I go through another work - eat - sleep cycle, and come back here to find that once again Mariss has made my argument for me.

It is nihilism - hatred for mankind -- that informs such tripe. And, they are already getting their way, now that those with more wisdom than anyone else have succeeded at diverting our food to fuel production. People are starving. And as I stated in an earlier post, that is fine with the elites, except perhaps not fast enough. Some of them even advocate genocide through war.

Not surprisingly, to harbor such a hatred of humans requires that one be impervious to evidence and reason. That's why the evidence is ignored and the mantra is repeated over and over.

If my valuation of human life and the freedom it requires above all other values makes me blind, then so be it. It wouldn't hurt my feelings any if Hitler called me blind, either.

--97T--

As I type this I am doing my due diligence on the activities of my enemies by listening to NPR. Even the American communists are becoming concerned about starvation worldwide and the effects of the food shortage on local populations. Food prices have tripled lately, and today's feature is about how most of the major food brands are switching to cheaper ingredients, adding more water, substituting flavor enhancers for sugar, and cutting portion size in order to try to minimize the impact on their operations. Eventually they will be unable to avoid raising prices to the consumer. All elitists are advised to tighten security until their plan comes to fruition. Food riots have a way of turning ugly.

There are other reasons for the food shortage besides fuel,some of them are minor,but a reason none the less.
There is a town not far from me that has a farm,that farm supplies food and shelter for the homeless,all that is asked is that the people help with the crops and livestock.
Not far from there is a homeless shelter,free food,bed,some clothes..All that is asked is that you have a turn with the preparation of meals.

Which one do you think gets the most homeless people?

.....It is obscene to talk of humans as if they were a swarm of cockroaches....Mariss

I have also made the statement that the population of the our globe is too large to be sustained when current stocks of abundant low cost (easily extractable) fossil fuels are depleted. Others have taken this to mean I support measures to reduce the population; I do not of course. Mother nature will do this when the time becomes necessary. It has happened to other, localized, societies; Easter Island is one example. the Greenland Colonies of the Vikings and Iceland during the Little Ice Age, the Anasazi. To Mother Nature we are no more and no less significant than a swarm of cockroaches.

I got to agree that population growth is unsustainable. I do not advocate killing people though and I honestly don't think Handle was saying so either. Population control can be managed by reducing the incentive to have children. China does it and has for a while.

I think the idea that mother nature will "naturaly" find a way to cope with the global expansion in population is perfectly true.

Oh, by the way. I never had children purely and totaly because I basically could not afford to do so. Don't get me wrong, I would have loved to have kids, it's a basic human instinct- my ex had a daughter who I loved as my own and my current girlfriend has a grown up son who's gonna be an electrician- it's great to pass my knowledge on to him and my nephews regularly ask me for help with their degree level maths- it's great to see the "ahh! that's how you do it" when you can explain something to them.

Perhaps I should have said "sod it" and had kids anyway, but there was just no way i could have afforded it... and I live in the UK and have a not bad job. How people on less of a wage do it I struggle to understand.

Perhaps mother nature started with folk like me who will not breed if they cannot support their children on their own...

There are other reasons for the food shortage besides fuel,some of them are minor,but a reason none the less.

It's wizardry to try to come up with exact proportions, but there is no question that debasement of the currency has caused a run on commodities as people try to protect their savings, since cash alone is a losing proposition. The artificially induced pressure on the food supply exacerbates the situation. And it takes time for the numbers to show up. Businesses drain their savings trying to stay competitive -- they can't raise prices until their competitors do. Then, once the barrier is broken, price increases appear in a rush. My own personal opinion is that we haven't seen the full effects of what has already been done yet. When food processors hunker down into survival mode, we are going to get slammed.


There is a town not far from me that has a farm,that farm supplies food and shelter for the homeless,all that is asked is that the people help with the crops and livestock.
Not far from there is a homeless shelter,free food,bed,some clothes..All that is asked is that you have a turn with the preparation of meals.

Which one do you think gets the most homeless people?Heh. I know which one I would gravitate to if I were in dire straits. I'd like to find some way to say thanks to that farmer. Taxation has destroyed the ability and the motive for most charitable activity in this, the most generous society in the history of mankind. Now, the government is seen as charitable while wealth producers like that farmer are forced to pay their fair share at gunpoint.

--97T--

To Mother Nature we are no more and no less significant than a swarm of cockroaches.

Mother Nature is significant to me (and humankind). Not the other way around. That's anthropomorphizing. Not having a means of consciousness, Mother Nature cannot care. I know, this is your point restated. But significance presupposes a consciousness to judge whether something matters or not, which is a value judgement. I make the distinction because the only significance in this context is to us, and it consists of the relation of the state of nature to our ability to survive and thrive. So it is only a human that can make the value judgement of humans being equivalent to cockroaches. It's a question of metaphysics, and I reject a metaphysics that places the value of inanimate objects or insects as superior or equal to my own life, or that imputes consciousness to an inanimate entity.

Naturally, anyone is free to judge differently, as long as their judgement doesn't result in them putting a gun to my belly.

Someday the sun will burn out, and then there will be no significance. Until then, while I am alive, I will consider my life and the lives of other humans as the standard of value.

I hope things are going well for you, Geof.

--97T--

I got to agree that population growth is unsustainable. I do not advocate killing people though and I honestly don't think Handle was saying so either. Population control can be managed by reducing the incentive to have children. China does it and has for a while.

I think the idea that mother nature will "naturaly" find a way to cope with the global expansion in population is perfectly true.

Oh, by the way. I never had children purely and totaly because I basically could not afford to do so. Don't get me wrong, I would have loved to have kids, it's a basic human instinct- my ex had a daughter who I loved as my own and my current girlfriend has a grown up son who's gonna be an electrician- it's great to pass my knowledge on to him and my nephews regularly ask me for help with their degree level maths- it's great to see the "ahh! that's how you do it" when you can explain something to them.

Perhaps I should have said "sod it" and had kids anyway, but there was just no way i could have afforded it... and I live in the UK and have a not bad job. How people on less of a wage do it I struggle to understand.

Perhaps mother nature started with folk like me who will not breed if they cannot support their children on their own...

I'm pretty sure that demographics show that the more successful people are, the less they procreate. The reasons for that are already the subject for a number of books.

But the joy we get from helping others to succeed is at odds with the impulse to reduce population. Why help them succeed to allow them to reproduce, if they are one of the 'too many'? We are wired to care for at least some other people in our lives. It becomes morally problematic when those who must be 'reduced' must always be some of 'those other people'.

China's incentives are pretty horrific, and result in infanticide and crippling discrimination against couples that have too many children. It deserves nothing but denunciation and opposition.


--97T--

I got to agree that population growth is unsustainable. I do not advocate killing people though and I honestly don't think Handle was saying so either. Population control can be managed by reducing the incentive to have children. China does it and has for a while......


China hasn't reduced the incentive, they have installed disincentives! Forced sterilization, confiscation of property, public floggings and executions. Babies taken by force from their mothers arms and left in huts on dirt floors to starve, succumb to vermin or exposure!

Not so much different from "willie wanker's" solution. To call it less than it is happens to be no different than tacit permission and participation. THIS IS MASS MURDER! A crime against humanity no different than Hitler's "solution"!

Many posts back I made an offer to nominate for a Darwin Award anyone willing to take the "exit" in support of population reduction.

There have been no takers, most notably by his absence is "willie-wanker"!

[QUOTE=NinerSevenTango;450061.....So it is only a human that can make the value judgement of humans being equivalent to cockroaches. It's a question of metaphysics, and I reject a metaphysics....--97T--[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I didn't know I was being metaphysical, that is a new one to add the the string of descriptors applied to me by different people. :)

Why help them succeed to allow them to reproduce.[Quote]

I think it's inbuilt into human nature to help others... basicaly because you beleive that they will help you or yours if needed. I do, however, recall that some humans and indeed primates do not help or reciprocate help- I think it was in New Scientist or Scintific America- they called it the "selfish gene". Basicaly, if I remember right, they rely on the group helping them, but do not give anything back which if unnoticed gives them an advantage in the long run. I'll have a look and see if I can find anything- it was quite interesting, I think the experiment involved monitoring groups of primates and their grooming habits and sociopaths or something.


[Quote]Many posts back I made an offer to nominate for a Darwin Award anyone willing to take the "exit" in support of population reduction.

Can I at least have a "Notable Mention" for although I've not topped meself, I have chosen not to breed? Now, something made me make that decision which goes against human nature and most of the animal kingdom's nature too... Gimme a Notable mention :)

...

I think it's inbuilt into human nature to help others... basicaly because you beleive that they will help you or yours if needed. I do, however, recall that some humans and indeed primates do not help or reciprocate help- I think it was in New Scientist or Scintific America- they called it the "selfish gene". Basicaly, if I remember right, they rely on the group helping them, but do not give anything back which if unnoticed gives them an advantage in the long run.

New Scientist, but save your time looking, this group is well represented in this discussion.

...Can I at least have a "Notable Mention" for although I've not topped meself, I have chosen not to breed? Now, something made me make that decision which goes against human nature and most of the animal kingdom's nature too... Gimme a Notable mention :)

No, the jury is still out on the "reproduction" issue! There is a subcommittee considering the effect of ulterior motives on eligibility. There is concern about not wanting to share with off spring (even one's own) and how that relates to the subject below!(wedge)(flame2)


.......they called it the "selfish gene".
:)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354677,00.html
world hunger is all about ethanol?

:rolleyes:

Ethanol? *perks* it's 2 minutes to home time for me on a Friday so I shall selflessly study the effects of ethanol on hunger in a few minutes when I hit the pub. Wonder if I can get a grant for it...

People are produced by a highly motivated but unskilled workforce.

If there are too many people, I would ask each of them to parade in front of you while you look them in the eye and say, "you die, you die; you the 100th one, you get to live".


In the case of handlewanker it would go more like this:

HW: Are you a battery expert?

1 of n: What do you mean?

HW: Can you engineer better batteries for electric cars?

1 of n: No.

HW: You die! Next...

