Catsailor.com

politics, petroleum and climate

Posted By: fin.

politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 12:08 PM

You can tell work's a little slow right now.

I was lamenting to myself about how angry and negative sounding the global warming thread got, so I figured. . . tack! Try a new direction.

These are things I would like to see attempted. And attempted without more government regulation and increased tax dollars for the average consumer.

1. More regenerative braking systems on large, fuel hungry vehicles. The truck that picks up my garbage is really big! In normal operation it accelerates at full throttle for 50 feet and then slams on the brakes. Surely a regenerative brake system would pay for itself, particularly when you think in terms of a whole fleet of these monsters. Same thing goes for any vehicle that operates in stop and go fashion i. e. UPS and mail trucks, school and city buses. Sure it's expensive, but so is fuel for these vehicles.

2. Reduced rush hour traffic. I work three days a week, twelve hour shifts. That reduces my commute by 40%! Think about it for a minute. How much fuel would that save if the 3/12 work week was the norm? And for me, it is a major quality of life issue. I hate sitting in traffic!! It won't work for everyone but, for most of us it could, and the potential savings is enormous.

3. Establishment of an "alternative" energy utility. Seventeen States, I think, offer tax incentives for private home owners to put solar panels on their roofs. I think it is up to $50,000 in New Jersey!

Florida is not one of them. And the power companies are not very receptive either. So, why not give them a little competition? Yes, the State would have to authorize a new utility, but it could be funded like any other utility. You sell bonds to the private sector to finance it. Then, strip mall developers and others, could retrofit or include solar power in their initial developement.

Florida also has a lot of citrus trees. A blight called "citrus canker" has wiped out, by one estimate, 17,000 acres of productive grove and nurseries. Why not encourage the citrus industry to get into "wind farms"? Again, with private sector funding, the tax payer is not burdened, and I believe day-one profitability can be achieved.

Thanks for tuning in, I think I'll have some breakfast and go for a walk.
Posted By: _flatlander_

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 01:07 PM

Quote
2. Reduced rush hour traffic. I work three days a week, twelve hour shifts. That reduces my commute by 40%! Think about it for a minute. How much fuel would that save if the 3/12 work week was the norm? And for me, it is a major quality of life issue. I hate sitting in traffic!! It won't work for everyone but, for most of us it could, and the potential savings is enormous.


Ever so incredibly slowly the 4/10 week has crept in to construction, even though ten hour days (at least in this industry) are proven to be more productive. The kicker here is the weather, 4/10's work for an indoor job. In making up for, or catching up from, rain/ice/snow days it will never be the norm. A shame too, construction workers love to drive their big trucks, hauling only themselves, a tool box and lunch pail back and forth to work.

Speaking of snarling traffic, construction workers have succeeded over the last 20 years in moving normal working hours back from 8 to 4:30, 7:30 to 4, and now 7 to 3:30 to avoid traffic.

Pete,
Just curious...how many times have you been called in on a day off for a meeting?
Posted By: Mary

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 01:21 PM

Just a curiosity question about wind generators. Do all windmills have a maximum windspeed at which they are still efficient, and if the wind gets over a certain level do they self-destruct? I mean, they can only spin so fast; right? Sort of like a hull speed for a boat in the water.
Is there a way to feather them into the wind at some point? Could a tornado or a hurricane wipe out a whole wind field?
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 01:29 PM

Pete, I agree completely but I don't think Joe Sixpack is going to go along with it. I look to Europe, where they have been "in business" a lot longer than our young country. You know that they shut down most of the place for the entire month of August, for their summer vacation, but also because most of their (much older) buildings don't have air conditioning. They use much more public transportation than we do, they drive much smaller cars than we do, and there is almost no such thing over there as a "pickup truck".

So how did they get so far ahead of us when it comes to public transportation and fuel efficient cars? TAXES. They pay nearly 100% tax on every gallon (I'm sorry, I should say Liter) of gas. Until our we Americans "Feel the Pain" like they have been feeling for many years now, I don't see us moving to their system, although we do see smaller cars and even hybrids being sold, finally. And what brought that about? PAIN at the pump.

So, I think the first step is for America to levy a 100% tax on fuels. Then watch how quickly industry and the consumers jump on the Green bandwagon!

Oh, after the hurricanes of 2004, I called BP Solar, to try to order some solar panels for my home. They said they are "Sold Out". I asked where all the solar panels were going and they said, "New Jersy, because of the 70% tax refund for installing solar panels!" So there you go, Tax incentives DO work!

And, I did some research on Wind Generators, the suppliers I talked to say Florida is a very light air state, they said you need an AVERAGE of 14 knots of wind to make them efficient and we only have 5-8 in Florida. Still, you could cover North Dakota with them and sell the electricity nation wide.
Posted By: Clayton

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 01:32 PM

The wind generators have built in safeties that will feather the blades at certain wind speeds to keep them together. Of course Prof. Wouter will chime in and call me an uneducated dumb-butt and spout the technical aspects of the wind generators and why I'm wrong... but I'm not... <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Ya'll have a nice day!

Clayton
Posted By: MauganN20

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 01:40 PM

Quote
So, I think the first step is for America to levy a 100% tax on fuels. Then watch how quickly industry and the consumers jump on the Green bandwagon!


Should be:

Quote
So, I think the first step is for America to levy a 100% tax on fuels. Then watch how quickly industry and the consumers vote out the Green bandwagon and put pro-tax-break politicians in power!


For truth.
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 01:42 PM

Quote
. . .Just curious...how many times have you been called in on a day off for a meeting?


"That is the nonsense up with which I will not put!" - Winston Churchill.

He was talking about something else, but it is apropos. I don't do meetings! Once the mortgage was retired, I just started saying no!

It used to happen a lot, and I hated it!
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 01:57 PM

Quote
Quote
So, I think the first step is for America to levy a 100% tax on fuels. Then watch how quickly industry and the consumers jump on the Green bandwagon!


!

Should be:

Quote
So, I think the first step is for America to levy a 100% tax on fuels. Then watch how quickly industry and the consumers vote out the Green bandwagon and put pro-tax-break politicians in power!


For truth.


Maugan, hell just froze over! I agree with you on something! I don't disagree with Tim philosophically, but practically speaking it pr'lly wouldn't work.

