcome!
These tax incentives are crucial to keeping consumers from realizing how expensive it will be to generate 97% of their electricity with natural gas. With tax payers footing their electric bill consumers can fall for the story that all that electricity comes from the wind, which is freeeee! When, in fact, if it were all wind, consumers wouldn’t have enough electricity to run the digital clock on their microwave right now.
And besides beber if you listen closely there is a certain amount of desperation in that sneering. I smell fear among the “left in the past” crowd.
All is not lost! Even if the worst-case scenario of McCain being elected is what we get — McCain has proven to be quite malleable and we’ll bring him along on the ride into the future. Not bad for worst case! Those Republicans did nominate the best from the least this time.
http://www.kansasenergy.org/documents/KS_renew_prod.gif
“in fact, if it were all wind, consumers wouldn’t have enough electricity to run the digital clock on their microwave right now.”
I use my microwave maybe a couple times a day.
Um, WHY would I leave it plugged in all the time just so that little clock could run? What so I can send the electric company more money?
Think people think.
The greatest source of energy we have is in the energy we waste.
Racism from McCain’s folk?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/2/141655/8118/37/561349
Sole black reporter kicked out of event.
Now is not the right time for this.
Wait until fall when we don’t need the air conditioning or heating.
But me and my son did this. It’s really enlightening.
Some cool day this fall, go out and look at your electric meter. See how the little wheel spins and spins.
Then, go inside and start unplugging things.
Every so often, go back outside and observe the little wheel on your electric meter. See how it spins slower…and slower. You are saving money.
Last thing to unplug is your refrigerator.
If you’ve seen to everything, that little wheel on the meter should then be at a dead stop.
You will be then sending the electric company exactly zero dollars and cents!
Then, go back inside and plug your fridge and what you really need running 24/7 back in.
How fascinating: We have a Luddite, who can’t even use email in the twenty-first century, running for president, and two Kansas senators, who are still pissed off about the loss of coal-fired plants, waaain’ their way through Kansas with their empty heads denying power to Kansans. And all are Republicans.
It’s not the 70’s in Kansas; it’s back to the 50’s. Ridiculous.
“Drill Here! Burn Here! Pay Here” is a simplistic bumper-sticker slogan John Sidney McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) uses to attract CONservative voters with the attention span of a squirrel.
Ours is a nation, an economy, a planet in transition. Fossil fuels will always be a part of the energy mix. The challenge at hand is to bring the mix into better balance — environmentally, economically, socially (which involves food production, quality of life, etc…).
As I’ve noted many times in this forum, the current gasoline crisis has nothing to do with a shortage of oil. (The 1970s called, CONs. They want their talking points back.)
If you pay Exxon/Mobil’s artificially-inflated price, you can buy all the gasoline you want. Big Oil is sitting on — and not drilling — more than 63,000,000 American acres of environmentally-approved, fully-permitted, un-drilled oil leases. Why don’t they exploit those ready-to-produce leases? Because they don’t want to as long as they can get 4 bucks a gallon at the pump and generate higher profits than any corporation in history.
“Use It or Lose It” (albeit, a bumper-sticker-worthy slogan in itself), just seems to make sense. “You’re sitting on all these resources, want more off-shore and in protected environments, and you do squat with all the leases you already own and aren’t drilling?!” It’s like the kid at the birthday party who wants another piece of cake before he’s eaten the first one. And, by the way, this is the kid who didn’t bring a present.
If Big Oil isn’t gonna develop their 63,000,000 acres of leases, let some wildcatters and entrepreneurs have at ‘em! “Use It or Lose It.”
Just what’s wrong with that, CONs?
“The problem with you democrats is you think we have to keep paying high prices for gasoline while we wait for new energy markets to come available. You complain that it will take 10 years or more just to get the offshore drilling started but you don’t mind waiting maybe another 40 more years to come up with new ideas for our energies. Didn’t they tell us that back in the 70s.” — borghunter
They trouble with you Cons is you’re stupid. What don’t you understand about using 25 percent of the world’s oil, and possessing 2 percent of the reserves? Following the 70s you scrapped the programs which would have made us the world’s energy leaders instead of the world’s laughingstock. Did I say stupid. No, it’s worse than that.
And the costs to us for this nice fine wind powered energy is 4 times the cost of oil/coal powered energy. And that is even after it is federal subsidized to be built and operated, but of course, not counting how much money was taken out of our pockets in the form of tax money to do that. And how much more money do you think it will cost to update a wind generator to “create” compressed air and store it? And who do you think will pay for it? And how much higher will our electric/heating bills go up to cover that as well as to cover the tax dollars taken out of our pocket to subsidize that upgrade?
Face it, wind and solar is a very expensive alternative to gas/oil/coal. Recently one of the original guys who started the CO worry has announced he can’t find any proof of it creating issues. Checking temperatures in the atmosphere with thermometers (and other equipment) attached to balloons is not producing any of the changes their computer models were saying were to be there.
This is all another bunch of Hooey brought on by our good ol’ radical environmentalists who got their start in the late 60’s and brought to life in 1971. First they said we were going to be iced over, then we were going to be toasted, now its climate change (a catch all for anything, right) and the CO in the atmosphere… I wonder what looming disaster will come up in their minds next?
Copy and past this link into your browser for a brief history of this: tinyurl.com/3xzeu8
The Republican strategy might just be working.
It looks like Obama is ready to change his mind, on energy issues:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/state/epaper/2008/08/01/0801obama1.html
Boggles the mind how Senators from a windy state would vote to block their states resources from being developed!
Article today said bush has seen a seven fold increase in drilling permits, but less oil is coming in than when Clinton was president.
Another question, why should coastal states get money for oil on govt. lands?
Oh, yeah!
Sign me up!
I’m gonna turn America’s energy policy over to a poster who chooses “ididit” as a nym.
That’s a good start.
Phantom,
Your 10:49 post shows that all you understand about this topic is the liberal spin. You know nothing of the substance of the facts.
Are you questioning which is Ks. biggest energy resource, wind or oil? or are you questioning that with 7 times the drilling permits (bush vs. clinton) we haven’t kept pace with the depleting oir production?
You must be in the ’stop the (turbine) spin’ club.
If Exxon/Mobil were really concerned with their shareholders and were sitting on non-productive leases, the Board of Directors would jump at the chance to unload those non-productive assets, wouldn’t they?
But Big Oil refuses to develop those 63,000,000 acres of American land already leased, approved for drilling, and ready for production.
Now, I realize that:
“Big Oil refuses to develop those 63,000,000 acres of American land already leased, approved for drilling, and ready for production”
…isn’t a catchy bumper-sticker slogan, so is probably too complicated for CONs to comprehend. And so, they’ll vote on the basis of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. But hey, when you’re a CON, you deal with politics on a level you can understand.
Linda
We had “shop” class and “home econ” and “drafting” classes more than 50 years ago, in our local public schools.
You are ridiculous with your diatribes against industry being involved in education.
Put it this way, if Cessna wants to make sure that a High School graduate can READ a diagram of an aircraft engine, what will it hurt?
MOTIVATION is one of the biggest problems we have, with High School drop outs.
At least, if they can READ such a diagram they are R-E-A-D-I-N-G!
Put it this way, I am not at all thrilled by the “Twilight” book craze going on, right now. If you have teenagers, especially girls, you know what I mean. It is a book series about “good” vampires. Ya Ya, I know. However, the Father of one of my daughters friends, an MD himself, said, “Paul, at least it is getting them to read, and I have looked through the books, they are no worse than network TV these days.”
He had a point.
The “Adventure” in life is not the “goal” the Adventure is the JOURNEY!
If you get kids to be excited about the “goal” of aviation employment, the excitement is that they might WANT to LEARN!
Wouldn’t that be awful?
Your bitter, snooty attitude about industrial training in our educational system is elitist snobishness, and nothing else.
The problem with YOU DEMOCRATS
I just love starting my Sunday with a laugh! Thanks so much, “Borg”!
Monkey
I give you credit for admitting that fossil fuels will “always be part of the mix” — you are not as insane as some of your lib friends on this blog.
However, you are wrong on this point:
“If you pay Exxon/Mobil’s artificially-inflated price, you can buy all the gasoline you want. Big Oil is sitting on — and not drilling — more than 63,000,000 American acres of environmentally-approved, fully-permitted, un-drilled oil leases. Why don’t they exploit those ready-to-produce leases? Because they don’t want to as long as they can get 4 bucks a gallon at the pump and generate higher profits than any corporation in history.”
—-
You are wrong because “a lease is a lease” — a LEASE is NOT a “deed” — a lease is a contract which has provisions which MUST be met.
IF any current lease contains marketable natural gas or oil or both, that lease MUST be brought to production, or that lease can be challenged, in court, by the land owner.
Courts have held this “implied covenent” exists in EVERY lease, unless the lease specifically states otherwise.
You are also wrong because oil and gas, alone, do NOT indicate profitable production of that oil and gas.
What type of roads will we need?
What type of pipelines do we need?
What permits will we need, to access and transport this energy?
You are also wrong, because:
Some of these leases are worthless and contain NO oil or gas!
You are also wrong, because, even if oil and gas CAN be produced, economically, on some of these leases, it can — what do you liberals tell us all the time?