Easy now all you cockroaches, there's only room on the soapbox for one at a time to vent your spleen, however soapboxes have been ordered so that you can all get in on the mass cockroach bashing act.

This will allow you to collectively agree with your childish outbursts, a typical reactionary childish manoeuvre when you can't get your own way, or someone disagrees with you.

For my part I have two children in my family, with ten years between them, and my father had three, two years between the first two and ten years between the last two, (do the sums), I being the eldest.

I was the sole wage earner in my family with my wife staying at home etc.

My mother and father both worked, my father a toolmaker and my mother a retail clothing store employee.

I went to Cristian Brothers College for my education, and one thing they taught you there was the sanctity of life, be it human animal or vegetable.

So you see, all you puffed up soapbox bible bashers with the very best of intentions, but with so very little to show for your achievements, the world is a very beautifull place, pity a bunch of top end primates got too far up themselves and climbed down from the trees to wreak havoc wherever the went.

I don't think I have ever suggested to your tiny festering minds that anyone should ideally get off this mortal coil prematurely, however I DID and still do clearly state that it would have been a solution to do things the way you lot have become accustomed to doing them, (what's so different about that?), and have a jolly good bust up amongst yourselves, which is to your delicate squemish way of thinking, throw a war and the end product would be more room for all etc, just doing the problem solving bit the way you've always done it!

I see on the Yahoo home page news that in the good ol' USof A the Duggar family, from way down in Arkansas have just "celebrated" their "EIGHTEENTH" holy helll, I kid thee not, eighteenth new arrival, and Jim Bob, buggger me dead, has announced proudly that he would be looking forward to many more, God willing!

Do I have to go on, words almost fail me, can't you cockroaches see reason?

The solution to your problems is to start at the beginning and PLAN your life, (very hard for most cockroaches to do), taking into account that the plan must be flexible, but nevertheless coherrent, otherwise you will be like ol' Jim Bob in Arkansas, taking out a mortgage on the family shack to get a few crumbs to put on the table at Christmas time, or Thanks giving whatever, all wrapped in last years cast off Christmas wrapping, heart warming but ludicrously pathetic.

People like Mariss, who bravely kiss their kids on the cheek with a fondness that only a father can feel, filled with the pride of parenthood when it's realised that they are only going to go "over there" and kick arses big time for oil, and he's looking for sympathy for his predicament?

I think if you examine your moral judgement you will find that, as hypocritical as you are, you still cannot see that you are just supporting the FACT that a military solution whereby some members of the cockroaches are going to come home in bodybags while at the same time feeling proud at having caused the same situation "over there".

I don't think a plot in Arlington cemetary is a fair exchange for a wholesome life expectancy, living life as "someone up there" intended, without causing grief to fellow cockroaches.

Perhaps it was the uniform with the shiny buttons that prompted it, or in the case of JH the medals, but at the end of the day I think it was really the braying of trumpets and the clink of all the medals on the old war horse's chests that impressed them.

What prompts you to decide that the taking of another fellow human's life is justified, and for OIL?

"Man who is born of woman has but a short time to live......." remember that and do the best with the time allocated to you.

Our most immediate problem is to create a future that our children and grandchildren can live in without having to continue with "arse kicking" over there somewhere else, so that the machine can rejuvenate itself and remain refreshed.

Moderation in all things is not a bad precept to follow, and taken to it's ultimate conclusion would solve all of your problems.
Ian.

Was that the sound of 200 monkeys at a keyboard??

...for the record, Australia sent in some 2000 troops with the invasion force into Iraq, and has at least 900 there now.

And....for the record....Australia has a 'Baby Bonus'...helping to curb over population by paying a $2300 bonus for having a kid.

Hi Guys, my job as a moderator here is to try and stop flamings as well as personal attacks etc. I am never sure when the line has been crossed, and at what point to step in.

We are all for freedom of speech and great debate, but we also need to be conscious of how we counter debate with an opponent.

All I am asking is that while the topic is emotive, can we take a moment to imaging how our text might be interpreted.

Strictly speaking we are not allowed to denigrate another individual, but we are allowed to refer to what an individual has said and counter argue that. In between there is a gray line. Please walk it carefully and thoughtfully.

...Strictly speaking we are not allowed to denigrate another individual,....

Benny where were you many posts back when jhowelb referrred to me with a comment that I was so full of it I stank.

Methinks you are not apply your standards completely evenly.

The kind moderator will please take note that my post has been edited to remove any vestige of personal interpretation.

With the understanding that when someone uses the term "you" and directs it at my nationality, it would seem reasonable to interpret as pretty personal?

In any case, glad to see someone is actually reading this dirt clod exchange!

Benny where were you many posts back when jhowelb referrred to me with a comment that I was so full of it I stank.

Methinks you are not apply your standards completely evenly.

Geof, I issued a general warning to no one in particular.
It is impossible to read every post that happens in this forum.
If there is something that is offensive ALWAYS press the report post link.

Methinks you could do that.

I see on the Yahoo home page news that in the good ol' USof A the Duggar family, from way down in Arkansas have just "celebrated" their "EIGHTEENTH" holy helll, I kid thee not, eighteenth new arrival, and Jim Bob, buggger me dead, has announced proudly that he would be looking forward to many more, God willing!

Do I have to go on, words almost fail me, can't you cockroaches see reason?

The solution to your problems is to start at the beginning and PLAN your life, (very hard for most cockroaches to do)......




Ian old chap, you are not seriously suggesting that the Dugger family is representative of the average American?

http://www.duggarfamily.com/index.html

Dyno, not at all, it was the way you'all looked up to their achievments instead of askance.

I was stunned by the husband's comments, but it does show you that there are some people out there, and I might add, "from the better educated and enlightened part of the world", that should know better.

It might seem that they are well off, and see no reason to heed the concern that a lot of eminent bodies are voicing as regards to over population.

Perhaps YOU could give YOUR views on the subject that I mentioned and tell us what your opinion is, or are you not going to rise to the bait and just sit on the fence like a good little Liberal, or is it a good ol' little Democrat, or perhaps a right good Republican, I don't know what difference is or what it would make, but come along old chap,let's have some viewpoint from you, where do you stand in this situation?

As for me, I like Australia, we had to increase our migrant intake because the home population wasn't increasing to any large degree, it's got that naieve sense of innocence that some people just grow fond of, and of course the people would bend over backwards to help out a mate, that's life, and if you think that's bad, it only reinforces my point of view that you lot have stuffed up bonza, and now the world is gonna screw ya buddy.

But where does this leave us as regards to the air/electric car debate thingy.

I can tell you now that as a retired engineer, that is a guy that drives the engine, (in UK parlance), as opposed to the guy that goes to Uni and gets a degree that enables him/her to tell others how to do it.

I fully support the notion that when all things are equal the simplest way is always the best.

I take you back a century, to 1910, when the Royal Navy held a review of it's mighty battlefleet, even Kaiser Wilhelm was there (and a Japanese admiral or two) seeing as how he was a direct relation of Queen victoria.

When the review was at a close it became apparent that the mighty fleet was only able to proceed at the rate of the slowest ship, due to the fact that they were powered by reciprocating triple and quadruple expansion steam engines, that were notoriusly able to break down and throw a piston out the side of the block if pressed too hard.

The then Lord Fischer, head of the admiralty, at the stroke of a pen, obsoleted the major part of the fleet and placed orders for a new and revolutionary type of battle ship, actually designed and formulated by an Italian designer, called The Dreadnought, which gave it's name to a class, and in itself became obsolete shortly after completing it's sea trials.

The rest is history, and for those that would like to read about the rise and history of the modern battleship it is documented in a book running to 268 pages called simply Dreadnought by Richard Hough published in UK by Patrick Stephens P/l circa 1964.

The fact is the Dreadnought was powered by steam turbines, which as most people know is just a set of angled blades on a rotor revolving in a closed drum with high pressure steam impinging on them at very high speed.

So the simplicity, relatively speaking, of the steam turbine gives you a power plant with just one moving part in it, as opposed to the myriad of bits and pieces of the "up and downers" that hark from the days of Trevithick, Stephenson, Murdock and co.

A turbine revolving at high speed is similar to an electric motor revolving at high speed, (just one moving part), and requires the same reduction drive to extract the torque necessary to drive the rear end.

When you try to make an air motor perform in the same way, you are up against the problem in steam engines of "exhausting at boiler pressure", suffered by the simple steam engine, unless you have a variable cut off and compound cylinders exhausting to a condenser that allows the waste steam to exhaust to a vacuum.

The practicallity of the situation is when you can deliver the required package to a customer, who does not or cares not how the wheels go round, as long as they do go round, whether or not it is by air or electricity or petrol.

The stage is set, the contenders are on their marks, who will win?

Who knows, when all it takes is some governing body to intervene with vested interests, then it's money for old rope, as the outcome is inevitable.

In that case you'd better have a crystal ball or someone on the inside that can "advise" you where to place your money.

When I was a lad, in the 50's, (in South Africa), ALL our public transport busses were electric, (trolly busses), powered by two overhead wires and single decker and double decker busses with two poles from the roof contacting the wires.

Today even our train system in Melbourne is powered by Electric overhead wire with diesel being used for interstate etc.

Whichever system has the best infrastructure does not mean it will supply the needs of the coming generations, it is the system that the governing body can extract revenue from and control the easiest that will be allowed to survive.

I cannot see the air motor being a winner, even though it has lots of bells and whistles, due to the fact that there are too many intermediate stages in the power storage production, and most importantly too many moving parts.

However if it was to be an air turbine motor, (picture a die grinder), that was developed to be really economical, then I would say that it has another chance, albeit a slim one.

To sum up, I don't think you can beat a photo array that directly charges a battery pack in the vehicle, and supplies enough power during the day for at least the daily useage, it just needs a photo panel big enough to supply the grunt in the worst conditions, much easier to plug into the wall socket where all that has been done somewhere else at a more efficient rate.
Ian.