Anybody 'member the "Boston Tea Party"! That had a rather different ending than anyone expected
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 02:33 PM

Well that's the problem. There just are not too many people out there willing to vote for a politician who runs on a Tax INCREASE! So obviously they don't run on that! We did elect Al Gore, who won the popular vote but didn't win the Electoral College. So, who will we elect in 2008 and what is his (or her) possition on alternative fuels??
Posted By: _flatlander_

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 02:37 PM

Wind turbines, generally located near existing high voltage transmission lines, are meeting continued opposition from the Tree Huggers in Kansas, specifically in the Flint Hills which is some prime (windy) location. As every square inch of earth is an ecosystem in its on right, and turbines pose no threat, the Huggers only arguements against is they'd break up the "view".

What is so majestic about boringly endless miles of rolling hills? How will an 80 meter tall tower with 88 meter diameter rotors spaced every 1/2 mile deter from the "view"? IMO they will break up the monotamy. Each tower is capable of producing 2.1 to 2.5 Megawatts of power and have been used for years in CA. I don't understand why the central plains aren't riddled with them already...must be political.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 02:44 PM

The other argument against them I have heard is, "They kill birds..." Well, if a bird is that stupid, it needs to be killed. Cars and trucks on our highways kill thousands of birds every day, yet no tree hugger is trying to stop cars from going down the road! The real issue is "free energy" vs. paying some oil or coal burning utility for it. You see, there is no money in free anything. (by that I mean no money going to politicians through lobbiests)
Posted By: hobie1616

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 03:17 PM

We got our first wind farm on Maui last year. They're arrayed along a ridge that can be seen from the south part of the island. After they were finished a number of letters were printed in the local paper screaming about the visual pollution. The ridge is made up of volcanic rock, brown grass and mangy looking trees. Visual pollution indeed!

One letter writer demand they be painted to blend into the dead grass. The reason they're painted white is to keep from killing the birds.

The only downside I can see is they only generate power when the wind blows so the power company can't rely on them. That means they still have to buy and maintain diesel generators. Luckily we have consistant winds for most of the year.
Posted By: Jake

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 03:18 PM

Actually, the US Government is providing a large subsidy for wind powered generators. There is a GE turbine plant down the road and they've converted over to making HUGE wind powered generators. They stage the main fiberglass body housings in the main parking lot - they're roughly 18 feet tall by 20 by about 30 feet. I'm not sure if there is big as some I've seen in Germany though. The plant has reverted to this because of the subsidy - otherwise it wouldn't be financially possible for them to build them and it mostly saved a large portion of the facility because apparently the demand for gas powered turbines has declined (backup generators).
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 03:27 PM

Quote
Wind turbines, generally located near existing high voltage transmission lines, are meeting continued opposition from the Tree Huggers in Kansas, specifically in the Flint Hills which is some prime (windy) location. As every square inch of earth is an ecosystem in its on right, and turbines pose no threat, the Huggers only arguements against is they'd break up the "view".

What is so majestic about boringly endless miles of rolling hills? How will an 80 meter tall tower with 88 meter diameter rotors spaced every 1/2 mile deter from the "view"? IMO they will break up the monotamy. Each tower is capable of producing 2.1 to 2.5 Megawatts of power and have been used for years in CA. I don't understand why the central plains aren't riddled with them already...must be political.


The electricity bill hasn't hit the "$3 a gallon mark" or whatever it is for a household.

Fellas, hugging trees is fun! The first thing I did when I had this house built was to plant an oak tree. They are also nice to look at and lots of birds and squirrels like them. Plus, they're great for cooking dead pigs!

Okay, so how 'bout photo voltaics. Lots of flat roofs in America's strip malls. And, if they are wired into the electrical grid they are another source of income for businesses.
Posted By: hobie1616

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 03:39 PM

Quote
Okay, so how 'bout photo voltaics. Lots of flat roofs in America's strip malls. And, if they are wired into the electrical grid they are another source of income for businesses.

The Return On Investment (ROI) is still pretty bad. I looked into a 6KW system last year. The break even point was about 15 years. And, the silicon slowly degrades and would have to be replaced after 15 years.

The good news is more silicon manufacturers are coming on line, R&D is developing cheaper, more efficient silicon, and there are more government programs to reduce the price.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 04:16 PM

Pete, and all, here are some web sites I found last year while researching alternative energy (Solar and Wind) for my kid's science fair projects.

http://www.ases.org/
http://www.eere.energy.gov/
http://www.solartoday.org
http://www.ongrid.net/
http://www.awea.org/projects/
http://www.uni-solar.com/index.asp

That should keep you busy! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

What I found out after many days of research was that at today's oil prices, oil is still the cheapest way to produce electricity. That is why I said we will need a 100% TAX on oil use to get us off oil and to develop other forms of energy. Once the -other- industry is up and running,the cost to produce energy using wind/solar will of course come down. But until it is cheaper to use solar/wind than oil, I don't see a whole lot of people lining up to buy it.

Don't get me wrong, I am fully in support of developing solar and wind vs. more oil use, but we (all of you) are not the "Average" American. Being tuned in to sailing as you are, you are much more educated about what wind and sun can do. The average Jet Ski rider can't begin to figure it out.
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 04:26 PM

Tim, you wouldn't have to INCREASE the tax on fuel, just drop the subsidies given by the gub-ment to the fuel producers. This will boost the at-pump price to about $3.75 per US Gal (87 octane) and about $4.00 for 93 octane.

But cut subsidies? Someone already mentioned hell freezing over....

And with the destruction of FL citrus, (canker and the new one, greening) expect juice prices to get higher because the stores think they can pull it off... Nurseries should replant the citrus, as its good for reducing CO2, improving groundwater, habitat for wildlife, and better than development (which is where most of it is ending up).

Agriculture is the oldest industry (Adam tended to the garden before Eve even showed up - but that's another discussion), and is critically dependent on environmental stewardship for its very existence. So, in effect, farmers were the first environmentalists.

I agree that we're not windy enough to successfully run wind farms, but we should look forward to a blended approach (coal, petrol, gas, solar, nuke, etc.) to lower dependence on any one fuel source, as well as increase dependability

Are you saying that even if solar panels are "the right thing to do" you won't put them up because no one is giving you a discount? Is it "right" only when it's cheap?

What about hydro-generators that work off the Gulf Stream? What is that, about a 4 kt average current?
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 04:35 PM

Mr. Stank, I did enquire what it would take to convert my house to completely "off grid" solar. The answer was about $45,000 in solar panels, plus instalation, etc. The break even, given my $600/mo. electric bill was about 80 months, and then the solar panels would have to be replaced shortly there after. But I have seriously considered it. The one thing I could not get an answer for from the Solar Panel people was, at what wind speed do my solar panels fly off my roof? Before the 3 hurricanes, I wouldn't have even worried about it, but now...well, I doubt if they would survive 16 hours of 120 mph wind. But then I thought, hey, I'll mount them on removeable brackets, take them off before the storm hits, and mount up my big butt Wind Generator for the storm!