“TAKE 5 TO 10 YEARS TO BRING THAT ENERGY TO MARKET”!!
It is amazing that you libs can tell us, out of one side of your mouth, that it will take too long to bring ANWR or offshore oil to market, but out of the other side of your mouth—?
You act as if oil gushers should start the day after an oil lease is signed!
and Monkey?
It is the wind and solar types who “didnt bring a present” to the party, not the oil industry.
The oil and gas industry pay Billions of Dollars in Local, State and Federal taxes.
Alternative energy, so far, wants a subsidy with no promise of tax revenues down the road, in return.
beber
It was DEMOCRATS and LIBERALS that stopped us from using more nuclear power.
France and other nations produce far more nuclear power than the United States.
Look at that pic up there.
I mean it go look. I’ll wait.
A thing of beauty aint it? It has few moving parts, it’s low maintenance and it gives us free power.
R-E-A-D-I-N-G
And Wichita’s leading employers have been shaking their heads for YEARS over the lack of basic R-E-A-D-I-N-G comprehension by high school graduates in this city. The same holds true with college graduates. So, yeah, let’s skip over the basics and go straight to blueprints and diagrams.
Functional illiteracy.
Look it up, “Franklink”, if you can spell it.
Let’s divert the 30 bil. tax breaks to the oil companies to alternative energy development. The oil co. should be ashamed to be on the dole.
“Paul, at least it is getting them to read, and I have looked through the books, they are no worse than network TV these days.”
Actually, the books (almost any book!) are much better.
Wrong thread, I know, but we’ve heard the same thing for years. “Oh, no! My kid is reading Goosebumps!” “Get that Harry Potter book out of my child’s hands! He/She can’t read that!”
Be thankful your child is reading, because there are kids out there who haven’t found anything they’ll read and never will because of people telling them they CAN’T READ THAT KIND OF BOOK!
Phantom
A very good question, as to states getting money from Federal lands.
It can not be answered in one sentence, other than to say, “it depends” —
How did the Federal Government acquire these lands?
Often, the State Governments transfer title.
Often, individuals transfer title.
Often, the “title” only covers “surface rights” and not “mineral rights” —
Also, with many Federal lands, there are acts of Congress which dictate some of these things.
Look at it this way, as well:
States MIGHT receive a 1/8 royalty, if the State owns the “mineral rights” exclusively, just as the Feds get 1/8, if the Feds own the minerals.
However, even if the States own ZERO royalty rights, the States are still taxing authorities.
A lease is property, though temporary. The lease can be directly taxed, through the property tax system.
Also, the income, or revenue, comming off of the well can and will be taxed by both the Federal and the State government, regardless of who owns the mineral rights.
Surface rights and mineral rights can and ARE often seperated.
The person or entity which owns the minerals does not have to be the same as the person or entity that owns the surface.
And of course, it is rare for the OWNER of either the surface rights or the mineral rights to actually be involed, directly, with production.
Moreover, the surface rights owner must be bartgained with, for transport, roads, pipelines etc. This often slows production.
You have: Surface rights
Mineral rights
Leaseholder rights.
These issues keep lots of attorneys employed.
Wind power is NOT free.
Wind power is far, far more expensive than any other form of electric power we are using, today.
Wind power can not survive, today, without massive taxpayer subsidies.
Oil and gas produce MASSIVE tax revenues.
Wind simply uses up taxpayer funds.
Yes, we will get better with wind, as we study it more and use it more.
However, you are dreaming if you think wind will produce tax revenues for our governments, anytime soon.
Also, you are dreaming if you think our need for coal will decline, due to wind.
Holland and Germany use more wind, per capita, than most any other countries.
The need for coal, in both countries, continues to go up every year, not down!
Okay, “Franklin” –
Maybe it’s the phase of the moon or something. But I agree with your friend who said…
“…at least it is getting them to read….”
I have no desire nor inclination to read the Harry Potter books, but the Twice-Born get their panties in a bind at the very thought of 9- or 10-year-olds devouring 800-page novels!
The Twilight books seem to be Nancy-Drew-if-Ned-we-undead.
Eh? Somehow I expect most pre-teen females might understand that there’s no such thing as vampires, but that it (immortality) presents an interesting concept to contemplate. And there’re all those Twilight encounters that specifically address sexual abstinence!
When I was a kid my sister dated a guy who delivered magazines to news stands. When a new edition came out, he ripped off the covers of unsold magazines to get credit from the publisher/distributor. And he gave me a lot of the coverless magazines that otherwise would be trashed. Withing a couple of months I had the world’s largest collection of (coverless) Playboys, Ouis, Swanks, and other stroke books. (A term that has multiple meanings, given that my Mom almost had a stroke when she found them under by bed.)
She sent my Dad to my room to discuss the issue. Like every junior high kid, I came up with the classic excuse: “I read them for the articles.”
From then on, I had to be able to discuss “The Playboy Interview” whenever my Dad asked.
Interviews with Truman Capote, Jim Brown, Arnold Toynbee, Woody Allen, Joe Namath, William Sloane Coffin, Don Rickels… if that’s not a liberal arts education in itself, I’m not sure what is.
I’ve never had any objection to Industrial Arts or Home Economics being part of public education. There’s nothing wrong with teaching a kid how to use a drill-press or how to fry an egg.
But the CON approach to education never seems to get it. Education — especially at the el-hi level — should teach kids HOW to learn, not “what” to learn.
Pre
I take it that you are on the same side as Linda, and that YOU do not want any industrial training, at all, in our local school district?
Pre, I will admit that you are a better speller than me. Big deal!
Where definitions of the words are concerned, you exhibit an obvious weakness.
Which is more important, in the end? How to spell the word or what the word means, anyway?
What use is spelling, if you haven’t a clue what it is that you have spelled, anyway?
“Spelling is the least important part of writing”
YOU, should look up “functionally illiterate” yourself.
Obviously, a kid that can read a diagram is FUNCTIONING and, therefore, not illiterate.
I was thinking about oil in the OCS, I imagine that is federal land, and the states have no claim to it.
SAVE THE BIRDS STOP WIND POWER NOW! ;)
==========================================
The impact of wind energy development on bird populations has become an issue because of bird deaths in California’s Altamont Pass, one
of the world’s largest wind development areas.
Monkey
On your last post, we do not disagree much, at all.
I am checking the moon myself.
Wasn’t there an eclipse last week, in some areas of the Earth?
Look, I am sympathetic to the “born again” approach, though a Catholic myself. Catholics are not, generally, considered “fundamentalists” or “Evangelical” —
I actually think that is a shame sometimes, as I think, if you really believe something, you are obligated to explain yourself, from time to time, to the public at large. Even try to recruit a few other believers, from time to time.
However, as a Catholic, I can believe in Evolution and Genisis at the same time. It really is not that hard.
Also, I do not get quite so worried about magic or the occult or other such things. For Heaven’s sake, if you read “Grims Fairy Tales” or sing “rock a by baby” or “ring around the rosey” your are being just as morbid as these new “Twilight” books, if not more so.
It was not my point to critique the current teen Twilight book craze. I had two daughters attend some event at Barns and Noble on Friday night. It was a big deal, hundreds of people, open past midnight.
Anyway, the point, as my doctor friend said, was “It gets them to read” — and, he is RIGHT!
So, too, is it true that kids motivated by an aviation career might see the point in reading, or learning math.
A point that might have been hard to grasp, without the sight of an obtainable goal!
“Roberts, Brownback part of wind blockage”
Also door and clock stoppage.
That is about all they are good for.
The future is here. Get on board or get outta the way!
Read the following >>>>
http://www.awea.org
BJ
You are dreaming.
First of all, if wind is such a great idea, DO IT NOW!
Why does Congress have to be involved at all?
Simple answer:
Wind is expensive, and wind power companies don’t want to lose money.
Therefore, wind energy companies need a federal hand out!
The fact that wind is begging Congress for help only proves that wind is not, yet, the answer!
NOBODY is stopping wind energy.
Do it! Put your own money into wind energy!
Absolutely no one is standing in your way!
(But you will lose lots of money if the feds don’t subsidize your business plans.)
Scuse me…..
PLEASE Read the following >>>>
http://www.awea.org
Chas
Nobody says we can’t do it.
Pickens, of course, is right.
We can build lots of wind farms.
However, there is a problem with his plan, actually, several problems:
1.) How does the Picken’s plan really reduce gasoline consumption?
2.) How much gasoline do we use, today, to power our electric needs?
3.) How much will this plan cost, in lost revenues to state, local and federal governments?
4.) How much will this plan cost, in government subsidies?
5.) How much will this plan cost, in higher utility bills?
I know that the theory behind the plan goes sometihng like this:
Power more cars with electricity.
Power that electricity with windmills.
Seems a stretch to think this will have much of a real impact, on our national need for gasoline, anytime soon.
Actually, Pickens isnt saying to replace Gasoline with electric… He says to replace Gasoline with Natural Gas…. And replace natural gas with the Wind power electricity…
Anybody actually watch Pickens’ video presentation?? I am not a big fan of Pickens, but, hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day…
Also, I dont see much of anything on the AWEA web site about utilizing any kind of large government subsidies… They seem to be looking at other funding sources…
“2.) How much gasoline do we use, today, to power our electric needs?”