Handlewanker,

Your input on the air motor looks impressive and it almost makes sense, except for a little fact about turbines that your overlooking.
There is a reason turbines aren't used for normal transportation.
They are inefficient for everyday driving.
Turbines are only efficient at high RPMs and do not respond well when asked to perform at a wide range of RPMs.
In short...The turbine is not the best choice in this application.
I don't think ship technology will help.

handlewanker post #2995:
The whole point I made some time back was this, WE'VE GOT TOO MANY PEOPLE FOLKS,
that means TOO MANY, do I make myself clear, or are you all so far up yourselves you can't see daylight?

handlewanker post #3024:
As for me, I like Australia, we had to increase our migrant intake because the home population wasn't increasing to any large degree,
Ian.

He doesn't mention or offer explanation for the $2300 baby bonus.

Australia is PAYING to increase the planet's population (estimated to surpass 6.66Billion today!), and on the reasonable assumption he votes.....
....that would make anyone who votes in Australia a hypocrite for saying we need to reduce the world's population while simultaneously paying to enlarge it.

It should be noted that Dugger is an individual, Australia is a nation.

.....He doesn't mention or offer explanation for the $2300 baby bonus......

You are tilting at windmills. A lot of countries promote procreation, either with direct payments for new borns, monthly baby bonuses up to a certain age, or tax deductions/credits.

This is part of the problem with our society/economic system, us old farts need a younger, working population, to pay into pension plans that we draw on (soon); the whole system is predicated on growth.

But growth in closed systems cannot continue endlessly, eventually the supply of energy and/or nutrients runs out and the population crashes. I made the point that if the population is not controlled there will be a horrendous die off some time in the future. Actually I am not alone in this opinion; get a copy of the April 5-12 New Scientist, the one with the thing about the collapse of civilization on the front cover. One of the authors of the article about this actually makes the comment that if humanity is not successful at solving the comingenergy/overpopulation crisis the alternative is too gruesome to contemplate. I think it will prove impossible to control population growth, and there will be mass starvation in the future, and just like on Easter Island, Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde, extensive cannibalism. Not a pleasant heritage for our, approximately five times great, grand children.

Hi Maza, yes I know what you mean.

In the 60's BRM tried a gas turbine F1 racer but it was a devil to control when decellarating into bends.

It would be very impractical to throttle a turbine up and down like a cars accelerator, but if the turbine maintained a constant speed and was connected to a seperate electric generator or hydraulic pump then the output can be controlled as required including reversing, which defeats the object of the exercise to have the motor stationary when at traffic lights.

That means the electric car is coming out a better option for useability all round.

To make it really viable and independent to the man in the street, you would have to have your own solar powered, wind powered, water powered, secret moonshine distillery producer for alcohol powered generator fuel, charging set with a battery storage capacity so that you would be off the grid supply and only topping up if the battery bank was overused.

I still like the idea of being able to simply plug into a wall socket when ever it was required for a quick top up when out shopping etc so that the battery bank in the car didn't become totally exhausted before recharging.

The technology is there, all it requires is the entrepeneurial input to make it universally viable.

I suppose, like the electronic industry the format will be long fought over untill one or the other died out like the VHS/BETA scenario, and most recently the HD/BLUERAY.

Untill then we've got a lot of petrol to burn , so we won't be seeing full scale electric car useage in our lifetime.
Ian.

You are tilting at windmills. A lot of countries promote procreation, either with direct payments for new borns, monthly baby bonuses up to a certain age, or tax deductions/credits.

This is part of the problem with our society/economic system, us old farts need a younger, working population, to pay into pension plans that we draw on (soon); the whole system is predicated on growth.

But growth in closed systems cannot continue endlessly, eventually the supply of energy and/or nutrients runs out and the population crashes. I made the point that if the population is not controlled there will be a horrendous die off some time in the future. Actually I am not alone in this opinion; get a copy of the April 5-12 New Scientist, the one with the thing about the collapse of civilization on the front cover. One of the authors of the article about this actually makes the comment that if humanity is not successful at solving the comingenergy/overpopulation crisis the alternative is too gruesome to contemplate. I think it will prove impossible to control population growth, and there will be mass starvation in the future, and just like on Easter Island, Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde, extensive cannibalism. Not a pleasant heritage for our, approximately five times great, grand children.

Not sure I understand "tilting at windmills"...new one on me...

But I do agree with you, and the closed system concept.

I'd like to have a Polyanna attitude towards our future as far as mass extinctions, with the idea that our kids can engineer solutions...but the reality is there are people out there who will simply take what they want, and while we're trying to find solutions to support our species, we need to defend ourselves as well.

Another problem with our particular closed system is that it's constantly in flux, and that in itself causes no end of strife.

Geof, you paint a very explicit picture.

I blanche at the bit on cannabalism, still it's been done.

It is my opinion that the human animal is the most wastefull being this planet has seen, bearing in mind that by burying deep in the ground and burning the dead we deny usefull sustenance to any flesh eating creature that is a bit partial to flesh and isn't too fussy where it comes from.

If this were to be taken to it's ultimate conclusion then the new pet food would be recycled human remains, after the bits and pieces have been removed for organ bank use.

I bet there's a few Chinese shaking their heads in amazement at the prolific child production that is justified by the simple phrase, "God willing", and I don't think it's God that's willing when a big family erupts on the scene.

My father in law had seven children in his family, but he came from Scotland, and as we all know there's nothing worn under the kilt there, everything's in perfect working order LOL.

OOPS, here we go again, I think I'll stay with the electric car, and hope it will soon work it's way down the food chain to the lower strata of consumption, who knows, maybe I can get a conversion kit to make my Mercedes run off of electricity.
Ian.

Don Quick shot was a Spanish knight, who attacked a windmill because he thought it was a devilish contraption, apparently after a few bevvies he got really riled up and stuck his lance into the sails on the said windmill.

All this was way back in the 1500's or so in Spain.
Ian.

Talking of windmills, back in 1975 I used to buy my wholemeal bread from a mill that ground the corn using a water wheel for it's power source.

So What you say, well this mill was named The great Mill at Priston and was recorded in the Doomesday book in 1066, that William the Conquorer used to assess the taxes to be levied on the population by way of their assets.

No power other than the accumulated water in the mill dam, fed from a small stream, was used to drive the waterwheel that turned the stones that ground the corn.

Now that's being environmentally friendly to say the least.
Ian.

Not sure I understand "tilting at windmills"...new one on me....

Don Quixote, do you not know your Spanish literature, or alternatively how to Google. :D

Courtesy of Wikipedia:

Tilting at windmills is an English idiom which means attacking imaginary enemies, or fighting otherwise-unwinable battles. The word “tilt,” here, comes from jousting.

This idiomatic phrase originated in the novel Don Quixote, and is often used today in reference to persistent engagement in a futile activity. At one point in the novel, Don Quixote fights windmills that he imagines to be giants. Quixote sees the windmill blades as the giant's arms, for instance. Here is the relevant portion of the novel:

Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."

"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.

"Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length."

Perhaps YOU could give YOUR views on the subject that I mentioned and tell us what your opinion is, or are you not going to rise to the bait and just sit on the fence like a good little Liberal, or is it a good ol' little Democrat, or perhaps a right good Republican, I don't know what difference is or what it would make, but come along old chap,let's have some viewpoint from you, where do you stand in this situation?

As for me, I like Australia, we had to increase our migrant intake because the home population wasn't increasing to any large degree,.


I dislike most politicians and cannot identify with either of the ruling parties. My thinking
seems to overlap most with the Libertarians, although they are treated as a fringe group,
almost like the Green Party. Democrats piss me off more than Republicans because they
vote for bills that show their miss-trust of the population more consistently. Dems
arrogantly believe they know what everyone needs and if the last law they signed into being
to control us causes a larger problem, they will create new laws to "fix" that.

My view on the world’s "population problem" are enigmatic and perhaps not very PC: I am
not far from my half century mark with no progeny to take my place. From my perspective,
it seems that the people who breed the most are the least able to support large broods.
Government handouts for single mothers doesn't help counter irresponsible behavior. It
seems the parasites breed faster than those they live off (not unlike multiplying politicians).
Perhaps these are the cockroaches you spoke of?

The Dems have been killing their own constituents: If it wasn’t for the Democrats undying
promotion of abortion on demand, they would have out-bred and completely out-voted the
Republicans a long time ago. On the other hand, laws that effectively promote single
motherhood need to be balanced out somehow…

That said, I support the right of anyone who can support a large family to have as many kids
as they want – just as I support their right to buy the largest SUV they can afford. For the
record, I drive a European "compact".

There are enough sensible people who only have one or two kids to balance out the Duggars, and
(I think) most of the US population growth comes from immigration. Americans are not crazy for
having too many kids, they are crazy for exporting too much engineering know-how and
manufacturing capacity. They are crazy for turning food into fuel, and crazier yet if they sign
us up for impossible limits on CO2 emissions. The dollar is falling and I see a big crash coming.
Carbon taxes will just add to the economic woes.

A turbine revolving at high speed is similar to an electric motor revolving at high speed, (just one moving part), and requires the same reduction drive to extract the torque necessary to drive the rear end.

I cannot see the air motor being a winner, even though it has lots of bells and whistles, due to the fact that there are too many intermediate stages in the power storage production, and most importantly too many moving parts.

However if it was to be an air turbine motor, (picture a die grinder), that was developed to be really economical, then I would say that it has another chance, albeit a slim one.



I admit a love for the infernal combustion engine, but I don't think this needs to cloud my objectivity when considering the alternatives. Ultimately, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In this case the pudding cannot be seen in isolation.

Turbine engines are used because of their great power to weight ratio despite their meager thermal efficiency - compression ratios are very low. Apart from in aircraft, turbines are also used in military applications like tanks and ships because they can use a variety of fuels - anything from kerosene, gasoline, diesel, alcohol or natural gas.

You think that an air turbine or vane motor is superior to a piston engine because the turbine or vane motor has fewer parts? Air turbines and vane motors produce low torque that has to be multiplied through a long geartrain or an inefficient worm drive before you could power a car. The "engine" may be less complicated, but the complete system is not.