But when I asked the local building code people about that, they said Wind Generators are forbiden by code. Might hurt the birds...

Here's a thought. I ride my bike 10-20 miles a day, when I'm home. How about if I bring the bike indoors, hook it up to an alternator and that to my electrical panel. Then ride my bike in front of the TV for an hour or two, and sell my hard earned electricity back to the Utility Co.?! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

And that Gulf Stream Hydro Generator of yours? You might hurt the fish! But dumping all that polution into the ocean? That's ok I guess.

OK, here's one other idea I had, someone with some real Nuke Engineering schooling tell me why it won't work:

Build a bunch of Nuke Plants, 200 feet UNDER GROUND. That way, if there were ever a massive problem, you just fill in the hole. I mean, they test real nukes underground all the time, right?
Posted By: _flatlander_

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 04:39 PM

Remember the oil emargo and then the tax credits given by the Carter administration? Hell, I was a local chapter member of the Solar Energy Society. We were doing infiltration testing, jamming every possible crack with foam, blowing insulation eveywhere, installing steel siding, double and triple pane windows, 2x6 exterior walls with interior barriers, heat pumps, solar, log and earth contact homes were all the rage.

A great deal of awareness and research occured then which developed quite a head of steam then oops...administration change, no more tax credit... back to incredibly inefficient western framing.(must be political)
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 04:45 PM

It was entirely political. You will remember that Ronny Reagan took over after Carter. One of the first things he un-did was to repeal the gas mileage standards Carter had set in place back in 1976. By now, if they were left in place, we should all be getting at least 40 mpg. in every car produced. The big auto manufactures and the oil companies didn't like that. So here we are, 30 years later, getting 20 mpg, or only 10 on a F350 dualie-diesle. Seen all the Mom's in Hummers in the school pickup lines? Brilliant.
Posted By: H17cat

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 04:46 PM

We watched the wind farm on Maui start construction last year. The first 25 are now in operation, and do run most of the time. They are well up on the mountain, and do not obstruct the view. Good installation from my point of view.
Posted By: Robi

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 04:46 PM

Tim you pay $600 a month in electric bills?
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 04:52 PM

Robi, in the winter when the temps get below 50 at night, I pay $750/mo. to run the heat. In the summer when the temps are above 90, I also pay $750/mo. to run the air. In the spring and fall, when it's nice and I don't need the air or heat, I pay at least $400-500 mo. Remember, I have 4 women in my house, they take long hot baths or showers, sometimes several in a day. And with 4 kids, the washer and dryer never stop running. The house is fully electric, no gas or oil. Also, the house was built in 1962, when electricity was about a nickle a KW, so it has no insulation and most of the back wall, facing the lake, is glass. Single pane sliding door type glass. So when it's 40 outside, it's 40 inside, the (electric) heater never stops running.

Here's the funny part. Florida is "The Sunshine State" yet it has no real solar power program!
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 04:53 PM

Tim, that's "MAJOR STANK", thank you very much <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I think that going off-grid will never be economically feasable, because of the huge economy of scale the power company is using. It is, by far, the cheapest source of power for the resident.

I also think the power companies are working to be the most efficient (in cost and production), as that leads to greater profit.

So, it ends up back in the consumer's lap. Reduce consumption and everyone benefits - you pay less, and the power company generates less waste.

LED lights instead of incandescent. Better home insulation. Heat pumps, etc.

Having the ability to be off-grid works for us in the hurricane belt, because we may end up off-grid for a while if a storm hits.

Some of us have lived off-grid, and I would say that of those that have, their lifestyles adjusted to be more efficient, and demand less energy.

What happened once we returned to the grid? Consumption (and waste) increased. What happened?
Posted By: hobienick

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 04:53 PM

I think you will find the cost of solar panels will be improving in the near future. Even though solar has been around for about 40 years, it is still an immature industry. Not until recently has it started to take off. There are some interesting advances being made right now. Oh yeah, I work at BP Solar and yes, most of our product goes to states with govronment subsidies for alternative energy. I hope Maryland passes thier bill to join those that already have the subsidies.
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 04:59 PM

I did read that they've been able to design a solar cell that can convert larger amounts of the IR spectrum into electricity. When will we see full-spectrum cells available? That should increase efficiency logarithmically.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 05:04 PM

On the Orange grove thing, as you know, I am surrounded by Orange groves and my neighbors are in the citrus industry. I asked about the canker and greening. One guy said because the land prices have skyrocketed in the past 3 years, it makes no sense for him to re-plant, but rather to sell it to a developer. That's why you will see far fewer Orange groves and lots more homes here in central Florida next year. He also said the growers are having a hard time finding workers to pick the fruit, seems the crackdown on illegal ailiens is having an effect.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 05:08 PM

Nick, how long before we can walk into every Home Depot in the country and buy some BP Solar Panels? What is the hold up? Is it the raw materials or the manufacturing, or both? Seems to me if they got the manufacturing end of it up to speed, the prices would come down.
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 05:10 PM

Yeah, it's the same here. Labor is tight, but coming back because construction is slowing down. That, and the next generation growers are saying "F that, I'll take the money and go make millions designing websites (hah)"

So which is better for the environment - houses or trees?

I don't blame them for selling one bit, just hate to see it go that way....

Of course, if your trees are destroyed, you could replant the grove to be set up for mechanical harvesting....
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 05:15 PM

Yeah, I feel the same. The problem with re-planting is, you have to buldoze the grove and leave it empty for TWO YEARS before they will let you replant, to be sure the disease is gone. That's why they are selling the land. They can't afford to just sit and do nothing for two years and the developers are going crazy, buying everything.
Posted By: H17cat

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 05:16 PM

Tim, perhaps you should buy some of those "Carbon Offsets" from Al Gore, to help him pay his huge energy bill?
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 05:43 PM

Quote
Tim, you wouldn't have to INCREASE the tax on fuel, just drop the subsidies given by the gub-ment to the fuel producers. This will boost the at-pump price to about $3.75 per US Gal (87 octane) and about $4.00 for 93 octane.

But cut subsidies? Someone already mentioned hell freezing over....

And with the destruction of FL citrus, (canker and the new one, greening) expect juice prices to get higher because the stores think they can pull it off... Nurseries should replant the citrus, as its good for reducing CO2, improving groundwater, habitat for wildlife, and better than development (which is where most of it is ending up).