I thought we used OIL to power electric needs… not gasoline…
Paul in his 11:26 a.m. post directed to me by name: “Your bitter, snooty attitude about industrial training in our educational system is elitist snobishness, and nothing else.”
—–
Where did you learn your communication skills? Or your ability to conduct yourself in a mature manner?
I’m disinclined to acquiesce to your lack of skills to conduct a discussion that may include an opinion different than your own. I fear your head may explode if you gained any information you hadn’t previously considered, as it seems evident your mind isn’t capable of such an exercise.
Besides, you’re useful as a bad example for the purpose of discussing education.
“Franklin” reveals –
“…as a Catholic, I can believe in Evolution and Genisis at the same time.”
May God have mercy on your heathen soul!
;>)
Wind blockage sounds painful.
Perhaps if…
Chas
From your link:
“Incremental Cost of the 20% Wind Scenario
Costs incurred by the 20% Wind Scenario exceed those of the no-new-wind scenario by about 2%. Although the 20% wind scenario would incur higher initial capital costs, a large portion of those costs would be offset by $155 billion in lower fuel expenditures. The estimated incremental investment would be $43 billion (net-present-value basis; 2006$). This corresponds to about 0.06¢/kWh of total generation, or about 50¢ per month for the average household. These monetary costs do not reflect other potential offsetting positive impacts.
Challenges
Major challenges along the 20% Wind Scenario path include these:
• Investment in the nation’s transmission system is needed so that the electricity generated is delivered to urban centers that need the increased supply;
• Developing larger electric load balancing areas, in tandem with better regional planning, are needed so that regions can depend on a diversity of generation sources, including wind power;
• Significant growth is needed in the manufacturing supply chain, providing jobs and remedy the current shortage in parts for wind turbines;
• Continued reduction in wind capital cost and improvement in turbine performance through technology advancement and improved manufacturing capabilities is needed; and
• Addressing potential concerns about local siting, wildlife, and environmental issues within the context of generating electricity is needed.
—-
Your friendly link, from a pro wind source, admits that there are some problems.
I would suggest that the pro wind people overstate their advantages and understate their obstacles.
This is natural, every industry does that.
What I do NOT like, in the “alternatives” industry, is that the alternatives people want to make traditional energy sources more and more expensive.
Also, I would remind you:
T. Boone Pickens is not doing anything new!
ENRON had, pretty much, the same idea as Pickens!
Enron wanted to burden coal and benefit natural gas.
It is natural for large companies to try and promote legislation that benefits THEIR company, while hurting the competition.
Pickens has every right to try.
However, the public deserves a diverse energy supply from ALL sources possible.
Chas
This thread OPENED with a complaint about Brownback and Roberts not supporting a subsidy.
If wind does not NEED a subsidy, as you seem to suggest now, what on Earth is the controversy?
Paul (again!):
“Pre
I take it that you are on the same side as Linda, and that YOU do not want any industrial training, at all, in our local school district?”
——
Of course, neither Pre nor I said any such thing. Does he find it necessary to make up his own facts in order to find something to argue about? Before you know it he will be arguing with himself and not even be aware of who said what or where he stands. Happens when you’re unable to be discuss a subject truthfully.
Chas
We will not run vehicles, directly, on a large scale, with natural gas, anytime soon.
We will and have done some work in that area.
It is not terribly efficient.
There are safety issues.
There are storage issues.
I took it to the next step, which would be electricity generated by wind used to power cars.
However, the logic of all of this is flawed:
You drill for natural gas in, pretty much, the same way you drill for oil!
Most natural gas wells produce some liquids. (OIL)
Most oil wells produces some natural gas.
At a time when our automakers are having huge financial troubles —
How in the world can you justify the modifications necessary, to convert to natural gas combustion engines?
Where will these vehicles be serviced?
Where and how will this natural gas be stored?
Remember the natural gas fires, in Hutchinson a few years back?
Linda
I call them as I see them.
You have objected, repeatedly, to industrial training in our local educational system.
You ARE an elitist snob.
My opinion of you is as valid as your opinion of anything else, by your your own logic, stated here several times!
That last post was the absolute truth, Franklin! Each opinion here is as good and as useless as the next. And most people here realize what they post is their opinion. Do you realize that fact of your own posts, Franklin? And, if you do, perhaps you need to brush up on communication skills in order to convey that in your writing. No matter what, those who read here regularly are able to discern much from each post you make.
If George WMD Bush and the Republic Party (i.e., Roberts and Brownback, et al) didn’t give billions of taxpayers’ dollar subsidies to the most profitable corporations in history, there’d be some money to subsidize energy technologies that don’t contribute to Saudi sheiks and Osama bin Laden. Instead, there’d be money to develop the infrastructure and technological advancements the future demands to get us off what George WMD Bush himself called, “America’s addiction to oil.”
I swear. Sometimes I don’t understand why there’s a disagreement on this issue. When T. Boone Pickens realizes “we can’t drill our way out of this crisis,” — and McBush says any expansion of off-shore drilling would be only a “psychological benefit,” why isn’t this debate about the virtues and down-sides of wind and solar and nuclear and hydro and geothermal and conservation and using energy resources for the greatest common good?
Here’s why:
Because the only way John Sidney McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) can possibly win is if this election depends on Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.
And
I do not see anyone but YOU, Linda, saying over and over again that our aviation industry should stay out of our education system.
People see that in YOUR posts, and they come to the same conclusion:
You are uncomfortable with blue collar and industrial reality.
YOU, therefore, are a SNOB!
Monkey
The oil industry PAYS taxes.
Lots of taxes.
The oil industry also pays huge royalties, for oil produced from government lands.
You keep telling us that the oil companies get “tax breaks” — but you never go on to explain how and why tax law, related to oil, is any different from tax law, related to any other busines.
In manufacturing, you “capitalize” your building, machinery and equipment expense, and you take a smaller deduction, over several years.
In oil and gas, you “expense” these items, all at once.
Why the difference?
Because many wells are DRY and never produce. Not the same thing, at all, as tax accounting for a factory.
In addition to the expense for drilling costs, the oil and gas industry has something called a “depletion allowance” — this only makes up for the fact that there are expenses, at the end of production, like capping the well and such, which must be paid for. This only makes up for the fact that, unlike a bond or a CD, oil investments produce an income until the original CAPITAL is worth virtually nothing.
Repeating the names you call me doesn’t make them true, Franklin. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion and if I am a snob and whatever else you need me to be, I’m fine with that. Some seem to have a need to denigrate others.
Reread the last sentence of MonkeyHawk’s post at 12:11 p.m.:
“I’ve never had any objection to Industrial Arts or Home Economics being part of public education. There’s nothing wrong with teaching a kid how to use a drill-press or how to fry an egg.
But the CON approach to education never seems to get it. Education — especially at the el-hi level — should teach kids HOW to learn, not “what” to learn.”
I agree with those words and share that opinion. I have never posted anything differently than that. I don’t think public schools (K -12) should generate specifically skilled workers for any industry. I have much more confidence in our Wichita school students than to train them to be aircraft workers. After receiving what should have been a well-rounded education that prepares them to face their individual choices for their futures, some may choose to pursue technical training for preparation to work in an aircraft plant. What I wish for each graduate of our public schools is an education that prepared them to make their choices about their future. I don’t want any one of them to be limited to mediocrity.
Linda
From YOUR own words:
“I have much more confidence in our Wichita school students than to train them to be aircraft workers. After receiving what should have been a well-rounded education that prepares them to face their individual choices for their futures, some may choose to pursue technical training for preparation to work in an aircraft plant. What I wish for each graduate of our public schools is an education that prepared them to make their choices about their future. I don’t want any one of them to be limited to mediocrity.”
—-
You are a SNOB!
You think you are better than anyone who works as a machinist or in a blue collar job.
You also, obviously, have a very low opinion of the skills and intelligence needed, to do a good job in these blue collar jobs.
You must come from lake Wobegon, where all the kids are “above average” —
This is America. Many “rivet-popping” machinists end up in politics or law or management, later in life.
The important thing is to get kids interested in something, while in school.
Like riding a bycycle, the only way to avoid falling off is to go somewhere.
Does it really matter which direction they take, at that early stage, as long as it is productive and useful and holds the interest of the student?
Paul – I read Linda’s comments much more broadly than your knee-jerk reaction. If students get a broad education they not only can choose different careers but they will also be prepared to change course if aircraft falters. I have seen far too much what can happen when a person is too narrowly focused career-wise.
I have steered students away from WSU to Vo-Tech because I could see that their career path made more sense that way (and they are probably meking more money then I am). However I caution them to get a broad background ‘just in case’.
The aircraft companies prefer that they be captive – that way their options are limited.
I would add:
Industrial training DOES teach kids how to think.
It is “hands on” and not rote memorization.
It helps kids see the connection between scientific theory and real life. It helps kids see the connection between math and real life.
Tell me how any other course can help kids make decisions for themselves, in a way that is superior to industrial training?
In fact, if you are at all familiar with modern educational theory, it is now widely accepted that children learn in different ways.
The “proper” or most efficient way to teach one child might not be the most efficient or effective way to teach another child the same course material
Some kids are learn from hearing the spoken word the best.