The electric car may not need much gearing, but the grid needs a much greater capacity than it has now to cope with a sudden switch to electric cars, and to achieve what? Most of our electricity is generated from coal. Electric cars can't run without a power source any more than internal combustion powered cars can run without an appropriate fuel supply, and coal CAN be turned into gasoline and diesel. What is more feasible: Changing our energy supply infrastructure and all our vehicles, or just adding to the existing energy supply infrastructure?

If you can build a passenger car that will consistently run off solar energy, more power to you.

Turbine engines turn out to have miserable efficiency in small sizes. They only find applicability in aircraft use at sizes that are unwieldy for piston engines, and in this size range, a gearbox and prop has to be added anyway. And as for jets, the only reason they get used is because they can get the aircraft high enough to gain advantage from the thinner air. At low altitudes, mileage is bad, really bad.

A little investigation shows that the same problems apply with electrical generators. Below a certain size, you are better off with piston engines.

At least with a fuel-powered turbine, the compression takes place onboard. A compressed air powered turbine would be such an interesting waste of energy and resources that it might qualify for a tax grant to study it.

I would think a compressed air driven motor would face all the challenges of a hydrogen powered car without any of its advantages. Both require a compressed gas in high pressure tanks but at least hydrogen when burned releases chemical energy. Compressed air relies entirely on mechanical energy stored in compressing the gas. This energy is orders of magnitude less than what's released by burning a flammable gas. It only stands to reason; "Hey kids, why compress air to 5,000 PSI when we can compress hydrogen instead, burn it and get a whole lot more released energy! Same storage tank size but go 100 times further!" From an energy density viewpoint compressed hydrogen is a miserable energy source compared to gasoline, compressed air is pathetically abysmal.

Mariss

If you're going to use hydrogen for car use etc, you will need to be able to manufacture the gas on a sustainable basis, store it, transport it and distribute it on a very large scale, IE not crack it from a fossil fuel source even if it is a waste product, like the methane gas that the Bass Strait oil fields in Oz were burning off as waste, until somone cottoned onto the idea that it could be used for cars, now it's being exported too.

I personally would not want to have a hydrogen unit in any form as compared to the "user friendly" electric supply that is well catered for and only needs to be obtained from sources that are presently becoming available.

And that goes for fuel cell technology too.

K.I.S.S. is a phrase that most people pay lip service to and then get blinded by the trendy alternatives.

Park it, plug it in, pay for it. keeping it stupid simple, even my non technical minded daughter can handle that one.

I don't see the grid coming under stress as most of the supply will be catering for the expanding population level, (that is a fact, you can quote me on it), which means more electric power being produced as and when it's required.

You can get electricity from a square metre of solid rock face with solar cells, but you can't grow Ethanol producing crops there.

China has a lot of rocky ground not suitable for agriculture, so if they make the power we'll buy their goods paid for by the food we can grow without having to worry about Ethanol production. One hand washes the other, yes?

It is a fact that you humanoids will only fall back on the next available source of energy when the current source dries up or gets too dear to exploit, very forward thinking, when all it takes is to install the collector mechanisms for sustainable energy and you have free power forever, like picking Blackberries from a bush growing in the wild.

They say that the Sun, (what an original name for your gas giant), will burn out in a hundred thousand million years give or take a few, so there should be enough, presently going to waste, to cover the needs of the 45 billion mouths that "someone", (no names but follow my eyes), said this planet could with a bit of squeezing support, yeah, you wish, pigs are gonna fly first.

So for my part I would vote 100% for the adoption of the electric car as the most practical form of people mover, unless someone in the meantime harnesses all those pigs that are going to fly and gets Bacon to go, the middle eastern mob are going to miss out on that one due to their strange attitude to Pork in general.

The moral of the story is:- If you push it hard enough, anything can happen, not always in your best interests.
Ian.

......You can get electricity from a square metre of solid rock face with solar cells, but you can't grow Ethanol producing crops there.......Ian.

This is true, but at full sunlight the solar energy is about one kilowatt per square meter.

If by some miracle solar cell efficicency is doubled, the electrical energy you get out of your solar collector is about 300 watts.

And this is only during daytime when there are no clouds.

I thought this was an interesting artical
http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/solen.html
and
http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/solrad.html

I thought this was an interesting artical
http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/solen.html
and
http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/solrad.html

I read them both, and he sure throws big numbers around, but I was puzzled; here is a figure caption from the /solrad.html link


Figure 1. The distribution of the solar radiation. On average, each square metre of the upper regions of the atmosphere receives 342 watts of solar radiation [W/m2]. The atmosphere absorbs on average 67 W/m2 and reflects 77 W/m2. About 198 W/m2 reaches the Earth's surface, of which 168 W/m2 is absorbed and 30 W/m2 is reflected back to space. The total of the reflected radiation is 107 W/m2, or 31% of the incoming radiation.

The 342 watts per square meter did not agree with my memory so I went looking to see whether my memory was faulty and found this:

http://www.canren.gc.ca/tech_appl/index.asp?CaId=5&PgId=121

Available solar energy is often expressed in units of energy per time per unit area, such as watts per square metre (W/m2). The amount of energy available from the sun outside the Earth’s atmosphere is approximately 1367 W/m2; that’s nearly the same as a high power hair drier for every square meter of sunlight! Some of the solar energy is absorbed as it passes through the Earth’s atmosphere. As a result, on a clear day the amount of solar energy available at the Earth’s surface in the direction of the sun is typically 1000 W/m2. At any particular time, the available solar energy is primarily dependent upon how high the sun is in the sky and current cloud conditions.

So I am puzzled by Nielsens' figures.

You Huminiods,

Thats a good one Wanker.
We are surely blessed with the knowledge your species has bestowed upon us.
I suppose the earth is known as third rock.


LOL

The solar W/m2 averaged over the globe on an annual basis is generally between (if my memory serves me) between 342-365. That allows for clouds, night, bright sunny days, volcanoes, etc....

Above the atmosphere, over 1300, at the surface at noon on a cloudless day, ~1000.

One estimate gives a 24hr/day/yr planetary avg. value of about 4.2kwh/m2/day, or just about a barrel of oil over a years time.

...btw Geof, sorry to have missed the Quixote ref...too busy reading Italian and Chinese lit....Machiavelli & Sun Tzu...

Machiavelli & Sun Tsu .... both good reading.

Anyone else wanting to know about solar energy reaching the surface of the earth, just google insolation. That's with an "o". It is very low where I am at today.

Happy Weekend, everyone!

--97T--

The solar W/m2 averaged over the globe on an annual basis is generally between (if my memory serves me) between 342-365. That allows for clouds, night, bright sunny days, volcanoes, etc....

Ah! Averages. Like in: 'When you have one foot in a block of ice and one foot in a bucket of boiling water, on average you are comfortable.'

I thought this was an interesting artical
http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/solen.html
and
http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/solrad.html


If we succeed in capturing this wonderful energy that is currently just heating our planet, won't that result in global cooling? I guess not, if we quickly use rather than store that energy.

The current political goal is for stasis -- this means we need to radiate exactly as much heat back out into space as we receive from the sun. If we capture solar energy and use it for manufacturing, a portion that would get radiated back into space will be locked up chemically or mechanically. This will cause global cooling. Then, when the energy is finally released, it will cause global warming.

The only real solution is to deprive you of energy. Or at least tax the snot out of you for using any.

Ah! Averages. Like in: 'When you have one foot in a block of ice and one foot in a bucket of boiling water, on average you are comfortable.'

Interesting analogy. I guess then by that reasoning, if I made $12,000 in a month, and my expenses were $12,000, I'd be, on average, broke.

Whichever way you calculate it or see it, who passes up a sandwich at mealtimes when that might be the only type of food you're going to get for the rest of your life.

Here's an example of life's expectancies that the humanoids could apply when they calculate their comfort zones.

Back in 1973 in UK we (yes I'm from planet Mudball) had a coal miners strike that practically shut down the power stations across the country, so much so that we had a period of 4 hours of power on for domestic and commercial use each day, try heating a home with that. Lasted for quite a few weeks at the time.

OK if you've got gas heating? still requires a pump and boiler controls to pump the water round the system and oil fired was the same, with only the radiant heater in the lounge to get warm by (outside temps were about 2 deg C in November), pretty sad if you only have electric cooking and heating methods, and coal fires were as rare as rocking horse sh1t.

Some of the people on our housing estate resorted to rigging up a 12 volt lighting set using a car battery that we charged up when we had power on, just like back in 1945.

The point is, if there is going to be a reduction in supply, due, as I have pointed out before, to the over abundence of mouths to feed and supply with all the rubbish that humanoids consider necessary for existence, then you'd better get used to tightening the old belt a notch or two.

The figures noted by Dr Nielsen in the previous post not only show light at the end of the tunnel but a blinding ray of hope that all is not lost, oils aint the staff of life, and coal can be left in the ground.

It all comes down to vested interests, or who has the strongest influence when it comes to exercising political power.

With the best will in the world, all of the learned scientists can propose a revolutionary method to save your skins in the energy crisis, but unless you are prepared to change your political obedience strategy it will all be like farting against the wind.

Money talks, and you can buy a lot of control when you have control over the money, especially when the controls are for "your own benefit".

When you live in a Democratically free economy, that is the majority has absolute power over the minority, (instead of proportional rights), by as little as 1, you can tip the scales by manipulating the numbers to get the no 1 position, and if you don't think this hasn't/isn't being done, read up about JFK's father and his power links with the mafia that enabled a nobody to gain the presidency of the USA, the world almost trembled.

This means that you will be left with whatever is "suitable" for your own good as the powers that be see it, and that comes to the buck raking ability of the system that generates the bucks, and those that get rich from owning the buck producers, EG oil, coal, gas, ethanol, Nuclear fuels, arms for the military (to hold the population in control status etc so that they won't be tempted to consider an alternative form of political control) and various other power sources that generate large amounts of the necessary for those that are either in the right place at the right time or who know someone who knows how to get there.