Agriculture is the oldest industry (Adam tended to the garden before Eve even showed up - but that's another discussion), and is critically dependent on environmental stewardship for its very existence. So, in effect, farmers were the first environmentalists.

I agree that we're not windy enough to successfully run wind farms, but we should look forward to a blended approach (coal, petrol, gas, solar, nuke, etc.) to lower dependence on any one fuel source, as well as increase dependability

Are you saying that even if solar panels are "the right thing to do" you won't put them up because no one is giving you a discount? Is it "right" only when it's cheap?

What about hydro-generators that work off the Gulf Stream? What is that, about a 4 kt average current?


A couple of points.

The Florida citrus industry is questionable agriculture practice.

It is a monoculture, meaning that when one "bug" is a problem it affects the entire industry. The mediterranean fruit fly, burrowing nematode and canker are potential threats to the entire industry.

It requires a very long lead time to attain profitablility. It is, afterall, a kind of tree farming.

Lastly, it is a type of hydroponic farming. As such it requires almost constant fertilization and irrigation, as well as pest control.

Couple that with high labor costs and foreign competition. Florida citrus needs to be looking elsewhere. If not wind then solar.

From Tim's example, it looks like a 15 year break even propostion. Except that the "grove" owner wouldn't have a $600/month electricity bill for each 5,000 square feet. There should be a small, day one profit for each unit of production. Multiply that times 17,000 acres and it is a significant profit. Particularly if given favorable tax treatment.

If you believe that the Iraq war and its cost in blood and treasure is in any way attributabled to dependance on foreign oil, then solar investment becomes a no brainer. Even at current levels of efficiency.

All that is really lacking is the political will to make it happen.


So if all of you driving gas guzzlers will put "solar power" bumper stickers on your big iron, all will be right with the world!!

[1 acre = 43,560 square feet. If 5,000 square feet of solar panels will produce $600 worth of electricity a month. Then 1 acre will produce (43,560/5000=8.712x$600= $5,227.2/month.) Surely you can make a living off those numbers.]
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 05:52 PM

And as far as the wind thing, in Flordia, the "experts" I talked to about wind said Florida just wasn't windy enough. But all winter we get some great wind from the cold fronts, and all summer we get a sea breeze on Both coasts, so I think it would work much better than the Experts from California say it would. It's been blowing 15-20 for a week now! I think I'll go sailing! (that in itself is using Wind Power, right? I mean, I could be on a jet ski...)
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 06:08 PM

Quote
. . . I mean, I could be on a jet ski...)


You!? I don't think so!
Posted By: waynemarlow

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 07:40 PM

Something that all so often gets forgotten in the great green debate is the cost to the planet of creating the wind tubines or the glass panels in the first place and then trying to dispose of them when they no longer work.

Take the Toyota Prius, one of the favoured green vehicles here in Europe. If you take into account the actual cost of the vehicle in building it and then disposing the cadmium batteries (which are lasting for far less time than first thought), then its far dirtier to the planet than many a gas guzzler.

Me I'm for lots and lots of bio diesel, we can grow it, harvest it and still be less harmful overall than the wind turbines and its totally recyclible. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: I20RI

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 08:21 PM

Wind/Solar/biodiesel all need to be a part of the equation, but if we are actually seriously about doing anything quickly enough to actually make a difference there is only one answer and you're not gonna like it - NUCLEAR POWER - We all need to get over three mile island here. The good news is we can buy up all the old russian nukes that osama is trying to get and burn it up and put the waste somewhere WE control. Seriously, nuclear is the only effective solution in the near term. If something terrible happens, a couple of tens of thousands of people may die, but modern reactors are extremely safe. When was the last nuclear incident, oh yeah North Korea tested a bomb while we were bravely tied down somewhere that has more oil for us to kill ourselvs with. If we dont deal with climate change a couple of billion people will be affected hundreds of millions dying. It is painfully obvious what needs to be done - Nuclear energy as a stepping stone to a hydrogen economy run on renewables with the ultimate goal being fusion. Why arent I in charge?
Posted By: _flatlander_

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 08:40 PM

Currently, the initial online costs of a wind farm is approximately 20% higher than a coal fired plant. But after building there's no feeding the monster, no mining or transportation of coal and associated upkeep, or pollution. Wonder how long those turbines crank before they need a rebuild?

Something like 35 states (including FL, but not KS or MO) have adopted net-metering policies. Interesting that most are limited to 10 kW output?
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 08:59 PM

Quote
Wind/Solar/biodiesel all need to be a part of the equation, but if we are actually seriously about doing anything quickly enough to actually make a difference there is only one answer and you're not gonna like it - NUCLEAR POWER - We all need to get over three mile island here. The good news is we can buy up all the old russian nukes that osama is trying to get and burn it up and put the waste somewhere WE control. Seriously, nuclear is the only effective solution in the near term. If something terrible happens, a couple of tens of thousands of people may die, but modern reactors are extremely safe. When was the last nuclear incident, oh yeah North Korea tested a bomb while we were bravely tied down somewhere that has more oil for us to kill ourselvs with. If we dont deal with climate change a couple of billion people will be affected hundreds of millions dying. It is painfully obvious what needs to be done - Nuclear energy as a stepping stone to a hydrogen economy run on renewables with the ultimate goal being fusion. Why arent I in charge?


Boy are you gonna get it!!! You used the big "N" in public! How un pc can you get! Even if you are right.
Posted By: hobie1616

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 09:20 PM

Even the Sierra Club is starting to use the "N" word.
Posted By: C2 Mike

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 09:28 PM

Quote
Currently, the initial online costs of a wind farm is approximately 20% higher than a coal fired plant. But after building there's no feeding the monster, no mining or transportation of coal and associated upkeep, or pollution. Wonder how long those turbines crank before they need a rebuild?

Something like 35 states (including FL, but not KS or MO) have adopted net-metering policies. Interesting that most are limited to 10 kW output?


I'm sure the study has been done. Does anybody know what the cost per KW/hour is from a wind farm compared to coal fired compared to nuclear etc? This needs to include payback and finance costs of the capital equipment and of course the input costs (such as coal) plus maintenance.

Tiger Mike
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 09:43 PM

I20RI, I agree and like I asked above, why not build the Nuke Plants underground? They test Nuke bombs underground. So if there is ever an accident like TMI, no big deal, fill in the hole and dig another one. I mean they even store the spent rods underground, right? And I think France has quite a few nukes, I don't hear too much -bad- about them.
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 10:11 PM

I don't think you'd wanna do it in Florida because of the aquafirs and limestone substrate. Not NIMBY, just not a good idea here.