Some kids learn the most from their own reading.
Some kids learn the most from being told to write about the subject matter.
Some kids learn the most by putting the subject matter into practice.
You are, actually, a throw back to the “dunce cap” days, when we called kids who were different “stupid” because we were too stubborn or too lazy to figure out how that kid’s brain might be different from the rest of the class.
Obama is ready to cut a deal on offshore drilling:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0140632620080802?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true
“Obama is ready to cut a deal on offshore drilling”
Maybe now Brownback and Roberts will be willing to cut a deal on wind, conservation, efficiencies.
I doubt it.
I could see building a new Tech School related to aircraft, or maybe even better, expanding the ones we already have, to be directed at aircraft vocations…. That I think would be better than attem;pting to re-structure the current High School curriculum… We are not so fortunate as cities like Chicago, who have TECH High Schools, like Lane Tech…. That could be one of the downfalls of Kansas Education… but to be totally fair, downfalls of Secondary Education in many rural areas….
We have the FFA groups… but how many places do you see that have Future Engineers of America…. or Future Aviation Builders of America??
While some are arguing about what is or isn’t possible, seems this town just DID IT! ;-)
——-
Missouri Town Is Running On Vapor — And Thriving
It’s the first community in the United States to be powered completely by wind. The town’s four turbines generate more electricity than Rock Port’s 1,300 residents use — making the town truly energy-independent.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93208355
Linda there are a few like that in TX as well…. But there are some who will no doubt argue the point…
Wind can, and eventually might, produce from 10% to 20% of our electric energy.
Now, please connect the dots, and show me how wind can reduce our need for gasoline, would you please?
No doubt some will argue when the rest of the world moves on.
Chas, about that building a tech school related to aircraft, Segwick County taxpayers are currently funding a new tech school being built near Jabara airport where emphasis will be placed on training aircraft workers — WATC (Wichita Area Technical Center).
I would give more consideration to the merits of a technical education done properly, but our school board has made it very clear their plan is to turn out students suitable for employment ONLY in aircraft plants, NOT a true technical education. I think this new WATC is the place for that specialized training, not public schools. Shouldn’t we have an obligation to provide a broader base of skills and knowledge to each student in our public schools?
Seems our city caters to one master. Makes more sense to me to look at a manufacturing base that is broadened rather than limited. Putting all our eggs in one basket is like asking for city-wide hard times if a downturn should occur (again).
Paul – it can, and will, produce much more than 20%.
I’m sure there will be more in Texas soon. I think Pickens is a man of action. Especially when he sees money to be made.
Linda
Do we not also have “magnet schools” for the arts, government, law and other things?
Someone ready to go to work in the aircraft field is probably better qualified than a high school drop out, to go into aircraft or to go to college.
Again, to stay on that bicycle, you have to pedal, you have to go somewhere. Where? It really does not matter.
Technical school WILL teach kids how to think for themselves. For some kids, hands on training is the best way they will ever learn anything.
It is not a matter of intelligence, it is a matter of how their brains are wired.
Some of those techical school kids will be smarter, and more succesful, than any of the people on this Blog. They just learn differently than you.
Ben
Without better battery technology, I doubt that wind can get above 20% of the total electric energy production.
The “compressed air” enegy storage ideas are interesting, but just that: Ideas!
All of these technologies have costs.
Not every area of the country has caverns or salt mines to store compressed air.
There will be leakage, there will be loss of energy, inefficiencies and technical problems with any wind technology.
Those weaknesses keep most of the wind energy proponents at 20% or less, in potential.
Again, Holland and Germany use lots of wind.
Holland and Germany have seen their coal use go up, at the same time that their wind energy has gone up.
Also
I think 20% is too high. I think somewhere between 10 and 20% is more reasonable.
However, several wind energy links, on this Blog, have predicted 20% as our future level of wind energy utilization for electric generation.
I am going with 20%, since that is the number that the wind turbine industry seems to favor.
It is a supplement, not ever the backbone of our energy needs.
Paul – as an aspiring scientist I was one of those who believed when John Kennedy said we would go to the moon by the end of the 60s. Others scoffed. I was right. I am one of those who believe that we CAN apply technology to improve the world.
20% is a readily achievable near-term goal with no new technology. With science we can go much further.
I am not certain on the exact numbers here, but doesn’t oil account for less than 5% of electricity production in the country?
How much in Kansas?
So how exactly is wind power going to help reduce our dependence on oil?
Read the Pickens plan Nathan. It’s called diversion of resources. We replace methane used to generate electricity with wind. That methane then becomes available as a fluid fuel which we know how to use in the transportation sector.
I go beyond Boone with electricity for transportation. Not to replace 100% of fossil fuel but for a slice. Consider, for example, 50 miles per day on electricity which is within existing technology. (I have seen 100+ miles suggested). For many of us that would take care of the daily commute. That would have the additional benefit of addressing local air quality concerns.
My scenario – which goes beyong Boone – includes nuclear as you know.
The key here is to broaden our thinking. Rather than ask where am I going to get liquid hydrocarbon chemicals for tomorrow I just ask how I get to work and to Dillons. Perhaps the answer to THAT question does not require hydrocarbons.
“What would happen if you put together T. Boone Pickens, the green billionaire Texas oilman now obsessed with wind power, and Shai Agassi, the Jewish Henry Ford now obsessed with making Israel the world’s leader in electric cars?
You’d have the start of an energy revolution.”
http://www.kansas.com/205/story/482139.html
I don’t think I have read anything about Pickens yet that didn’t have to add something negative about his funding of the swiftboat vets
nathan – read my 4:18 and 4:20 posts. Anything there about swift boats?
Like Dole in the Past these two have forgotten who put them in Washington and who pays their salary. It is time for a change in more ways than one. We need to cut our dependence on oil and use modern technology to power our country. The technology is here but it is controlled by those who preach that oil will be our savior. We need to get past oil. And we need representation by people who will do what is good for Kansas and not follow the PARTY LINE in an election year.
Ben,
I was talking about the link, not your posts. I have seriously not read an article about the man where the one writing it didn’t have to say something negative about him and the swiftboat vets.
friedman made a passing reference but that was about it.
Just because Pickens is guilty of some less than honorable endeavors doesn’t mean he isn’t capable of good ideas. He seems to have a nose for what will make him richer — including who is elected to POTUS.
I agree linda. I might condemn Pickens for the swifties but I still respect him as a business man and a person knowledgeable in energy issues.
He might see electing McCain as difficult and have a greater need of going to other ways to increase his wealth. At least with his current ideas more people benefit!
Evidently, this is what you Repubicans think of as a candidate who sounds “Presidential.” To non-zombies, that would be “incoherent.”
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/08/what-happened.html
In response to an easily understood question, Senator McCain barely can get the words “race card” out, or any other words, for that matter. And THIS is the man you want to inflict on us as President?
Just doing my part to bring Mc (weather) Vane / Mc Vain closer to his would-be adoring public.
“You can’t work with them.”
No shit Pmom. I’m thinking the obama folks are going to be seriously disappointed when their guy takes office. His folding like a cheap lawn chair on offshore drilling is just the beginning. I think it’s very telling about who will be working with whom.
“Younger people who are better educated are leaving the old stereotypes behind.”
Uh, no. Sorry Linda, but younger people who are better educated are leaving this old STATE behind. And the forty year brain drain Kansas has fostered shows.
Just read this blog for proof.
“So, yeah, let’s skip over the basics and go straight to blueprints and diagrams.
Functional illiteracy.”
Good one Pre. And oh so true. I wonder if any of those schools can teach the little bassturds to show up on time and WORK while they are at work instead of just putting in their time.
Now THAT would be a valuable education!
“Nathaniel” squirms –
“I was talking about the link….”
No you weren’t!
No mentions in your post:
“I don’t think I have read anything about Pickens yet that didn’t have to add something negative….”
So?
Pickens’ energy plan indicates the sea-change of rational political thought. Even most irrational Shrub (former) supporters have realized Cheney’s energy policy has been — and remains — a disaster.
And as for “those books” getting kids to read…
Well, jesus WEPT!
“Heather Has Two Mommies” and “Daddy’s Roomate” get kids to read too.
But cons wet their panties and shit the bed every time some public school puts them in their library.
Hell, “those books” were so terrifying that they got germie’s grandkids pulled out of public school!
But hey, they get kids to read!
hypocrisy, thy name is…
“I wonder if any of those schools can teach the little bassturds to show up on time and WORK while they are at work”
BUT But they have to learn how to do it themsleves, before they can teach it to anybody else
I think this sounds reasonable. After years of unreasonable we need some reasonable. One doesn’t need to “cave in” to be cooperative. Our country and world could use a strong dose of diplomacy whether that be within our government or in dealing with foreign countries. A strong man can give a little without giving up the right to set the agenda and keep the upper hand.
————-
The Democratic presidential candidate said he would back limited offshore drilling as part of a broader package, signaling support for legislation unveiled by a bipartisan group of senators just before Congress recessed on Friday.
“My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” Obama told The Palm Beach Post in Florida on Friday.