Your system is corrupt, but that's not too bad if you get something worth while out of it, greasy political hands do have their uses, but when you have a viable alternative proposal that goes against the common edict, then that is when the alarm bells start to ring, midnight oil is burned and the mighty machine called Central Control goes into a state of nervousness, like a tom cat at a veterinary conference, and you have the situation that has the power to divert the mass thinking, guided by experts that they pay to provide the figures to their liking.

I'm sure that there are some very gifted and talented people out there that could charm the feathers off a ducks back without it knowing it, if you made it really worth their while.

As an example of past history, Adolph Hitler charmed a whole population to his way of thinking, but it took Joseph Goebbles to get them to accept it unconditionally.

There are Goebblers in your society that are just too willing to spread the word that they have been paid to sell, and though they are not on a street corner shouting from a soapbox, they neverthe less impress the hell out of some of you, which is all your Central Control needs.

Incidently, try going against the edicts of Central Control and you will soon be walking a thin line, shunned by all from left and right, eager to distance themselves from your heresy.

I strongly adhere to the thought that of all the energy sources, electric power is the best thing since sliced bread, but there are different ways to produce it, so why then do you humanoids not take advantage of a clean user friendly power source that in a couple of billion years, give or take a few, will go out like a dead candle.

Down in the land of OZ, where water is a precious commodity and you can wash your face in it without breaking out in a disease and drink it straight from the tap without getting Gyppo Gut Rot, the Central Control has a water iniative that subsidises the participents who install water tanks on their properties to collect rain water, and this isn't in outlying country areas but inner city and suburban communities.

I think there is also an initiative that subsidise anyone who wishes to install photo voltaic collecters on their roof tops, but I might be wrong on that, still it shows that there is a definite leaning towards self sufficiency.

I might yet get to see electric cars driving up and down the street.

BTW I've just bought an electric scooter, (looks like a small Vespa, folds up to go in the boot of the car, 24 volt), Yeah man, putting your money where your mouth is sounds about right, but I might add to calm the disbelievers, that it was an item that came up at a weekly auction of anything saleable that I go to, and it cost me $40.

Now if they get a small car that runs on electric power I might be tempted to place a bid.
Ian.

.....I think there is also an initiative that subsidise anyone who wishes to install photo voltaic collecters on their roof tops, but I might be wrong on that, still it shows that there is a definite leaning towards self sufficiency.....Ian.

Self sufficiency??? Using something that requires an exceeding complex manufacturing processes which is higly energy dependent. Photo voltaic collectors don't grow on trees. Well not the silicon based type.

Ol' Geof, I like your interpretation of "average", always thought it was the "best of the worst or the worst of the best", depending from where you are coming, but there's another, "one foot in the grave and the other on a bar of soap", called average life expectancy of a glue sniffer, BMX rider, rodeo rider, mission to Mars applicant, leaky boat to Australia illegal migrant etc.
Ian.

On the subject of solar collectors, there was a big surge in Uk in the 70's, probably still is, of DIY roof solar collectors for getting hot water.

They consisted of alluminium or copper tubing in a half round plastic gutter, contained in a glass topped box, that was lined with alluminium foil, shiny side up.

Various other combinations were used, such as alluminium piping paintad matt black in a box etc, all giving varying degrees of hot water, some at boiling point.

I don't think you can get more "exceedingly complex" than in a Nuclear power plant, and with it's potential to go AWOL is not to be considered "ideal" by any stretch of the imagination.

That Nuclear power can be generated, like coal power, oil power, wood power, wave power, wind power, the choice (if Central control alows you to choose) is yours.

The fact of the matter is, if you are expecting to walk along the beach and have a million dollars in small denomination bills of your local currency, float ashore just where you happen to be walking, chances are this is how you will view the energy situation.

What really will occur is the conversion rate that Central Control can apply to whatever system they give the nod to, in order to squeeze the last cent out of the user.

You humanoids will not be consulted by Central Control as to which system they think is best (for them).

This is a fact, when were you consulted in the past on ANY issue that affected your daily life style?

If you believe otherwise, you'll believe anything.

The gas giant you call The Sun, is already a nuclear power plant big time, yet the central Control think it wise to try and match it in output as a viable solution to their problems.

The infrastructure of any system is always costly to initiate but once it's up and running it can be maintained.

I see Nuclear energy as a tall ladder leaning against the wrong wall, the higher the top the longer the drop, and the ground below is very unforgiving, take Chernobyl et al as an example of the unthinkable.

You humanoids have your hands tied when it comes to choice, like pigs to the slaughter, like, "take that one or nothing", the choice is yours.

I challenge you all now, voice your opinion in open forum, state the power system of your choice and the reasons if any as to why.
It won't make any difference though, nobody is going to listen to you, Central Control will see to that.

I just had a phone call from a firm called HRV that offers heating and cooling 24/7 for as little as 85 cents per day, that's about $300 a year.
Their website is WWW.HRV.COM.AU
Ian.

Oh, Ian!! You should rush out and buy that right now!!

Free heating! Free cooling!!

I'll bet our friends in Canada will be nominating you for sainthood when they feel that toasty air comin' from the attic in a good solid Canadian winter snowstorm.

Since it's a "smart" system, it'll know automatically when to turn on and what to pump where...unlike people like me who turn the attic fan on during the summer, and use convection to move outside cool night air into the bottom of the house and push the warm air up and out.

With all the money you've saved with that electric Vespa, you could buy 3 HRVs!! Put 'em in series and triple your efficiency!!!

I have wondered is we spent the same money that we spend on wars, nuclear power, propping up coal fired stations etc, on building renewable energy collection stations, would we be out of pocket by much? After the initial setup expense, we would never need to wonder where our energy would come from again. There is huge savings in that too.

Sure each country has different sources available, and not all can exploit solar, but there is also wind, geothermal, and wave sources to also exploit.

The world is full of "No can do" people. I am glad that the little folk like the Wright brothers said yes we can. As a result we can fly hundreds of tons through the air. Even The wright brothers wouldn't have imagined the results of their experiments. Sure we are in the days of small beginnings, but if we start with what we can do today, who can imagine the results in 50 or 100 years from now.

These are good days, not doom and gloom days.

Collecting and storing energy is one major obstacle.
Hydro is easy, with gravity on your side. There's even some small-scale operations that use hydro electric power to pump water in times of low or no demand back up into the pond. Not 100% efficient, but it helps.

Combining wind and hydro is another way to enhance the storage for a pond type system.

Maybe one day someone will come up with a Peltier/Seebeck effect kluge that is actually efficient and maybe even cost effective. Waste heat has great potential.

Collecting and storing energy is one major obstacle.
We can heat our water at any time without needing to collect. This is a big start to energy saving. We dont have to have all the solutions in order to start. Just like we couldn't fly jumbo jets in the early days. We just need to run with what we know.
Industry can use the electricity during the day.No need for storage there.
Sure we might need off peak supplements, but industry uses more than domestic anyway.

Why are these global warming people getting an audience when a larger, real, measureable threat is upon us? I am speaking of the ever growing pool of non-productive members of our free society. Those on the dole are going to sink our ship for sure and the numbers are there for all to see. Just take the prison population for one, then the welfare and other programs. How about the burgeoning workforce of government workers, head-start, irs, and don't forget global warming, and on and on it goes. Why don't they model this?
In the age of the earth 100 years is just a blink of time and certainly hard to base projections on concerning climatic changes, but societal changes are very easy to make projections on. And we had better get busy on that! Enough of this other nonsense.

I challenge you all now, voice your opinion in open forum, state the power system of your choice and the reasons if any as to why.

Mine is solar voltaic.

I generate about 13 to 18 Kwh a day, up to 2,500 watts peak for a couple hrs a day. That, along with extensive insulation, double pane glass, ceiling fans in every room, thermal coating on the roof, a pellet stove and a fireplace... my heating/cooling cost is minimal. Temps range from 30 to 110 here, and we're comfortable year round for roughly a few dollars a month.



It won't make any difference though, nobody is going to listen to you...

Don't care. (nuts)

My pocket book hears me just fine. And that's what the bottom line is, right? :D

REKD, Drool drool, 13 - 18 KW, now that is really serious generating, what more do you need.

The electric car is upon us, maybe you can give us a peek at the system.

What area of cells do you have to get this power capacity?

Where are they placed, roof, ground, or on tiltable stands for seasonal adjustment?

Do you store the power in a battery bank or use it direct?

What's the voltage level of the array?

Last but not least, what's the approx cost of the set up?

Second last but not least, what's the life expectancy of the collectors?
Ian.

REKD, Drool drool, 13 - 18 KW, now that is really serious generating, what more do you need...Ian.

Wipe up the drool; you didn't read right.

13 to 18 kwh, that is kilowatt hours, with a peak output of 2500 watts

Wipe up the drool; you didn't read right.

13 to 18 kwh, that is kilowatt hours, with a peak output of 2500 watts

Correct.

The kilowatt hour, also written kilowatt-hour, (symbol kW·h, kW h or kWh) is a unit of energy. It is most commonly used to express amounts of energy delivered by electric utilities, and it appears on electric meters and bills in some countries.

The kilowatt hour is a measure of work, the watt is a measure of power. The amount of wattage times the amount of time is the amount of work done.

It is not used in the International System of Units (SI). The SI unit of energy is the joule (J), equal to one watt second. The kilowatt hour is commonly used, though, especially for measuring electric energy.

One watt hour is equivalent to 3,600 joules (1 J/s × 3600 s), thus a kilowatt hour is 3,600,000 joules or 3.6 megajoules, and a kilowatt refers to the specific rate at which the amount of joules is used in a second (also known as power). As such, a kilowatt equals the production or usage of 1,000 joules of energy per second (that is, a definitive rate), and a kilowatt hour is the specific amount of energy produced, transmitted, distributed, or consumed in a 3,600-second time period, which is 3,600,000 joules as mentioned above.

So the ability to generate 18 Kwh a day does not equal 18 Kw of power a day.

Confusion of watts and watt-hours

Power and energy are frequently confused in the general media. A watt is one 1 joule of energy per second. So watts multiplied by a period of time equals energy. For example, if a 100 watt light bulb is turned on for one hour, then an amount of energy is used corresponding to 100 watts of power being generated for a time period of one hour, i.e. 100 watts times one hour, i.e. 0.1 kilowatt-hour.

