It puts me in awe of the power of gasoline when you consider that the equivalent POWER flow through an ordinary filling station hose at the gas station when you fill up your car is measured in MEGAWATTS!!!
Mark
Right now it's not an even comparison. But I think you'll all agree we're closer to the end of reasonably priced gas than we are from the beginning. No matter how much you think is left it's definitely a finite resource. On the other hand there are all sorts of potential new sources of electricity. Many that are of limited practicality right now have potential to become more practical either because of technology improvements or just volume increase. Most are "green" and do not add to the carbon dioxide load. Like it or not the days of gasoline powered transportation are numbered.
Not sure exactly what you mean by the last sentence. But if you're saying that CO2 emission is not being treated as a pollutant, well I guess you better take that up with the Supreme Court and the EPA.
No, I think co2 is a problem. No matter what you call it. I'm saying that many of the new sources of electricity do not create more co2 and that's a good thing.
But more importantly I'm saying we can't just go on thinking that we're going to be able to get cheap gasoline forever. We're going to have to change something and electric appears to be the most viable.
On 2/15/2010 7:16 AM snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net spake thus:
This point can't be emphasized enough, as it's true that the pinhead media always seems to get this one wrong and leaves the mistaken impression that "green" electric cars run on pixie dust or some such.
Just last night I heard a local news report about recovering methane from landfills for use as fuel. While this is a good thing overall, the stupid reporter (or editor) got away with saying that this would reduce carbon dioxide emissions! Of course this is totally untrue: while the methane would be captured instead of simply venting to the atmosphere, the carbon dioxide would be released later when it was burned. All that's being done is delaying the release of the CO2. Sheesh; are we
*really* that much a nation of idiots?Now, you and I are on opposite sides of this debate in lots of ways concerning the overall viability of renewable energy, nuclear power, etc. But I agree 100% with you here. Such stupid oversights on the part of the media (and even on the part of some who promote green energy) can only set things back.
'Worse efficiency' but it could still cost less to the consumer. And not all electricity comes from coal.
daestrom
Nope. Just you.
Methane produces less CO2 per unit of energy produced than coal or gasoline.
So no one you know gets an electrical permit when adding a major circuit?
No.
On 2/16/2010 4:23 PM Bob F spake thus:
Totally beside the point; the news report said specifically that capturing the methane and burning it would mean that the carbon in the methane wouldn't be released into the atmosphere. The CO2 released when the methane is burned is most definitely a greenhouse gas. (Remember the formula from high school chemistry? CH4 + 02 --> CO2 + H20)
Try to read more carefully.
Reducing Carbon emissions is the LEAST important reason for implementing nuclear power.
Heh! CO2 is *NOT* being treated as a pollutant. By any agency of government. In any country.
The Supreme Court merely said that the EPA can regulate CO2 or just about anything else it feels like regulating. The EPA has not yet regulated CO2.
Is there anyone else you might suggest I "take it up with"?
The SUN is a finite resource!
Just yesterday:
"HOUSTON - ExxonMobil Corp. added two billion barrels of oil equivalent to its proved oil and gas reserves in 2009, or 133 per cent of its production for that year, the largest U.S. oil company said Tuesday..."
I agree. If you had asked the average New Yorker in 1910 what would transportation be like in a hundred years, with a population increase of five-fold, he'd have probably wondered a) Where would we get enough horses, and b) What would we do with all the horse shit.
I'm personally rooting for teleportation.
The only way the EPA can regulate CO2 or anything else is if it is indeed treated as a pollutant. The whole purpose of the lawsuit was whether the EPA in the Bush administration could refuse to consider CO2 a "pollutant" because it's naturally ocurring. That appears to be the losing argument that you are trying to make here, pretending it has not been decided otherwise.
Here's a Washington Post excerpt on the Supreme Court ruling with a direct quote from the ruling by Justice Stevens:
"The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration yesterday for refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, siding with environmentalists in the court's first examination of the phenomenon of global warming.
The court ruled 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by improperly declining to regulate new- vehicle emissions standards to control the pollutants that scientists say contribute to global warming.
"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. The agency "identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA's power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants," the opinion continued."
The court specifically ordered the EPA to make the determination if CO2 pollution was a problem, which they did. From the EPA:
The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment period, identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat.
=93This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations.
And internationally, nothing could be further from the truth that CO2 is not being treated as a pollutant. Just because it's naturally ocurring doesn't mean that spewing out too much of it isn't harmful. And again, note that I said it was decided by the Supreme Court and the EPA that CO2 was a pollutant, not that I'm convinced global warming is caused by CO2 emissions.
- Hide quoted text -
You get permit for electrical work from the local municipality. They usually charge a fee and send out an inspector to make sure the work is done according to code. What does any of that have to do with your claim that the power company routinely gets notified when you add a large residential load like a hot tub? Please provide a cite for that. I'd also welcome hearing from anyone else here that notified the power company that they were adding a hot tub or similar load. You notify the power company when you need an upgrade in the service capacity to the house.
Try to write more carefully then.
"this would reduce carbon dioxide emissions" is what you said. And it clearly will, by reducing the production of the equivalent power burning coal. Less CO2 is produced with the methane.
Just as I said. The power utility told me they need to know about major additions. They said if I added something large, and they did not know, I could be responsible for damage to the transformer. I assumed that they generally got the info from the permit process, since a permit is required for any electrical addition.
Complete nonsense. As long as your usage is within your service capabilities you have no obligation to inform anyone of added loads. In some jurisdictions you're required to (though few do) pull a permit for electrical work, though in reality this is for *tax* purposes. The power company doesn't know anything about it. You assume government is looking out for something other than themselves. Laughable.
The permits are the city, the power utility is the city. What's laughable?
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Co2 (carbon dioxide) or whatever ..........................
Under the right (or is that wrong?) circumstances even oxygen, essential for human life can be toxic!
And if one tries to live on good food, but of one kind only, health can be affected, even to death!.
It's all about the right amounts in the right measures and right places. Correct?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.