“If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0340213420080803
MonkeyHawk,
I was thinking about writing a real response, but since you already know what I am saying, why bother…
lindainks55
Posted August 3, 2008 at 6:32 pm
“If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”
——————————————
Drilling and offshore drilling, drilling in and near protected areas has been thought out and done. The wheel doesn’t need to be re-invented. The United States and countries like Great Britain and Norway do environmentally compliant and friendly drilling every day.
This is more fluff from Obama, totally useless rhetoric.
We get it Regular! If he does something you approve of in others, it’s wrong. If he does something you disapprove of, it’s wrong.
So, I guess you aren’t voting for Obama. Shock!
That’s OK, there are enough people who are. ;-)
lindainks55
Posted August 3, 2008 at 7:32 pm | Permalink
We get it Regular! If he does something you approve of in others, it’s wrong. If he does something you disapprove of, it’s wrong.
So, I guess you aren’t voting for Obama. Shock!
That’s OK, there are enough people who are
————————————-
I like to think through issues on my own. I don’t blindly follow someone just because they speak well.
If the ‘blame everyone people’ like yourself and other Libs would just get a handle on adult thinking, then the world would be better off.
Choosing to go with the latest fad ideology or blindly following a bumper sticker campaign (Change) is just stupid.
Facts are quite helpful, you should try to use them sometimes, that is, as long as they are relative to the topic discussed. Throwing in the kitchen sink technique often done by Libs is boring and non helpful.
Yeah, whatever! I read your voting philosophy on the Open Thread.
You said, “If you would have asked me nicely and asked me if McCain has the proper executive experience, I would have said no, but neither does Obama.
“The only thing we have left then are political ideology and agendas. I believe McCain’s agenda and ideology more in line to mine than Obama’s.,”
I think that shows that you don’t “blindly follow…”
And, you’re funny!
Linda
Excuse me but you have it back wards.
Brownback and Roberts said that they wanted a “comprehensive energy plan” and would not sign off on tax breaks for wind energy until we got something done on drilling.
Obama now says that Obama is ready for a compromise.
It seems to me that Obama, Roberts and Brownback are now on the same page.
However, Brownback and Roberts got to that page long before Obama arrived.
—-
Ben
I think hydrogen co-generation and hydrogen injection, into current gasoline engines, makes far more sense, and can be done much quicker, than the pickens plan.
Of course, the Pickens plan will increase the price of natural gas.
Hydrogen injection won’t do that.
Hydrogen injection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_injection
And, the rest of you libs:
You are not winning on the drilling issue.
The public is strongly against you.
Smart leaders like Obama will CAVE because they don’t want to be ruined, politically, by you crazy green nut cases.
Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted August 3, 2008 at 7:28 pm
“Drilling and offshore drilling, drilling in and near protected areas has been thought out and done. The wheel doesn’t need to be re-invented. The United States and countries like Great Britain and Norway do environmentally compliant and friendly drilling every day.”
—————
LOL!! Multi-nic’d believes that the technology in Alpine is “environmentally compliant and friendly drilling every day”.
http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/AlpineNoEnvironmentalShowpiece.pdf
“By 2004, even the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had documented the negative effects of Alpine oil development:
Cumulative effects to subsistence uses, hydrology and wetlands of the Delta, and aesthetics are the most obvious parts of the overall change that is occurring in this area. What was until 20 years ago a remote, wilderness area inhabited by a few hundred people, is becoming an industrial zone…”
But that is just the beginning; the Bureau of Land Management shows future long-term oil and gas development for the Alpine Project could include 24 more production drill sites, 122 more miles of roads, 7 more airports, 150 miles of pipeline, and 1262 more acres of tundra smothered by gravel.
“The Alpine experience has made us realize how great the differences are between what is planned and what actually happens. — Community of Nuiqsut, 2002″
The technology used in Alpine would also be used in the Arctic Refuge.
‘Potential Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on Refuge Resources’
http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm#section4
Hey linda?
I don’t know that paulie can speak for machinists.
I know I wouldn’t want him speaking for me.
14 years in aircraft thank you.
And linda, I do not see your comments as elitist at all.
Farmgrrl is a bit wrong here as well.
What our local schools DON’T teach well enough is independent thinking.
The ability AND gumption to look at the boss and say “No!”?
THAT we could use more of.
What we also need a whole lot more of is conservation. A LOT of people will be willing to do the right thing because it is the right thing.
But the more recalcitrant? Well, we may have to drag them along as well.
With whatever it takes.
Paul – where do you get the hydrogen? CNG or propane injection probably makes more sense if you want to restrict yourself to old technology.
“You are not winning on the drilling issue.
The public is strongly against you.”
And people like YOU are lying them into it paulie.
Good folks that they are, they assume that any oil produced here will be used here.
Some of your right wing flacks like Sean Hannity are already calling for that.
When the public finds out that they have been lied to, the oil is sold abroad, and gas does not come down a nickel?
They are gonna be really pissed off.
They MIGHT start calling to nationalize oil.
The future is here paulie. You cannot win.
For you and those like you there will just be degrees of losing.
Ben
The hydrogen is co-generated, by electrolysis. It is not the intent to power the vehicle with hydrogen, alone.
A very small amount of hydrogen can reduce gasoline use, at idle, by 50%.
This is due to hydrogen making the gasoline burn more efficiently.
If you actually burn ALL of the gasoline, and try to avoid incomplete combustion, you lower your harmful emissions and you decrease the need for gasoline.
Hydrogen works.
The problem with hydrogen, of course, is storage.
Hydrogen embrittlement must be overcome. This can be done, with stored hydrogen, by mixing it with compressed natural gas or propane.
However, it seems to make more sense to simply produce the hydrogen within the vehicle, electrically, and to use that hydrogen immediately after it is produced.
Again, you are only using the hydrogen as a catalyst, to speed up the “flash” of the fuel/air mixture.
Of course, there would be some 02 available, to assist the process, as well.
Right BJ.
T. Boone Pickens has figured out how to play you nut cases.
The rest of us will do just fine, as well.
Where definitions of the words are concerned, you exhibit an obvious weakness.
Paul? Perhaps you’re the one who has an obvious weakness. I don’t have a problem with understanding what functional illiteracy is. Would you like to give YOUR definition or will Wikipedia work for you?
Functional illiteracy refers to the inability of an individual to use reading, writing, and computational skills efficiently in everyday life situations. Illiteracy is the inability to read or write simple sentences in any language.
Sorry, family came first and I had to leave to deal with a small crisis. Life happens.
Do I agree with Linda? I do to the extent that it won’t stop the functional illiteracy, it will mask it. It isn’t the reading of blueprints or schematics that’s the problem. It’s the ability or inability to share ideas, sometimes very good ideas, in a way that others understand them. Face it, if you can’t get your thoughts together in a way to communicate them to others and be understood, what good is being able to read a blueprint? What if there’s a mistake or something not understood? How will you ask or present a solution if you can’t “use reading, writing, and computational skills efficiently”.
Basics. Education needs to cover the basic 3 Rs, and education, for whatever reason, is failing our children. Do I want my son/daughter to be able to take the courses that are being discussed? Yes, but only if they’ve already learned the basics and are not using those new courses to circumvent the most necessary aspects of education. I fear that’s exactly what will happen.
If you’d like to discuss whose “fault” the failure of education belongs to, then let’s do that, but I doubt we can come to an agreement, because it isn’t just ONE thing.
Paul, I always have a dictionary at hand. I have one on my desktop and one on my desk. I have a Wikipedia link on my desktop. (I LOVE Google’s Desktop!) I have a synonym book, Strunk and White, and a multitude of other books that I refer to when in doubt. I also have dyslexic fingers, but that’s another matter, entirely.
Hey, Monkeyhawk!
I used to read the interviews in Playboy! I remember a great one with Stephen King. Okay, I admit I loved the cartoons and jokes, too. The foldouts? Uh, not so much. :)
Nice distraction here. Congress goes on a five week vacation with zip,zero,nada accomplished during this session.
Democrats control both the senate and house.
Do NOTHING democrats.
Oh wait! They did increase the national debt, continued debt spending, continued to fund the Iraq War, and passed MPG standards which will take affect in the year 2022.
Lowest rating in history.
And the editor wants to point fingers at two in the minority?
Nice coverup.
Hey democratic leaders!
Where’s the promised RELIEF for citizens from the high gas prices?
You talked BIG. But did nothing. Rhetoric anyway.
Like the gubermint is the answer.
The grease monkey down at the GitnGo is waiting to hear from you to change the gas price sign (snort, snort).
I suppose the democrats who already control congress are waiting for their great white hope Obama.
They need him to Change!
Why looky there.
Even paulie is now studying energy efficiency!
Told ya.
They almost all of them know they are beat. Now they’re just trying to hit the canvas as soft as possible.
It doesn’t much matter to me. The future still wins.
Pre? Rox?
You have hit the nail SQUARE on the head.
You have no IDEA how many grievances I had to write for people who weren’t taught to properly run a verb against a noun to do anything more than answer a simple question.. Too, most of them could not understand the subtleties of contract language or disciplinary actions against them.
One time a supervisor of mine gave me a rating of “poor” on my grade sheet for “attitude”.
His reasoning? “I have to give you a poor in something. We have to give everyone at least one poor.”
I told him “Well I guess if you GOTTA give me one, you may as well give it to me for attitude.