Why do Nukes have to be so big? Couldn't you build small manageable ones and link them together on the same site. I remember reading somewhere that there are research reactors no bigger than a bowling ball. True or no?
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 10:14 PM

The do have smaller ones that power the Navy's ships and Subs, so I guess they could put one in every small town in America. They wouldn't have to dig such a big hole then! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> The problem then is how do you dispose of the waste, because nobody wants to be the truck driver, all the way to New Mexico! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 10:27 PM

Quote
The do have smaller ones that power the Navy's ships and Subs, so I guess they could put one in every small town in America. They wouldn't have to dig such a big hole then! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> The problem then is how do you dispose of the waste, because nobody wants to be the truck driver, all the way to New Mexico! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />


Now I'm breakin' out the NIMBY! Actually, the military has some pretty big installations. Ft. Bliss, Texas. Ft. Sill Oklahoma, the Avon Park bombing range. I was thinking places like that, rather than downtown Cleveland.

Where is Three Mile Island exactly?
Posted By: Mary

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/26/07 11:08 PM

What's a NIMBY?
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/27/07 12:07 AM

Mary, NIMBY is an acronymn for Not In My Back Yard. It means; I'm fine with it, as long as you build it somewhere else!

And Three Mile Island is an island in a river near Middletown, Pensylvania. You can see it on Google Earth.
Posted By: Karl_Brogger

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/27/07 02:39 AM

Quote
Ever so incredibly slowly the 4/10 week has crept in to construction, even though ten hour days (at least in this industry) are proven to be more productive.


I miss working 40 hr weeks. I've been working 7/12 for too long. My shop is at home, (or my home is at the shop), so that saves on the fuel.... Except the 600+ miles a week running to job sites, and picking up supplies.
Posted By: Karl_Brogger

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/27/07 02:58 AM

Sorry I jumped in before reading the whole thread. I briefly, semi-looked into buying a windmill, a large one. The college in my home town put one up two summers ago with a cost of 1.1 mil. I looked at it purely as an investment opportunity being it has a 10 year return. But that is if you are the one using the electricity, vs just selling it back to the utility company. So it sorta relative, you need a really big electric bill to justify fronting that kind of capital to make the numbers work. As far as killing birds that is more of a problem with the older generation windmills, the smaller ones you see spinning really fast. I think the newer ones max out around 45 rpm... I think. I'm sure it varies on size, been a while since I checked into it. New generation ones are fairly quiet without too much of the WHOOSH as the blades turn. And when it is really really windy they shut em down. They just feather the props and turn them into the wind. I just know that had I actually gone forward with something like that, it would have been the least windy year on record. Like the first month I had my first boat. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Total guess here, but I would think that nuclear would be the cheapest, safest, cleanest, and efficient way to make electricity. OK the radioactive thing sucks but it is managable. I have a cousin that is a nuclear clean up tech. He's a project manager of some sort that does the clean up at nuclear sites. He told me that three mile island was blown out of proportion, that there wasn't any real danger. Had the proper steps not been taken like they had then, yes there would have been issues. Chernobyl, I mean come on, if anyone can screw something up in biblical proportions its the Russians. What year did three mile island incident happen? Has technology made it safer? Other than multihulls, and champagne its probably the only thing france has gotten right.
Posted By: PTP

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/27/07 04:06 AM

Quote
The do have smaller ones that power the Navy's ships and Subs, so I guess they could put one in every small town in America. They wouldn't have to dig such a big hole then! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> The problem then is how do you dispose of the waste, because nobody wants to be the truck driver, all the way to New Mexico! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />


Nuclear is clearly the way to go these days. In fact, lets all pool our money and we could buy a big ship with a decent sized nuclear reactor and we can go around to all the places that have power outages and hook into the grid and sell the electricity! I would rather have a nuc reactor in my back yard than a coal fired plant. The newer designs have passive safety mechanisms that rely on nothing more complicated than gravity when the [censored] hits the fan.
Posted By: H17cat

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/27/07 05:44 AM

Quote
Quote
The do have smaller ones that power the Navy's ships and Subs, so I guess they could put one in every small town in America. They wouldn't have to dig such a big hole then! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> The problem then is how do you dispose of the waste, because nobody wants to be the truck driver, all the way to New Mexico! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />


Nuclear is clearly the way to go these days. In fact, lets all pool our money and we could buy a big ship with a decent sized nuclear reactor and we can go around to all the places that have power outages and hook into the grid and sell the electricity! I would rather have a nuc reactor in my back yard than a coal fired plant. The newer designs have passive safety mechanisms that rely on nothing more complicated than gravity when the [censored] hits the fan.


Not as far fetched as it may seem. Years ago when a storm took out the power on the south end of Kauai, the Navy came to the rescue. Plugged a ship into the grid, and provided power. Not sure if it was a Nuke.
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/27/07 09:47 AM

Didn't they pull an aircraft carrier into N.Y. harbor after 9/11, to provide power to the cleanup site?

Nuclear is still scarey to me. But it may be the only thing between us and a new dark age so I quess we need to get it right.

Turkey Point is a nuclear plant in South Florida that no one ever hears about, because nothing ever goes wrong. The last thing I heard was that it is nearing the end of its usful life and will have to be replaced. That and Castro was planning to bomb it at one time.
Posted By: Mike Hill

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/27/07 02:20 PM

Ask and you shall receive.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6913415/

This is a story about a proposed Nuclear plant for a small town in Alaska.

It's a very interesting idea with some big security concerns.

Mike Hill
Posted By: hobie1616

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/27/07 04:36 PM

Quote
Years ago when a storm took out the power on the south end of Kauai, the Navy came to the rescue. Plugged a ship into the grid, and provided power. Not sure if it was a Nuke.

Caleb,

It didn't quite work out that way. The Navy did come in but the hurricane had wiped out the grid so the power didn't get very far.
Posted By: hobienick

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/27/07 04:44 PM

The main holdup for supply all home depots across the country is state tax incentives. As many of us know the initial installation cost is pretty high. So, it makes better business sense to sell to markets where we can move product faster. The demand is there for solar. I was brought on board to help increase our factory's output. I can't give you any more specifics as solar is a very competetive industry. If you want to see solar panels in your local Home Depots talk to you state legislature to have them implement tax incentives or the like for alternative energy.