Since a joule as a quantity of energy does not have a readily imagined size to the layperson, the non-SI unit watt-hour, often in its multiples such the kilowatt-hour or higher prefixes, is frequently used as a unit of energy, especially by energy-supply companies (electricity and natural gas suppliers), which often quote charges by the kilowatt-hour. A kilowatt-hour is the amount of energy equivalent to a power of 1 kilowatt running for 1 hour:

(1 kW·h)(1000 W/kW)(3600 s/h) = 3,600,000 W·s = 3,600,000 J = 3.6 MJ.

To add to what Rekd said: 18kwh is 24 Horsepower for 1 hour, 240HP for 6 minutes, 2.4HP for 10 hours, etc. Use it any way you like. When it's gone, come back tomorrow for more.

Mariss

18kwh is about half the energy contained in one gallon of gasoline, or about as much food energy as a person would consume in a week.

Geof,

100W is the number I have always used to calculate the "power dissipation" of a human being. That meshes nicely with your calculation (100 Watts * 24 hrs * 7 days).

Mariss

18kwh is about half the energy contained in one gallon of gasoline, or about as much food energy as a person would consume in a week.

That would be a Canadian gallon or 4.5 liters compared to the American gallon of only 3.6 liters ,only 14.4 kwh ... we Canadians have bigger gallons, stronger beer and better hockey teams :) AND ... appreciate glowball warming more than anyone else

Geof,

100W is the number I have always used to calculate the "power dissipation" of a human being. That meshes nicely with your calculation (100 Watts * 24 hrs * 7 days).

Mariss

I think in airconditioning they use 150, my calculation was for a modest diet.

...... we Canadians have bigger gallons, stronger beer and better hockey teams :)...

I will leave hockey alone, agree with the gallon, but question the beer claim. I had a locally brewed concoction in the Parliament Bar of the Menger Hotel in San Antonio that was 8.5% alcohol, and served in a quart mug!

mmmmmm, that's my kind of beer:cheers:

This is a socially responsible drink as it reduces the CO2 footprint of the beverage.... two beers and your not allowed to drive.

Does this mean I can earn carbon credits by drinking stronger beer? Must do more research.

selflessly dedicated regards,

Gary

This is my first post here at CNC I would like to say hi to all.

It does look like we could be in for around ten years of global cooling. If this proves true would any of the GW believers change there tune?

Think about it, year after year of the global temp going down and millions and millions of people claiming they know better and we should ignore the fact that it is cooling.

The global temp went down .7 deg in the last 13 months. We have been in a multi year cooling trend and no one is talking about it. In fact I have seen reports from "scientist" showing in a vary complex way that even though it is cooling we should still call it warming.

I don't want to attack the belief system of the believers but if it is cooling then it is cooling.

I know short term temps mean little but most of the data used in the models ignore things like the medieval warming period or the fact that NASA misreported the average global temps for many years and just corrected itself this year.

Get back to me in five years after global cooling has caused world wide starvation in many places and hundred of thousand die.

Maybe that is why the new catch phrase is Climate Change. Global Warming is out.

I don't want to attack the belief system of the believers but if it is cooling then it is cooling.


That is exactly why Gore wants us to "act now" by slipping our collective necks into the UN's energy control noose, before it becomes as obvious as the emperor's shrunken wobbly bits that the threat of global warming is BS.

T.....It does look like we could be in for around ten years of global cooling. If this proves true would any of the GW believers change there tune?....

....I know short term temps mean little but most of the data used in the models ignore things like the medieval warming period......

Get back to me in five years after global cooling has caused world wide starvation in many places and hundred of thousand die.

The medieval warming period preceded what is now called the Little Ice Age. A period during which sunspot activity was anomalously low; the latter part of which has been termed the Maunder Minimum. If the Sun had unusually low sunspot activity then, it certainly had it on previous occasions, and it will have it again.

If you do much reading on archeology it is interesting to note that major civilizations seem to collapse on a time frame of about 1000 years (plus or minus something). If you have read anything about the ice cores taken from the Greenland Ice Cap and the Antarctic Ice Cap, you will have seen mention of a 1000 year (approximately) ripple in the temperature profile derived from the cores; a ripple that cannot be assigned to any cause and is often dismissed as an artifact of the ice formation from compressed snow layers.

Maybe the Sun goes into a very low cycle of sunspot activity every 1000 years (plus or minus something). Maybe Little Ice Ages occur every 1000 years (plus or minus something). Maybe this is what caused the demise of civilizations every 1000 years (plus or minus something). Maybe there is some credence in the idea that the potato, a good food source that can tolerate cold weather, compensated for the decline in wheat harvests, and protected European civilization from serious collapse during the most recent Little Ice Age. Maybe we are just entering the next prolonged period of anomalously low sunspot activity, i.e. entering another Little Ice Age. It is about 1000 years (plus or minus something) since the onset of the last one.

That is exactly why Gore wants us to "act now" by slipping our collective necks into the UN's energy control noose, before it becomes as obvious as the emperor's shrunken wobbly bits that the threat of global warming is BS.

And so do ALL THREE prexy candidates! We are SOOOO screwed!!

Check out the current sunspots image on the SOHO website. Dead quiet. That means it is likely to get colder. If we get a serious volcano eruption, it's going to get a LOT colder.

Check out the current sunspots image on the SOHO website. Dead quiet. ...

Or ask any friends who are Ham Radio operators. One guy who works for me is having a grand time making long distance contacts, he and the others in his club have never known it to be so good.

Just saw the article on the Yahoo news about windmills being planned for the USA big time by 2030.

All very well, but this means that they will be monsters and as such will not be within the realms of anything DIY can achieve.

This means that the production of electrics will still be in the hands of the Central Control, unless they are all privately owned and you take out shares in your own local private wirlybird, thus controling your own price structure, pity if your one is in still air while the others are turning.

To offset this you would have to spread your portfolio over all the wirlybirds, but isn't this what you are doing right now by being billed from the grid?

Nahh, you only rent the grid whereas you own part of the 'birds outright.

I can't see the Central control letting you have that much power in your hands, (pun intended).

I would have liked to see the research and development of photo cells that would be attached to each home, so that you would at least have a means to offset your power bills according to your individual demands, and by a device that is paid for once as opposed to "renting" a bit of the local power station for the term of your natural.

If you read the Nielsen report it is apparent that there is a huge potential just waiting to be tapped into, and this doesn't mention wind power.

BTW, re back a few posts, I have always related to KWh as a 1KW electric heater burning for one hour which is one Unit of electricity, and an 800 Watt electric motor is more or less 1HP.

Which means as my car engine is rated at 186 HP, then it is 148.8 KW approx?

Amp hours I can relate to, which means my 12 Volt car battery is rated at 480 amp/hrs, which means it will supply 480 amps for one hour or 1 amp for 480 hours etc.

So, Watts = Amps X Volts, and we have 12 volts X 480 amps = 5760 watts, or 5.76Kw, this means my battery is rated at 5.76KWh?

I'll have to go back a post or two to see how that relates to joules.
Ian.

.....BTW, re back a few posts, I have always related to KWh as a 1KW electric heater burning for one hour which is one Unit of electricity, and an 800 Watt electric motor is more or less 1HP.

(1)Which means as my car engine is rated at 186 HP, then it is 148.8 KW approx?

Amp hours I can relate to, which means my 12 Volt car battery is rated at 480 amp/hrs, which means it will supply 480 amps for one hour or 1 amp for 480 hours etc.

(2)So, Watts = Amps X Volts, and we have 12 volts X 480 amps = 5760 watts, or 5.76Kw, this means my battery is rated at 5.76KWh?

I'll have to go back a post or two to see how that relates to joules.
Ian.


(1) Yes. All the energy collected from the solar cells mentioned above is enough for a few minutes of driving.

(2) Yes. But when batteries are charged and discharged there are inefficiencies. The collected energy from above would be enough to charge two batteries so when you use it for your electric car you have two thirds of a few minutes of driving.

A joule is one watt flowing for one second, I beleive Mariss had this in his figures.

I would have liked to see the research and development of photo cells that would be attached to each home, so that you would at least have a means to offset your power bills according to your individual demands, and by a device that is paid for once as opposed to "renting" a bit of the local power station for the term of your natural.


I may have bad information, but PV solar power sufficient to make one independant of the grid will cost the average home owner $30,000 in the US. The panels only last 25 years, so in effect you have just paid your electric bill up front for the next 1/4 century and then you own a fancy ornament on your roof.

Unless you can store the energy from your PVs so you can use it at night you will still depend on the grid and have to pay the fees that apply.

I may have bad information, but PV solar power sufficient to make one independant of the grid will cost the average home owner $30,000 in the US. The panels only last 25 years, so in effect you have just paid your electric bill up front for the next 1/4 century and then you own a fancy ornament on your roof.

Unless you can store the energy from your PVs so you can use it at night you will still depend on the grid and have to pay the fees that apply.

I can't remember the details but..... I saw i on the Science channel the other day a light flexible film that outperforms current grid offerings by many times and can be shaped to roof (or other) contours so it does not need a "frame". Also capable of operation at a number of degrees from direct so rotators are not needed. If I see it again, I'll try to get additional info!

All us Liberal fanatics whined about Nuclear power back in the 70's without any thought towards the ramifications of a diminishing source of electrical power. Back to the Future I say. Start building modern nuclear power reactors now because as soon as battery technology really gets up to speed we will be driving electric vehicles. :rainfro:

Oh well...
http://www.rightsidenews.com/20080512926/global-warming/global-warming-and-cooling-the-reality.html

Best wishes,

Martin

Where I work we have a salesman that is all excited about wind and solar power. I asked him to get us a quote for a windmill system to run just ONE of our machines. I gave him the following specs:

480 Volt, 3 Phase
120 KVA, 50% Duty Cycle, On time 10 seconds
Operable for two shifts, weekdays, year-round

I tried to get him to bet me he couldn't find a company that would even quote it.