Your own boss said he didn’t give a damn about morale.”
So he gave me the “poor” and got a 9 page single space grievance thrown at him.
I won. Desk jokey told me I shoulda been a lawyer.
Blech.
If students get a broad education they not only can choose different careers but they will also be prepared to change course if aircraft falters.
EXACTLY, BEN!
I wonder if any of those schools can teach the little bassturds to show up on time and WORK while they are at work instead of just putting in their time.
Now THAT would be a valuable education!
No kidding, kfg!
Amway, if you are upset that nothing is getting done in Congress then contact your Senators Roberts and Brownback and tell them and their fellow Republicans to stop filibustering every bill that comes to a vote.
I wonder how much WORSE it would be if those darn Democrats had not passed the first minimum wage increase in an eon?
Ben
Look at these hydrogen injection ideas:
http://www.hydrogen-car-kits.g-review.com/?OVRAW=hydrogen%20injection%20kit&OVKEY=hydrogen%20car%20kit&OVMTC=advanced&OVADID=4826989013&OVKWID=49372664513
I wonder if the schools can teach the kids with ego issues that a title or a tie does NOT make them a God.
Your problems in most work places are with dysfunctional mid management, not bad workers.
BJ
Where do you get off saying that anyone was ever against fuel efficiency?
I am against government mandates.
I am all for any new technology or new invention, and I always have been.
Fossil fuels will be our primary source of energy for many, many years to come.
Long after our children have all died, carbon will still be our primary source of energy.
Part of the reason I am sure of that?
Technology!
We will learn to make what we have burn longer and cleaner.
Ben
Another water for fuel (hydrogen) link:
http://waterfuelreview.com/?id=C224011
“Long after our children have all died, carbon will still be our primary source of energy.”
Yeah I bet they said the same thing about whale oil.
Hey at lest he is down to the latter days of this century.
Paulie has earlier said that humanity would be using fossil fuels…FOREVER.
And government mandates?
These are GOOD! They got us quickly rid of ozone destroying freon and aerosol cans.
CAFE standards FORCE auto makers to push the limits of fuel saving technology.
Like your hydrogen injection?
Life expectancy is nearing 100 BJ, FYI.
Ben
This is the best link, as far as an explanation is concerned:
http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/
Maggotpunk, when you contact a democrat or two and tell them to compromise and approve the drilling, then maybe you can have your couple of windmills.
Afterall, if more oil isn’t going to make any difference – who are the demo’s saving it for?
It would have been a small compromise for the greater good of windmill energy.
Wow, does anyone hear the reich-wing b!tching and moaning about how Huckabee or Ghouliani would have been so much better than McCain, and if McCain loses, “don’t blame me because I voted for the other person”?
Yeah . . . maybe they understand that having power is better than not having power.
We kicked this problem down the road thirty years ago “American way”.
THIS time we are going to solve it.
Franklin, you are really in full bullsh*t spin mode on this thread.
And your insults of Linda and characterization of her as a snob are hilarious. Do you think any writing teacher worth his or her salt teachers their students to write in single sentence talking point paragraphs. People like you are responsible for the dumbing down of our political discourse.
The point is, government contains incentives NOW for certain kinds of energy. To make a change in energy sources and use patterns requires changes in costs versus incentives.
One of the worst myths of the free marketeers is in their faith in the collective wisdom of the free marketplace. First of all, the current marketplace is already a combination of short term profit incentives and government supports. The resistance of the status quo to change relates to the relative expenses versus payoffs of the current system (it’s the REAL reason why oil companies have invested heavily in overseas oil). Sources like wind and solar could provide a much larger share of our electical energy today. We have technologies that could reduce our use of oil for transportation while not cutting back on vehicles that could be phased in today. Hell, the derision from some conservative partisans and pundits concerning tune ups and proper tire inflation overlooks the fact that it is absolutely true that it would save a great deal of gas, and certainly would have a more immediate impact on the price of gas.
http://www.lowermonthlybills.net/lower_gasoline_consumption.php
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/fuelsavings.pdf
I would admit to the policy bias of the Natural Resources Defense Council, but I suspect that their information is still accurate.
But certainly, to respond to our energy and our correlated climate related issues, it will take public policy initiatives to change the current set of costs versus reinforcement/incentives in the energy marketplace. It would be bullsh*t of the worst order, however, to claim that the question is let the free markets decide versus government intervention. Government intervention set up the current situation. Government intervention will be required to change it. The marketplace can and will respond to either set of government interventions.
We ARE 30 years down the road.
By definition, the problem was solved.
It will be solved again by American inventiveness, not by the government.
American business is all about solving problems.
Obama is waffling on drilling now Capn.
I don’t know WHAT Obama is.
I am not sure he does.
I DO know he is an ego maniac who wants very much to be loved.
Currently?
He’s looking for love in all the wrong places.
Good point, JR.
As a society, we’ve only been using coal since about 1800, oil only since 1900.
Now the CONs can’t imagine a future “as good as ours” (polluted, noisy, ecologically bad blowing tops off of mountains for the coal) without oil.
Yup, and if God intended man to fly, he would have given us wings.
The jawless fish writes:
Do you think any writing teacher worth his or her salt teachers their students to write in single sentence talking point paragraphs.
what the…
Red Bull gives you wings…
Sorry, JR, Jesus didn’t run this time.
Let the ‘Pukes have their drilling, as long as we get the much more viable alternative energy incentives . . .
“American business is all about solving problems.”
HA!
American business is MOSTLY about making money.
And not with an eye focused any further out than tomorrow’s stock close.
Good example here?
I use Firefox for a browser. It is user created.
A lot of people use Internet Explorer. It is business created.
IE brought about the creation of Firefox. Firefox has FORCED Internet explorer to be better.
More examples? Beta was better than VHS. But VHS won out.
Paulie your version of “free enterprise” is those with the most money win.
That is NOT encouraging of innovation or invention.
What a joke Rossell. You better go back and take chemistry 101. Where do you get the energy to split the water? And what the heck is “HHO” (sic)?
If THAT is your modern science I suggest you go back to the drawing board.
Nobody said that the best would always win.
However, the worst does always loose.
Extinction of the unfit is far more important, in business evolution, than the dominance of the very best.
Paul – the stuff you linked is right up there with the 500 mpg carburetor, ‘magic beans’ you put in your gas tank, and magnets you put around your fuel line to ‘energize’ the gasoline.
Hilarious!
ben
You have your head in the sand.
Hydrogen injection is proven technology.
Many companies are doing it.
You are letting your bias get ahead of your curiosity.
Not a good thing for a scientist.
The hydrogen is produced by electrolysis, BUT, in answer to your Physics 101 objection: The hydrogen does NOT power the car, really.
The SMALL amount of hydrogen simply increases the speed and the efficiency of the gasoline combustion.
And Ben
I do not claim that every company that is pushing hydrogen injection is great at chemistry.
HHO
H2O
What is the difference? Two H One 0 — big deal if that is how they want to state it.
Most scientists are absolutely awful businessmen.
That is why I look to business to find solutions that work.
They can hire the scientists they need.
“Extinction of the unfit is far more important, in business evolution, than the dominance of the very best.”
Who defines “unfit”?
You? The powers that be?
The challenged industry or ideal?
Does this extend to people to in your way of thinking?
Clearly it does. Since you once posted that some jobs were not worthy of a minimum wage…
and then did not say just which jobs.
I am VERY glad that your voice here paulie is little and joked at and totally disrespected.
“Here is a synopsis of a sampling of the research that has been done:
In 1974 John Houseman and D.J/Cerini of the Jet Propulsion Lab, California Institute of Technology produced a report for the Society of Automotive Engineers entitled “On-Board Hydrogen Generator for a Partial Hydrogen Injection Internal Combustion Engine”.
In 1974 F.W. Hoehn and M.W. Dowy of the Jet Propulsion Lab, prepared a report for the 9th Inter society Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, entitled “Feasibility Demonstration of a Road Vehicle Fueled with Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline.”
In the early eighties George Vosper P. Eng., ex-professor of Dynamics and Canadian inventor, designed and patented a device to transform internal combustion engines to run on hydrogen. He later affirms: “A small amount of hydrogen added to the air intake of a gasoline engine would enhance the flame velocity and thus permit the engine to operate with leaner air to gasoline mixture than otherwise possible. The result, far less pollution with more power and better mileage.” In 1995, Wagner, Jamal and Wyszynski, at the Birmingham, of University Engineering, Mechanical and Manufacturing>, demonstrated the advantages of “Fractional addition of hydrogen to internal combustion engines by exhaust gas fuel reforming.” The process yielded benefits in improved combustion stability and reduced nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon emissions.
Roy MacAlister, PE of the American Hydrogen Association states the “Use of mixtures of hydrogen in small quantities and conventional fuels offers significant reductions in exhaust emissions” and that “Using hydrogen as a combustion stimulant it is possible for other fuels to meet future requirements for lower exhaust emissions in California and an increasing number of additional states. Relatively small amounts of hydrogen can dramatically increase horsepower and reduce exhaust emissions.”