If it makes you feel and better even I don't get a discount.
Posted By: hobienick

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/27/07 04:53 PM

There is also one in Seabrook, NH. I lived 45 minutes form there for two years before I evven knew it was there. That was because of the security concern after 9/11. I have no problems with nuclear power, but I am a fan of being independant of the power company. The section of the grid I'm on now is awful. Last year any time the wind blew over 30 kts the power went out. Plus the power company decided to jack up my rates 150% (may only 100%, but still...) over the next few years. It would be nice to not have to worry about that stuff anymore. And no, I do not have a problem doing my own maintainence.
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/27/07 08:18 PM

I recall some research on sodium nuclear reactors which operated at far greater efficiency and generated almost no waste. There were serious engineering issues to overcome (corrosive issues when moisture hit the molten sodium), but I would think that in the 30 years since their initial experiments that they would have figure these out.

And Pete's comments regarding citrus are valid, although I would be comfortable saying those general drawbacks are prevalent in any crop (wheat, corn, sugar, etc.).

But I don't know what point you were making about that. Should we stop growing food in large parcels by people trained for a specific crop and return to subsistence farming? I know of no agricultural area that doesn't suffer from each and every point you outlined.

Or should we just buy our food from other areas (or countries) that have cheaper labor?

I am wary of the danger of competition between energy production and food production. It can only end badly...

Could Florida land be used more efficiently? Perhaps. How much CO2 and other waste is generated by the production of solar panels? Is this offset by the energy generation over the recommended lifespan of the product?

Not saying citrus is better, but the 30 year effective (productive) life of a tree generates a good bit of food, and during the same period, removes a good chunk of CO2 from the atmosphere. Don't know how much CO2 the 125# per acre of N fertilizer produces, but I would think it is offset for the most part.


I wish to hear more on this catsailing/farming site. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/27/07 10:51 PM

Jay, I think you've hit on something here. What about sail powered farm tractors??! Kind of like those Blow carts but as a tractor.

Or how about electric tractors. And what about putting wind generators in the farm fields, and still grow crops beneath them, cultivated by electric tractors, charged by the same wind generators. Two birds with one stone.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/27/07 10:55 PM

Hey Hobinick, I grew up in Hampton, NH. While I was in High School they were building that Seabrook Nuke Plant. Because of the TMI accident the second reactor never came on line, and the company that owned it nearly went bankrupt with all the delays. To survive they had to sell off the electricity to New York, Conn. and even Quebeck I think. NH ended up with only about 10% of the output!
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/28/07 01:07 AM

Quote
. . .I don't know what point you were making about that. Should we stop growing food in large parcels by people trained for a specific crop and return to subsistence farming? I know of no agricultural area that doesn't suffer from each and every point you outlined.


My point is: trees take a long time to reach maturity and citrus is not a staple crop. Solar "farming" can become profitable much more quickly. It's just a better business plan.

Corn, wheat, soybeans, melons and most vegetable crops are annuals. In fact, corn is a "heavy feeder" and depletes soil quickly. Soy beans are a legume and actually enrich soil. That kind of crop rotation has been sound agronomic practice for decades, probably for centuries.

When you invest in citrus it is a decades long committment.
Posted By: Karl_Brogger

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/28/07 01:58 AM

The only problem with solar is if the sun isn't shining, you aren't getting any power. Geo thermal is quite successfull in Iceland. Enough to grow fruit commercially in greenhouses there. Newer solar panels work pretty good now even in cloudy conditions, but then you still rely on batteries at night. Potential problems with having a huge bank of batteries sitting in your basement. LED lights have gotten affordable. I've considered when I build a new house to do them through out. The draw is next to nothing compared to a mono-filiment bulb. If everyone could afford to switch over to a low voltage system like that what would that save us in energy across the country?
Posted By: Jake

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/28/07 02:21 AM

Quote
Or should we just buy our food from other areas (or countries) that have cheaper labor?


No, just cheaper property.
Posted By: Karl_Brogger

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/28/07 02:32 AM

The U.S. provides the rest of the planet with grain.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/28/07 11:18 AM

The technology is already here. All we need is new legislation to "outlaw" the old technology, and end it's production. Much like the leaded gasoline was outlawed in favor of No-lead gasoline, and catalytic converters, etc. were all legislated into production nation wide, we need similar laws to get rid of the old, inefficient technology and bring the new stuff into the mainstream. Where do we get those laws? Be careful who you vote for.
Posted By: davidtilley

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/28/07 03:42 PM

I wouldnt tout the US catalytic legislation as a success. To reduce Nox, the peak combustion temperature was reduced by adding gasoline. (richer mix) To get rid of the hydrocarbons, air pumps added air so that the excess gasoline would be burnt in the catalytic converter. This could only increase the total carbon dioxide emmision (the emmisions were on a % basis- go figure) and reduce power and efficiency, encouraging bigger engines, and the truck loophole led to the SUV craze.
Europe on the other hand, had expensive gas: they drove smaller, more efficient cars that even without emmision laws (South Africa) didn't produce the sheer weight of nasties per person per mile travelled.
I cannot understand how people in the face of overwhelming evidence of goverment inefficiency, want the gov to fix things in complicated ways.
To get the government to do anything. you have to pay for it in taxes. Then these taxes pay for their collection, the comittees to decide, the incentive program to get the public to buy in, and the actual change (paid for with the "change" left over) About this time the gov policy changes, and the private sector that rallied behind the movement gets left out in the cold and pulls their capital. (Ethanol - Brazil is/was getting taxed about 80% import duty on ethanol to the US) If the gov left it alone, we would have been substituting more foreign oil with Brazillian ethanol (preferable) and if the gov was not circuitously supporting foreign oil imports and domestic refining, our gas would have been costing a lot, like everyone elses, and other energy sources would be gaining a foothold.
(and domestic ethanol production such as it was, would not have been able to compete with Brazilian ethanol, but then Domestic sugar would not have needed to be protected as much, because the ethanol market from cane would have stabilized the world sugar glut)
Right after they (try) fix our education system, we'll ask them to fix our health system. Scary.
Do you get a realistic tax break for sending your kid to private school? Do you get a tax break by not having kids, and therefore not burdening the gov with their education etc? Do you get a tax break by earning more money than others, and therefore being less likely to burden the social services, and obviously paying more taxes anyway by buying more and indirectly employing others?
Posted By: hobienick