He couldn't. He tried to give me information on a windmill rated at 100 KW, "about a million dollars", he said, and mentioned that the city wouldn't allow us to put up a tower high enough either, but I told him it had to be able to run when the customer wants parts, not just when the wind is blowing. I suggested he look at batteries for storage and an inverter, and enough windmill capacity to charge those batteries. And heated space to keep them out of the cold weather. I reminded him what would happen if we told our customer they couldn't build cars this week because there was not enough wind. Well so far, none of the companies he wanted to buy stock in will return his calls.

I told him maybe he would have better luck with the solar cell companies. (Cough)

He has dropped the subject for now, anyway.

I guess we won't be crowing about using wind power on our web page anytime soon. Our peak demand when things get busy is around 1.5 megawatts.

Now making small scale windmills out of cnc-carved props and auto alternators is a fine hobby, and could be used for feeble lighting at the camp. But to make things, you need power, and a lot of it. Like I said in another post, if windmills were so great, why don't the windmill makers use their own windmills to make their own aluminum with? The answer is, aluminum is made out of electricity, huge amounts of it.

If we could make cheap solar cells and cheap batteries, we could cut power usage around the home. But we still couldn't run civilization on it.

--97T--

P.S. -- I go off-grid for a hobby, at the camp. The best lighting is from gasoline or propane lanterns. But you can't buy the good mantles for them any more, because some idiot noticed that they had the word "radioactive" on them. I went out and bought up all I could find when the announcement went out. I still have about 20 left, they'll probably last me the rest of my life unless I ever need to really depend on them.

.....Like I said in another post, if windmills were so great, why don't the windmill makers use their own windmills to make their own aluminum with? The answer is, aluminum is made out of electricity, huge amounts of it.....

On the topic of aluminum and lots of electricity years ago I wondered why a French company was seeming to take over aluminum production. Now I know why, about 70% of the way down this article:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/12/the-limits-to-nuclear-mccain-shouldn-t-try-to-follow-french-disaster.aspx

97T, your story about the salesman is interesting but not a good parallel.

Not many factories generate their own power, they get it from an off site source. How can you then compare having a wind mill at the factory. Obviously that wouldn't happen.

Sure there are obstacles in changing to renewable energy, but it must start somewhere, just like the Wright brothers did. Its not going to happen overnight, but we must start where we can and evolve from there.

..Not many factories generate their own power, they get it from an off site source. How can you then compare having a wind mill at the factory. Obviously that wouldn't happen.

Sure there are obstacles in changing to renewable energy, but it must start somewhere, just like the Wright brothers did. Its not going to happen overnight, but we must start where we can and evolve from there.

Your Wright brothers parallel is equally poor; they could not have done what they did without the concentrated energy source of gasoline. Air travel, on the scale it exists, would be impossible without petroleum products. (The Virgin guy and his biofuel source for jp4 notwithstanding.)

Factories do not generate their own power, but they could using petroleum products. I run a workshop with a 15kva diesel generator, I could not do it with solar or wind power without having an enormous battery bank.

Solar energy, wind energy, bio-energy, wave energy, hydro energy...combined, are not enough to replace the energy we currently use from fossil fuels. Nothing can replace the energy we use from fossil fuels at the rate we currently use it.

Not many factories generate their own power, they get it from an off site source. How can you then compare having a wind mill at the factory.

Whether or not the factory owns the windmill, someone has to pay for it. If the factory gets its power from the power company, the power company will charge the factory more to pay for the windmill. It is reasonable that if one factory uses all the power a windmill produces, then that factory should pay the bulk of the cost for the windmill. The difference is not unlike leasing a car or purchasing it; you still have to pay for it.

Sure there are obstacles in changing to renewable energy, but it must start somewhere, just like the Wright brothers did. Its not going to happen overnight, but we must start where we can and evolve from there.

Hello Donna. Are you in there?

Somebody, call an excorcist!

Your Wright brothers parallel is equally poor;
The wright bros is an example of creative evolution. In their day, a person would have been scoffed at for saying there would be a day that we could fly 100s of tons through the air. Similar to the scoffing that renewables could play a major part in the energy crisis.

Someone has to pay for it? Yeh sure. But someone has to pay for that wars we have, and constantly finding energy, etc.

Hello Donna. Are you in there?

Somebody, call an excorcist! I prefer to have a debate with ideas, suggestions,etc, rather than attempting to diminish another just because he differs in opinion. Bit bottom of the barrel isn't it?

97T, your story about the salesman is interesting but not a good parallel.

Thanks for your response, yneb.

Well, as far as that goes, I'll freely admit that I knew the answer before I challenged him to get one of the companies he wanted to buy stock in to quote one system to run one machine, so that he could advertise on our web page how green we are.

Windmills for electrical power generation make sense where they make sense, and that is where there is an honest return on the investment. In remote areas so far from the grid that it wouldn't pay to extend the grid (so your cost is going to be real high either way). Or on hilltops in constantly windy areas (but the budgets reported by wind farms are suspect because of hidden subsidies and expenses left out).

Like anything, windmills are more efficient when you scale them up. And you can get around the storage issue by having them augment power from standard sources (when the wind is blowing). But they will probably never compete honestly with the huge economy of scale brought by modern power plants. The problem with scaling them up is that you end up with huge towers, huge enough that local people decide they don't want them. And being that huge, and to get efficiency, means low RPM at the blades, so they have to have a transmission. The transmission makes noise, and neighbors complain about that, plus the transmission costs some percentage of the efficiency. And if there is ever a failure of pitch control in a high wind, the thing will self destruct in a most spectacular fashion. Which means they have to be located safely away from people's houses, etc. Being huge means they are hugely expensive to repair, too. You need serious equipment and seriously trained crews.

Here in Michigan, subsidies aren't enough, so idiot lawmakers are passing laws requiring a certain percentage of 'renewable' power. When enticement doesn't work, get out the gun. Problem is, the best wind conditions are on the shores of the Great Lakes. And it turns out the people who paid a premium for lakeshore property, especially to be able to live in quiet, placid places, are putting up some resistance. They don't want these towers that are visible for miles messing up their view, and they are passing local noise ordnances to stop them based on reports of the transmission whines from other existing installations.

As Handle intimated a few posts ago, 'big power', as in Big Brother, is going to make sure you have to buy from the connected people and that you can't go independent. The government will force neighbors to put up with these installations by requiring them; on the other hand, you would never be able to get a permit to put up a 100 foot or taller tower on your own property with swinging appendages that could seriously damage things if there is a control failure.

The problem with the technology goes beyond the fact that you can't get an honest life cycle cost / benefit analysis. Now, the companies that design, build, and install these things don't have to be efficient and live or die by their performance against competitors. They are now on the government teat with all the other tax pigs, and they are going to get paid whether they deliver quality or crap. That's why I proposed (and nobody listened) that they be required to make everything from raw materials using only power directly generated from their own technology. That'll give you an honest accounting of the viability. The problem with low density energy sources is that they are low density. It's cheating to use materials that take huge amounts of cheap, abundant fuel to create, and to count that in the cost equation. The real question on anything like this is how long it takes to get back the energy that went into producing it, including the energy (dollars) for everyone involved in the effort, plus land cost and maintenance.

It might seem that rising fuel costs will make anything that works off low density energy forces more competitive, but that's only if you ignore the fact that they start off behind the curve, literally. Higher fuel costs eventually result in higher prices for everything. Including the materials that take so much fuel to produce, and the cost of the workers to heat their homes and drive to work, and the cost of their cars and food, and so on. So while there may be an intersection where windmills are more economical than coal or oil or natural gas or falling water, the fact that the cost of making the windmill is dependent on those other sources pushes that intersection way out. By the time we reach it, the economy as we know it might not exist.

I'm not against alternative energy sources in any way. I just think that the research and investment should be voluntary, not forced. Adding force into the mix removes the incentive to be honest and guarantees that charlatans will live off the efforts of others. I still think that if we are ever reduced to living off the land, we might be able to light our huts at night for almost nothing if we have our own little metal shop and live next to a junkyard. We could take advantage of the almost-free energy and the almost-free products it gave us in a bygone era of freedom, to scrounge up alternators, batteries, bearings, wire, electronics components, light bulbs, and scrap metal to make small-scale wind generators and 12 volt lighting systems. For a good bit of labor, you could get the convenience of having light to read by for a few hours before bedtime. Once you got the little enterprise started, you could use one to charge a couple of batteries for a few days, and get a few minutes' welding out of them (deep cycle batteries weld really nicely). But until that happens, that kind of enterprise will only be an interesting hobby, because for now we have to keep up with the rat race and spend our time doing more productive things. Like sitting at a computer and typing long-winded, rambling dissertations, hehe.

That's my troll for the day. I hope your day goes well for you.

--97T--

Edit: It will take a generator like the one I described to our salesman just to heat treat the shafts, bearings, and gears for making a windmill generator. Let alone powering the machinery, making specialty steel, etc.

One of the few advantages to living in the post-industrial wasteland of the former automotive capital of the world lies in the fact that by virtue of it being the birthplace of the industrial exploitation of man and nature, there still exists the Henry Ford museum and Greenfield village, where you can see many examples of how this plundering of man and nature all got started.

Being especially interested in the history of technology, the study of which has been a pretty good substitute for a formal education by the state, I took advantage of the situation last year and spent a day at Greenfield village. It is a huge estate, originally built and donated by Henry Ford to preserve as much of the birth of modern history as he could buy up and relocate to the site. It really is amazing. Edison's lab is there, early sawmills, early metal shops, a coal-fired locomotive running a tram around the site, Model T rides, and too much other stuff to describe and too much stuff to see all of it in a single day.

Anyway, what I found particularly fascinating of course were the early sawmills and the early metal shops. The machine shop appeared to be capable of producing just about everything we make today. There is little difference between those excellent pieces and modern manually operated mills, lathes, drill presses, grinders, and such, except for the motive power. The power, as everyone is probably already aware, is transmitted through the shop by means of a shaft running the length of the shop. Leather belts running on pulleys of varying diameters bring power from the shaft to each machine.