At the HYPOTHESIS Conference, University of Cassino, Italy, June 26-29, 1995, a group of scientists from the University of Birmingham, UK, presented a study about hydrogen as a fraction of the fuel. In the abstract of that study it stated: “Hydrogen, when used as a fractional additive at extreme lean engine operation, yields benefits in improved combustion stability and reduced nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon emissions.”
In the Spring of 1997, at an international conference held by the University of Calgary, a team of scientists representing the Department of Energy Engineering, Zhejiang University, China, presented a mathematical model for the process of formation and restraint of toxic emissions in hydrogen-gasoline mixture fueled engines. Using the theory of chemical dynamics of combustion, the group elaborated an explanation of the mechanism of forming toxic emissions in spark ignition engines. The results of their experimental investigation conclude that because of the characteristics of hydrogen, the mixture can rapidly burn in hydrogen-gasoline mixture fueled engines, thus toxic emissions are restrained. These studies and other research on hydrogen as a fuel supplement generated big efforts in trying to develop practical systems to enhance internal combustion engine performance. A few of them materialized in patented devices that didn’t’t reach the level of performance, safety or feasibility that would allow them to reach marketing stages.
California Environmental Engineering (CEE) has tested this technology and found reduction on all exhaust emissions. They subsequently stated: “CEE feels that the result of this test verifies that this technology is a viable source for reducing emissions and fuel consumption on large diesel engines.”
The American Hydrogen Association Test Lab tested this technology and proved that: “Emissions test results indicate that a decrease of toxic emissions was realized.” Again, zero emissions were observed on CO. Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. Vehicle subjected to dynamometer loading in controlled conditions showed drastic reduction of emissions and improved horsepower.
Corrections Canada tested several systems and concluded, “The hydrogen system is a valuable tool in helping Corrections Canada meet the overall Green Plan by: reducing vehicle emissions down to an acceptable level and meeting the stringent emissions standard set out by California and British Columbia; reducing the amount of fuel consumed by increased mileage.”
Additionally, their analysis pointed out that this solution is the most cost effective. For their research they granted the C.S.C. Environmental Award.
We also conducted extensive testing in order to prove reliability and determine safety and performance of the components and the entire system. As a result of these tests, we achieved important breakthroughs as far as the designs of the components were concerned. We have since increased the hydrogen/oxygen production significantly. This has resulted in increased effectiveness on engine performance.
The results of these tests were able to confirm the claims made about this technology: the emissions will be reduced, the horsepower will increase and the fuel consumption will be reduced.”
Yes, Paul, direct H2 injection is known and is old technology. However, all that HHO and other water stuff is what I was referring to. You still haven’t told me how you split the water – Harry Potter’s wand?
CNG or propane injection actually makes more sense. And yes, it is an interesting idea. For that matter so it water injection for compression/expansion reasons. However, as an answer to the fossil fuel issue – no. These technologies might give a marginal efficiency boost but that’s it.
An irony here – I have had some heated arguements with Sierra Club friends who thought somehow hydrogen could be an energy solution. I had the same question for them – where do you get the hydrogen? My answer – wind and nuclear. Their problem was that they seeemed to think that H2 was an energy SOURCE – no, it’s just a medium like electricity.
A plug-in hybrid would do MUCH more for efficiency than H-injection. In fact, I think a complete electric propulsion system with a back-up generator (like a diesel-electric submarine works) makes more sense than gasoline propulsion.
BJ
Speak for yourself.
You are not very good at that.
You speak for noone else, but yourself.
No, BJ, I do not think of people the same way as I think of businesses.
Keeping bad businesses alive is what made the Soviet Union a joke, with maximum production of obsolete products produced only to keep the production lines running.
The goal of every business is to meet a need. The competiton involved forces bad companies to go out of business. This is a good thing.
Those employees can then go work for the company that makes a better product.
More importantly, the public benefits from bad products not being made anymore, by that company.
“HHO
H2O
What is the difference? Two H One 0 — big deal if that is how they want to state it.”
No Paul – the difference is that they are touting ‘HHO’ as some sort of ‘energized’ water suitable for injection as a fuel. THAT is bogus. And THAT is what I pointed out.
As for the work done at one of MY old stomping grounds out in California – that is rather out-dated. Advanced fuel injection techniques and oxygenated fuels has passed that by. (By the way – CalTech/JPL was a lot of fun!)
Ben
“marginal boost” — lol
You libs talk about tire inflation and tune ups as huge conservation ideas, and I show you documentation of up to 50% fuel savings at idle engine speed and you call that “marginal”?
There IS excess electric power generation in most vehicles. That excess power can be used to split the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen.
That hydrogen, and perhaps the oxygen as well, can then be injected into the air intake.
We are NOT trying to power the entire vehicle with hydrogen.
This is a bit like Kingsford lighter fluid and charcoal.
You cook with the charcoal, not the lighter fluid.
You are using the hydrogen to ignite the gasoline.
The fuel economy is raised by the the fact that a large portion of the gasoline is NEVER completely combusted, in the average engine.
Hydrogen injection brings us closer to 100% combustion of the gasoline.
Another name for water – Dihydrogen Monoxide – some fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax
The funny thing was – ignorant people fell for it!
The dihydrogen monoxide hoax involves listing negative effects of water under an unfamiliar scientific name, then asking individuals to help control the seemingly dangerous substance (caused by most people knowing the word “monoxide” as part of the name of the poisonous gas “carbon monoxide”). The hoax is designed to illustrate how the lack of scientific knowledge and an exaggerated analysis can lead to misplaced fears.[1] Dihydrogen monoxide, shortened to DHMO, is a scientific name for water that, while technically correct, is almost never employed.
The hoax was created by Eric Lechner, Lars Norpchen and Matthew Kaufman, housemates while attending UC Santa Cruz in 1990,[2] revised by Craig Jackson in 1994,[3] and brought to widespread public attention in 1997 when Nathan Zohner, a 14-year-old student, gathered petitions to ban “DHMO” as the basis of his science project, titled “How Gullible Are We?”[4]
Dihydrogen monoxide:
is called “hydroxyl acid”, the substance is the major component of acid rain.
contributes to the “greenhouse effect”.
may cause severe burns.
contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
as an industrial solvent and coolant.
in nuclear power plants.
in the production of styrofoam.
as a fire retardant.
in many forms of cruel animal research.
in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
as an additive in certain “junk-foods” and other food products.
“Hydrogen injection brings us closer to 100% combustion of the gasoline.”
Modern fuel injection didn’t exist back when CalTech/JPL did their work. That has broug us quite close to 100% combustion. Your H2 won’t add much – any more than the magnets on the fuel lines.
” I show you documentation of up to 50% fuel savings at idle engine speed and you call that “marginal”?”
Paul – you showed no such documentation- just a YouTube spiel. However, a hybrid Civic shuts the engine completely off at ‘idle’
Ben
Again, I am NOT talking about hydrogen as a fuel source.
I KNOW that some of the links that I have posted here do not do a good job of explaining the concept.
They act as though you are “burning” water and you arent.
You are splitting the water into its atomic parts and then injecting that mixture into the air intake.
You are not doing this for power generation, it itself.
You are doing this much like using a primer in an explosive.
Paul – open a hydrogen boost store here in Wichita. Peddle these things to the public. I’d love to see it looked at on Channel 12’s “Does it Work?”
Paul – I know about traditional H2 injection. That is NOT what you posted in your YouTube thing. I was AT CalTech back then – I am familiar with that research.
“Keeping bad businesses alive is what made the Soviet Union a joke,”
Yup that’s it paulie. Close your mind.
Business! Free trade! USA USA USA!
I agree only the USA part.
You want a joke?
The American space program kicks ass. But, sometimes, they over think the simple.
Pens do not work in space. They are gravity driven.
NASA spent millions of dollars in conjunction with American business to develop a pen that could write in zero g. Gas pressurized thing. Interesting….novelty.
The Russians had the same problem. Pens did not work in space.
So, they used pencils.
Maybe it is my old latent conservative roots that tells me to use what I have instead of looking for more.
Maybe this is why I think conservation and innovation is the way to address the energy problem.
Maybe this is because I am not for sale.
Ben
Complete replacement of the existing fleet is not practical.
Therefore, an idea of an “aftermarket” add on to an existing vehicle should not be compared to a hybrid electric NEW vehicle.
What is the cost to convert an existing vehicle to an electric hybrid, after market? Not worth doing!
Ben
Also, if fuel injection, alone, got us that close to 100% combustion, we would not have much polution problem, out of our modern vehicles.
It is incomplete combution, for the most part, that causes most of our smog, is it not?
BlueJay – we use those pens in the field. They can write upside down and in the rain. Very useful if you are going field work under such conditions.
{aul – even at the high percentage conversions we have today we still have too any vehicles undoing the progress. And, of course, the “light truck loophole”.
If you think this is suh a wonderful “after-market” deal then peddle it. IT IS VASTLY OVER-HYPED! Just like the magnets and green beans.
I get it Ben.
Any technology that uses carbon is “hype” and any technology that does not use carbon will be “ready for prime time” — sometime????
Well I am glad the “Fisher space pen” has some practical use ben.
It is a lesson we can learn from.
Sometimes, really off the map research can have practical application even if the original intent did not justify it.
THIS is why we have to get the yoke of what is easy and cheap OFF of alternative energies.