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/28/07 05:01 PM

When I do finally buy a house I do want to install solar and/or wind power. I do not plan to be off the grid, but sell back to the power company. That way I will not need batteries and can offset my costs substantially (and, if I'm lucky, actually make a small profit). I would be gone during the daytime and using very little power. This is the power companies peak time so I would be helping reduce the stations load. If a large number of people did this they could effectively reduce the mount of carbon based fuels needed to produce electricity, but still benefit from the "reliability" of being on the grid.

speaking to the questions of how badly does the production of the solar panels pollute. I can speak to only the plant I work in. We have a very rigorous waste treatment program and are limited in the amount of water we can put into the city sewer system. Most of the chemicals we use we recyle and reuse. I'm not sure of the actual amount of electricity we use, but it is fairly standard for a manufacturing plant of our size. We are also constantly searching more environmentaly friendly chemicals and process to use. And, the benefit of our products is they do not produce any kind of emissions when in use, they reduce the customers "carbon footprint".
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/28/07 05:31 PM

Maybe I'm off base again, but Pete, are you telling me that all fruit/nut tree crops are not worth the space and should be turned to solar? California will be pretty pissed. And we won't have apples, pears, citrus, grapes, nuts, etc. on the dinner table. We'll all die of scurvy!

Yes, annual crops are more "productive" the first few years (before the citrus tree grows into commercial production - 5 years), but also require more inputs and babysitting.

I think the last time I looked, it cost $900 per acre per year to grow/maintain a citrus tree on the flats (not the ridge). In most years, you can break even on your fruit/juice. You spend about $1300 per acre for tomatoes, and a little less for potatoes/peppers/strawberries. Soybeans don't grow this far south (too much disease)

How much would an acre of solar panels cost? How often would they be replaced? My recollection was that efficiency declined steadily after about 1 year in the sun. Efficiency also decreases with increases in temperature, and I'll bet those bad boys get awful hot in the sub-tropical sun...

But if it's better to have solar here, why isn't it better to have solar everywhere they are farming??

Put the dang solar panels in the Sahara and Gobi deserts. I'm not aware of any other use for those areas.

And grow food in America. Or else other countries could hold us hostage for food supplies.

Where else should we grow our food?

Here's another dumb question. Is Gore an investor or stockholder for any of the technologies he implicates as "solutions" to global warming? Could there be an agenda here?
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/28/07 05:42 PM

But does the plant that produces the solar panels have any solar panels on the roof, to help offset the electricity required to produce them?
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/28/07 06:39 PM

Quote
Maybe I'm off base again, but Pete, are you telling me that all fruit/nut tree crops are not worth the space and should be turned to solar? California will be pretty pissed. And we won't have apples, pears, citrus, grapes, nuts, etc. on the dinner table. We'll all die of scurvy!

Yes, annual crops are more "productive" the first few years (before the citrus tree grows into commercial production - 5 years), but also require more inputs and babysitting.

I think the last time I looked, it cost $900 per acre per year to grow/maintain a citrus tree on the flats (not the ridge). In most years, you can break even on your fruit/juice. You spend about $1300 per acre for tomatoes, and a little less for potatoes/peppers/strawberries. Soybeans don't grow this far south (too much disease)

How much would an acre of solar panels cost? How often would they be replaced? My recollection was that efficiency declined steadily after about 1 year in the sun. Efficiency also decreases with increases in temperature, and I'll bet those bad boys get awful hot in the sub-tropical sun...

But if it's better to have solar here, why isn't it better to have solar everywhere they are farming??

Put the dang solar panels in the Sahara and Gobi deserts. I'm not aware of any other use for those areas.

And grow food in America. Or else other countries could hold us hostage for food supplies.

Where else should we grow our food?

Here's another dumb question. Is Gore an investor or stockholder for any of the technologies he implicates as "solutions" to global warming? Could there be an agenda here?


Citrus! Just Florida citrus! Florida is an old pleistocene(?) beach! It's just sand!

Walk out into an orange grove sometime and scoop a handful of the "growing medium" up. It's just sand! It has little if any organic matter.

Even the muck around our lakes is nutrient deficient.

Much of Florida agriculture is basically just hydroponic farming. While you're in that grove, listen. You should hear a huge diesel engine pumping a zillion gallons of water onto a bottomless sand pit!
Posted By: Karl_Brogger

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/28/07 06:43 PM

Quote
Where else should we grow our food?

Oceans? I think there was something a few years ago about growing crops in saltwater. Can't remeber, maybe it was just the nutritional benifits of eating seawead. Yuck <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Quote
Is Gore an investor or stockholder for any of the technologies he implicates as "solutions" to global warming? Could there be an agenda here?

Probably to some extant, while else do it? Motion means motive.
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/28/07 07:04 PM

Quote
[quote]. . But if it's better to have solar here, why isn't it better to have solar everywhere they are farming??

Put the dang solar panels in the Sahara and Gobi deserts. I'm not aware of any other use for those areas.


I'm not suggesting that you plow-up productive groves. However, as stated earlier, we've lost about 70,000 acres of grove to canker (if you believe the estimate). And, there is still no cure for canker. The only "treatment" is to destroy the affected trees and all those around them.

If you have a forty acre grove and you loose five acres to canker, what are you gonna do? Plant new trees? Or, look for an alternative business plan!

I have an idea! Why don't you call Florida Community Bank in Immokalee and ask them if they'll loan you money to buy an orange grove. I'd like to hear what they say.
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/28/07 09:29 PM

Not to start a fight, as you do have valid points, but many moons ago I WAS a citrus "dirt" farmer in overseeing 2500 acres.

A few points for those who have never spent time sweating in the fields:

Yes, it is beach sand that the crops grow in. Smart growers take advantage of this situation because hydroponic growing is the most efficient means of production. "Gentleman" farmers just throw a lot of money at a grove and over spray, fertilize, water, etc. Basically wasting money and messing up their grove.

Putting the nutrients exactly in the root zone of the tree maximizes uptake, minimizes weeds, and allows the grower (to some extent) to control the maturation of the crop (bloom, size, coloring, etc.) Also allows grower to tailor the carbohydrate cycle of the tree.

Crap, even the sprayers are computerized and turn off the spray between trees (and cut the rate for shorter trees), saving tons of spray material. Spray materials have improved to reduce side effects on environment, allowing greater pest control using beneficial insects, plants, and fungi. We had the most cost effective pest control program in place using only spray (light vegetable) oil, copper and sulfur. No need to use weird chemicals because we stayed tight on our scouting, pruning, and water/nutrient management.

Trees have microjet irrigation under them that put water only in the root zone. Fertigation through the micro jets allows for exact placement of nutrients.