The shaft is powered by a belt running to a separate room, the engine room. That's where the boiler is located. The boiler supplies steam to a huge steam engine, which turns the belt. It has to be in a separate room in case of a boiler explosion. Steam is also piped into the shop to run a forging hammer, which also looks a lot like modern ones.

To operate the steam engine, which I can't remember the horsepower of, but somewhere in the range of 20 to 50 horsepower, I think, required a constant input of fuel. If coal was not available, it took a team of men and a team of horses and a lot of nearby forest to feed it with firewood. Not something to undertake on a whim, because that firewood had to be seasoned.

Unfortunately, they recently quit operating the shop on steam and put in an electric motor. The reason they reluctantly made that decision was because of cost -- the cost of constantly replacing the boilers and keeping the thing safe enough to demonstrate to the public. Outside the building are half a dozen or so spent boilers laying around the lawn, most of them tubular and about 10 feet diameter and about 15 feet long. On inspection, the early examples were clearly made by blacksmiths (a Lost Art which could become the subject of another dissertation, ask me about a book I have on it).

The early sawmills were built on dams that channeled water to a wheel, where the energy was mechanically transmitted to a huge blade. (Edit: when I visited they weren't running because it was a dry year and there wasn't enough water in the river!) Two-story wooden buildings, the transmission was downstairs and the sawing business was upstairs at the top of the blade (about 10 ft diameter). Everything in there that was made of metal was made by blacksmithing, including the blade, which had steel tips hammer-welded onto the iron body (steel was made by a very laborious process and never wasted). Even bearings, drills, you name it. Very ingenious means was used to feed and guide the wood through the mill. The whole operation required a team of men and teams of horses.

Anyway, the point of all this is that what comes home to someone that thinks of things in terms of energy flow while seeing these excellent displays is that when men had to survive on low density energy sources during the bootstrap phase of our exploitation of the planet, any manufactured good was probably 100 times more expensive, because of the extreme lengths it took to concentrate that energy into a usable form. The multiplication upon multiplication of the effects on our standard of living because of this rape and pillage of the planet is something that most people almost have to take for granted today, just because there can be no conception of what it would take to survive without it, unless you really look for it and think about it. Consider the amount of time and capital accumulation required to start an enterprise like that. Consider the amount of land that had to be devoted to the enterprise, accounting for all of the men, all of the horses, all of the fuel. Consider the amount of ingenuity and intransigent adherence to good engineering principles required to design and build these things for any degree of longevity given the means available at the time. And consider the consequences of failure in any part of the reasoning for any part of the enterprise. Taking anything for granted was just not a luxury that could be afforded under such conditions. Especially, the freedom that made it possible.

This year, I'll visit the Henry Ford Museum, which has boatloads more early technology stuff, and again, more things than you can take in in a single day. Anyone who likes machines and technology, if you ever visit the area and get a chance to see them, this is a can't-miss opportunity.

I apologize for spamming two troll posts upon you all in a single day.

--97T--

...Similar to the scoffing that renewables could play a major part in the energy crisis...

I prefer to have a debate with ideas, suggestions,etc, rather than attempting to diminish another just because he differs in opinion. Bit bottom of the barrel isn't it?

I take exception to being described as bottom of the barrel, as I do not think I have attempted to diminish you.

You say you prefer to debate with ideas, etc., but all you are doing is saying 'surely we can .....'.

Give an example of a renewable energy source that can replace a major part of fossil fuel consumprtion. Somewher in this thread or another the figures were posted for bio-ethanol production and I took them and showed in the US making bio-ethanol from all the corn growing area would supply energy equivalent to 10% of US gas consumption, or something like that. And this is merely a replacement because about the same amount of energy is used in the production of the bio-ethanol.

So list your renewable sources, the magnitude of them, how much energy it takes to collect them.


EDIT:

Go down a few posts. It seems I irritated someone with this post and I have put up a clarification.

.....

I apologize for spamming two troll posts upon you all in a single day.

--97T--

I will forgive you, whether anyone else does or not. :D

I have visited similar museums in Enlgand, and yes when you comprehend what they did, how they did it, and the fundamental difference between then and now you realise what a difference abundant energy has made. And how far 'back' in all ways we would have to go to cut energy consumption significantly.

But the 'rape and pillage' of resources occurred before the tapping of the abundant energy. In the British Isles, at the beginning of the 1700s I think it was, trees were rapidly being depleted for the production of charcoal for iron smelting around the burgeoning industrial areas. The industrial revolution would have faltered due to the difficulty of producing and transporting enough charcoal from further away, but some bright spark came up with a steam engine design that made it possible to efficiently pump water out of deep coal mines.

I hate to repeat myself ad nauseum etc, but that which I have already rammed down your earthling's throats is the FACT that you have TOO many little darlings coming into your world and gobbling up the precious resources like a bunch of maggots in an apple barrel.

You will NEVER rectify your problems of supply while you have a constant drain on the end products, so overly SOLD by an industry that thrives on your constant desire to have that which you want, but don't need and that which you have but don't want anymore.

There is a philosophy of FRUGALITY which is practiced by many people today, and I refer to the AMERICA of the 30's as an example of when it was in full force, due to necessity.

Here is an example of yesterday/today scenario:-
My father NEVER owned a car, always went to work on a bike and later on in life by bus.

As kids, up to 16 years old, we never had bikes, TV set(s), holidays each year, only one radio in the house, and walked two miles to school alone, bought second hand books for the next school year.

Shoes were repaired until they fell apart and clothes were always repaired on a hand sowing machine, socks were always darned too.

We had our first refrigerator in 1948 etc etc etc.

This was not the mark of an impoverished society, but the normal daily living as it was in the 40's and 50's.

Today, my son has five cars, his wife is expecting a new BMW soon and his son (16) has just got his first car, a BMW, and they will soon be moving into their new house currently being built, and renting out the other two.

Are we millionaires? Naah, just working class carefull spenders, no credit cards.

Times they has a changed, and the world has changed too, but not fast enough to keep up with demand for all that new technology that the salespeople say we MUST have if we are to be considered sophisticated and modern.

Nothing is made to last, most goods are foreign imports and make do and mend is a forgotten craft, like packed lunches for school dinners.

The only time you humanoids will come down to earth is after you have gotten into another global conflict and eliminated a few bits of excess baggage that are definately not wanted on the voyage.

The fact that you have a few darlings in your brood is just a testimony to your loving but absolutely scatterbraind approach to reality, which means that you'd better address the problem as of NOW.

Your economy dictates that anything remotely approaching self sufficiency is doomed to failure, due to the fact that you are riding on top of an expanding bubble called consumerism, but the hard basket situation is you can't backtrack and cut down on consumer buying, because that will put a huge section of your hangers on at risk from job losses due to lack of consumer spending/buying.

It is a fact of your life that with every pay rise you get, the only people to benefit are the shopkeepers that hard sell their products to keep you on the boil for more wages so that you can buy more unwanted consumer products.

In the meantime all those slightly out of date/out of fashion consumer goods you had to have, but didn't need, must find a new home and it is the junk stores that recycle them for a very low percentage of their original cost.

All this adds up to a huge energy consumption that was funded by the consumer who for their sweat have very little to show for it when they shuffle off the coil.

You CAN become self sufficient, but not by today's standard of living or with the insatiable demands of the supply industry driving you to destruction.
Ian.

Frugality, conservation, etc. = Looking backwards, living in fear and pessimism
Using more energy, more resources = Moving forwards, an optimistic view of the future

The 'humanoid' line is remarkable in its progression from the 100 Watts of power we each have at our personal disposal (our muscles) to individually commanding a million Watts of power to do our bidding and in the near future it will be billions of Watts. All this began 40,000 years ago and is rapidly accelerating. A dog is a dog, a cat is a cat and both have remained unchanged for a million years, along with everything else that runs, creeps and walks this earth. Save for us 'humanoids'; we have a unique destiny.

Perhaps Whaker's outlook is Nature's reason for why we must age and die. At every turn he sees hopelessness, despair and an awful future. Nature is an optimist; the burned-out, backwards looking, spent and calcified thinking must be regularly replaced with fresh, unjaded and unweary youth. They see Nature's promise of what is possible and what can be.

Nature provided the the trees, oil, metals, water, soil and uranium. Her work in progress is us 'humanoids' which she made as well. Her grandest achievement was her Laws of Nature which governs us and all our interactions with what she has provided. There is nothing we can do that is unnatural except to turn our backs on our natural destiny. For that, Nature has a remedy as well.

Mariss

I take exception to being described as bottom of the barrel, as I do not think I have attempted to diminish you.
When a person changes, and combines a quote to mean something different, You know that they either cant read and comprehend, or they have some sort of attention deficit problem to try and make every thing about themselves.
At this stage I bow out of any further discussion with you, as I now realize I cant debate logically with you.

Nature provided the the trees, oil, metals, water, soil and uranium. Her work in progress is us 'humanoids' which she made as well. Her grandest achievement was her Laws of Nature which governs us and all our interactions with what she has provided. There is nothing we can do that is unnatural except to turn our backs on our natural destiny. For that, Nature has a remedy as well.
Surley (her (?)) grandest achievement was to give us free will to make choices, right or wrong. BTW (nature(?) gave us more than just uranium, we also have the sun that has sufficiently powered this earth since before man came along, wind, waves, a hot inner earth, gas, etc.

While we sit here hypothesizing there are Wright brothers doing great work to discover new things.
http://www.youtube.com/v/pXyJrFKwjrc&hl=en

.....At this stage I bow out of any further discussion with you, as I now realize I cant debate logically with you.....

You were not debating, logically or otherwise, all you do is reiterate 'surely we can....' but never give any example of how. I, and others, have posted numerous discussions/descriptions on the reasons why renewables cannot subsitute for fossil fuels at our current consumption rate. If you are so confident they can then give a logical rebuttal to these posts.

And if your diminish, and bottom of the barrel comments were not aimed at me why put it in a post in which you quote me?

You were not debating, logically or otherwise, all you do is reiterate 'surely we can....' but never give any example of how.?

ynneb is an idealist. You are insisting on realism, but ynneb sounds like a mar