No Paul – you don’t get it. Like I said – if you believe in it then open a store and sell the after-market kits. This is very old technology – the work at CalTech actually pre-dated me there although I learned about it when I was there.
BlueJay – I still have a couple of those pens.
“The jawless fish writes:
‘Do you think any writing teacher worth his or her salt teachers their students to write in single sentence talking point paragraphs.’
“what the…”
LOL!! Ooooops!
When the “jawless fish” screws up, he screws up. Three mistakes in one sentence.
‘Do you think any writing teacher worth his/her (plural pronoun with single noun subject) salt teaches (teacher/teaches) his/her students to write in single sentence talking point paragraphs? (I was asking an admittedly rhetorical question)’
I walked into that one.
I may still stand by the sentiment, however, the composition was excreable.
Ben
You need to keep up on this topic:
—–
“2002
Research done in 2002 shows that the “addition of hydrogen to natural gas increases the burn rate and extends the lean burn-limit”.[2] Also concluded was that “hydrogen addition lowers HC emissions”, and with properly “retarded ignition timing” also reduces NOx emissions.[2]
Further research in 2002 achieved results showing “a reduction of NOx and CO2 emissions”, by modeling an on-board hydrogen reformer and “varying the efficiency”.[9] The research was specifically a “numerical investigation” done to “forsee performances, exhaust emissions, and fuel consumption of a small, multi valve, spark ignition engine fueled by hydrogen enriched gasoline”.[9]
[edit] 2003
In 2003 Tsolakis et al. of the University of Birmingham showed that “partial replacement of the hydrocarbon fuel by hydrogen combined with EGR resulted in simultaneous reductions of smoke and nitrogen oxides emissions (NOx) without significant changes to engine efficiency”.[14] Similar results have been presented by a team of scientists from Zhejiang University, China, which found that “a little amount of hydrogen supplemented to the gasoline-air mixture can extend the flammability of the mixture… improving the economy and emissions of engines”.[15]
[edit] 2004
Test results in 2004 show “that the H2-rich reformate gas was an excellent NOx reductant, and can out perform raw Diesel fuel as a reductant in a wide range of operating conditions”.[16] This is referring to Diesel fuel being used in excess, as a reductant, to cool the combustion reaction, which indeed has a mitigating effect on NOx production.
In 2004 research was conducted concluding that an “SI engine system fueled by gasoline and hydrogen rich reformate gas have been demonstrated” to achieve a “dramatic reduction of pollution emissions”.[1] This was achieved by “extending EGR operation” in addition to consuming “gasoline and hydrogen rich reformate”.[1] Emissions results show that “HC-emissions as well as NOx-emissions could be reduced to near zero”.[1] Overall a 3.5% reduction in CO2 emissions was achieved during the “FTP test cycle”.[1] The research also concluded that the exhaust aftertreatment system can be simplified, “resulting in cost reduction for the catalysts”.[1]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_enhancement
Ben
I would add that much of the current hydrogen injection is with diesel engines.
Modern fuel injection systems, as opposed to older carburetor systems, would not matter much when talking about diesel.
WATER FOR GAS?
Open web page and look at the two tests done by the TV station.
http://www.wreg.com/Global/category.asp?C=11560&nav=menu93_9_1
“Sorry, JR, Jesus didn’t run this time.
Let the ‘Pukes have their drilling, as long as we get the much more viable alternative energy incentives . . .”
Let them have what else too Capn?
On my front, we are close to giving up.
YOU show me a candidate who says that is my fault.
Barack is way beyond comfy.
So it seems are you.
Cold water showers here. And I’m ok with that in high summer.
Barack Obama is your candidate Capn.
I go to sleep without a candidate that gives a damn about me.
‘Do you think any writing teacher worth his/her (plural pronoun with single noun subject) salt teaches (teacher/teaches) his/her students to write in single sentence talking point paragraphs? (I was asking an admittedly rhetorical question)’
…’single sentence talking point paragraphs?’
What the…
(…imagines a single sentence leaping over indention(s) to the next paragraph and then magically paginating itself to create a new page.)
Good night; Good luck; God bless —-
Whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings ALL!!
Blessed be!!
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/08/roberts-brownback-part-of-wind-blockage/#comment-394808
Roberts and Brownback Part of Wind Blockage because they are so far up bush’s butt!
“The aircraft companies prefer that they be captive – that way their options are limited.”
Ha. sooo wrong here. THey are willing to pay your tuition for advanced schooling, in nearly every field. People hold themselves captive by seeking instant gratifiation.
Thanks RA – looks like Channel 3 Does it Work was not impressed by Paul’s links – mileage DECREASE by 10 mpg.
Paul – yes, I know that pressurized H2 can have an effect. However I also note that after all these years we don’t see it out there. The reason – with better injectors its benefit is marginal. And yes, I can see that it might also help diesel. However, even there fuel injection technology has improved.
Paul – open a hydrogen store. Show us in the marketplace how it works!
I’ll give you lots of credit Ben! All the while you were feeding Paul the rope to hang himself with, you were telling him outright what you were doing. Made the outcome even more unbelievable!
Thanks linda. I was familiar with the old Caltech work – they did a LOT of smog-related research after Haagen-Smit (sp?) “invented” smog. He is the guy who figured out that colorless tailpipe emissions reacted photochamically to make LA’s infamous brown haze.
H2, as a ’spike’, WAS looked at a lot back then. However, it never really lived up to its hoped-for promise. It IS, however, a great opportunity for scam artists like that exposed in RA’s TV ‘Does it Work” link.
Did you like my ‘DiHydrogenMonOxide” (DMHO) link. I remember we had a LOT of fun with that joke back then. Especially since so many people actually took it seriously.
And, from Paul’s link:
” No research devices or commercial products have reports available as per the “Motor Vehicle Aftermarket Retrofit Device Evaluation Program.”[17]”
So, it ain’t there. Maybe Paul will bring one to market.
Linda
“Rope to hang myself”???
A hind Linda: the one thing in common, among most of our great invetors?
They never, ever worried about public opinion or the chance that they might be wrong about something.
I still think this hydrogen injection is an idea that needs to be explored.
As the “Does it Work” clip points out, modern cars have computerized fuel/air mixture computers. If you replace either air or fuel with hydrogen, it would throw off the sensor.
The difference between me, and you, and Ben?
Linda, if you or Ben came up with something that made sense, I would jump on it.
Ronald Reagan once said, “You can do great things in life if you do not care who gets the credit!”
Modern fuel censors seem to be the problem, with these after market hydrogen kits.
Lets work on THAT problem.
Funny, when conservatives come up with valid problems with wind or solar, you libs tell us we are being negative or anti-technology.
To libs, it is only “new technology” if it has nothing at all to do with oil or coal!
Ben, admit it, you had NO idea that these “water to gas” or Hydrogen injection systems were so common.
I taught you something.
Right Angle:
Thanks for the post.
I have not purchased one of these for myself, yet, and I knew I could count on this Blog to vet the idea first.
Actually, I am also looking for a company that overcomes the computer/censor problem.
hint not hind, lol
sensor
back to the coffee pot!
“Ben, admit it, you had NO idea that these “water to gas” or Hydrogen injection systems were so common.”
No Paul – I have seen innumerable of these over the years.
“As the “Does it Work” clip points out, modern cars have computerized fuel/air mixture computers. If you replace either air or fuel with hydrogen, it would throw off the sensor.”
No Paul, that is not what “does it work” said. It was the excuse given by the peddler of the device. They then invited him to come and set it up “correctly” for them – he never did. As “does it work” noted – it FAILED!
“Way back when” during my days working with automotive emissions catalysts we would routinely check out these ‘magic devices.’ Never found any that lived up to their claims.
“I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”
Yeah, well, I see what obama and his merry band of democrats got “done” on FISA. More folding like a cheap lawn chair.
And Clark defended that stomping on the fourth amendment.
And now captain thinks it’s ok to “give” them offshore drilling?
heheheheheheheh!
Amazing what being an obama true believer will do to some people…
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
CYNTHIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://mckinney2008.com/PRESIDENT/
“Linda, if you or Ben came up with something that made sense, I would jump on it.”
We and others have already done so.
Ben
NO, it was not the excuse given by the “peddler of the device” it was the excuse given by the guy who bought the device.
That guy still thinks he can get the thing to work.
Try again!
Ben
No, you have not.
There is no “magic bullet” to solve our energy needs.
It will take several ideas and several energy sources.
I never claimed that any one idea, of mine, was the sole solution.
The “Drill here drill now” crowd is not trying to stop any alternatives.
It is only you greens who want to limit energy sources you do not like.
I also continue to be amazed and disappointed with my friends farmgrrl.
The more they say the same the more their Saint Obama seems to change.
I continue to hope for an interesting convention. I still believe in miracles.
Heh JR. Ya know, poking the obama supporters after he takes office and dumps all over what they THOUGHT he would do would be fun.
If it wasnt going to be so sad. And if I didnt like some of them so much.
“I still believe in miracles.”
Well, I guess that’s because you are younger :) I’m too old to believe in miracles. No Santa. No Easter Bunny. Hell, there isnt even a Great Pumpkin.
Or, as the great Meatloaf said:
“There aint no Coup de ville hiding in the bottom of the Cracker Jack box.”