You can't control the weather and yes, sometimes periods of heavy rains do move fertilizer out of the root zone.

Each tree is now located using GPS, and their overall condition is graded by satellite (helps in crop estimates), but there is still no better method of increasing production than footprints in the grove.

Most groves in the flats now have their own water retention facilities (usually about 10% of the total acreage is water retention) so that they basically supply (and recycle) their own water. Yes, the diesel pumps run (could be converted to biodiesel), but only because you can't use electric pumps - they shut off power to growers during freeze events because homeowners want to be toasty. No power during freeze means no freeze protection = dead trees.

I know you're aware of all this technology, but there are lurkers out there that still think we're out there spraying arsenic all over everything.

Dang - now you've got me yapping like Wouter. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/29/07 12:21 AM

What were we talking about again?? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: hobie1616

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/29/07 12:45 AM

Quote
Dang - now you've got me yapping like Wouter. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

The Yapping Dog.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_Zz1gITnVJQ
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/29/07 01:11 AM

Quote
Not to start a fight, as you do have valid points, but many moons ago I WAS a citrus "dirt" farmer in overseeing 2500 acres.

A few points for those who have never spent time sweating in the fields:

Yes, it is beach sand that the crops grow in. Smart growers take advantage of this situation because hydroponic growing is the most efficient means of production. "Gentleman" farmers just throw a lot of money at a grove and over spray, fertilize, water, etc. Basically wasting money and messing up their grove.

Putting the nutrients exactly in the root zone of the tree maximizes uptake, minimizes weeds, and allows the grower (to some extent) to control the maturation of the crop (bloom, size, coloring, etc.) Also allows grower to tailor the carbohydrate cycle of the tree.

Crap, even the sprayers are computerized and turn off the spray between trees (and cut the rate for shorter trees), saving tons of spray material. Spray materials have improved to reduce side effects on environment, allowing greater pest control using beneficial insects, plants, and fungi. We had the most cost effective pest control program in place using only spray (light vegetable) oil, copper and sulfur. No need to use weird chemicals because we stayed tight on our scouting, pruning, and water/nutrient management.

Trees have microjet irrigation under them that put water only in the root zone. Fertigation through the micro jets allows for exact placement of nutrients.

You can't control the weather and yes, sometimes periods of heavy rains do move fertilizer out of the root zone.

Each tree is now located using GPS, and their overall condition is graded by satellite (helps in crop estimates), but there is still no better method of increasing production than footprints in the grove.

Most groves in the flats now have their own water retention facilities (usually about 10% of the total acreage is water retention) so that they basically supply (and recycle) their own water. Yes, the diesel pumps run (could be converted to biodiesel), but only because you can't use electric pumps - they shut off power to growers during freeze events because homeowners want to be toasty. No power during freeze means no freeze protection = dead trees.

I know you're aware of all this technology, but there are lurkers out there that still think we're out there spraying arsenic all over everything.

Dang - now you've got me yapping like Wouter. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />


Temek.

You got out why? And, what did the bank say.

Florida Citrus- 19th century mentality for a 21st century world.
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/29/07 02:13 PM

Not an owner - just the bloke on the field every day.

Now most of it is a golf course and Condos. Which is more environmentally friendly?

And yes, I'll give you Temek - for now. The VOC from Guava or some beneficial will most likely replace part of that. It's all cyclical. Get a handle on one thing, and another pops up: Melanose, scab, fruit fly, diaprepes, canker, greening.

Only disease I haven't figured out how to manage was condo development. Kills the trees with no hope of replanting.

I would be interested in your opinion of alternatives, as I plan to be a landowner at some point in the not-too-distant future.

I just don't see wind as the most cost-effective in FL. The last week notwithstanding, winds are usually light (very light in the interior portions). Solar? Maybe, but plants are the ultimate solar collector, pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, and you can use them for food/energy if need be.
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/29/07 04:18 PM

I had a reply that has vanished into the ether!?

I'm not suggesting we should do away with agriculture. I am suggesting there are things that can be done in addition to traditional crops that would be profitable.

I've often wondered if an espaliered U-pick field would be profitable. If so, why not an entire grove?
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/29/07 04:26 PM

Quote

I'm not suggesting we should do away with agriculture. I am suggesting there are things that can be done in addition to traditional crops that would be profitable.


I would agree to a point on this. If you start putting too many things out there, then you lose the ability to become really efficient at any one aspect, and the total "system" efficiency drops.

However, finding productive uses of otherwise inefficient or underproductive space, materials, etc. is always a good idea.... This must have been your original point (before I sidetracked this whole discussion!) to which I agree...
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/29/07 04:34 PM

Quote
. . . If you start putting too many things out there, then you lose the ability to become really efficient at any one aspect, and the total "system" efficiency drops....


Yup. My original thought was to charter an entirely new utility through the State.

If you have some fallow acreage, or the roof of a strip mall, you might want to form a joint venture with a specialized contractor.

The underlying strategy is to provide competition for traditional energy producers who don't wish to pursue wind and solar production.

The business model I envision is similar to modern plumbers and electricians, many of whom are sole proprietors with few, if any employees. As an example, lets suppose that high tension line from Turkey Point crosses your ranch; I might lease a 50' easement 100 yards long ( or any other dimension) and erect an energy farm which would plug into the grid. Same thing for the roof of a strip mall.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/29/07 04:42 PM

The utility companies don't want to pursue it because there is no money in it. After you buy the solar panels or wind generator, they can't raise their prices on you every time there's a storm or the price of oil goes up.

Last year my electric company (Progress Energy) raised my rates nearly 50%!! (from the previous high of $500/mo. in July to the new high of $750/mo. in July) When I called to ask WTF?? they said, "Well, we had those hurricanes so we had to replace a lot of poles and wire, then the price of oil went from $20/bbl. to $68/bbl. so your fuel surcharge went up too."

Yeah, it went WAY up! 50%!! So you see, they have no interest in allowing you a system that is going to harvest FREE electricity from the sun or wind. And the Utility companies have a very strong (highly financed) lobby group. That is just one more reason you won't see any legislation to promote alternative energy.

Now that we have beaten that horse to a pulp, can we move on to a less controversial subject, like Religion?? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/29/07 04:44 PM

Well, actually, I was raised a Baptist. How 'bout you?
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/29/07 04:47 PM

You do know the difference between a Baptist and a Methodist, right? The Methodist will say HI to you in the liquor store... <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I was raised Catholic, Irish Catholic, but I don't "practice" any more. I now belong to the church of Wind, Water, Sun and Sails.
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/29/07 04:52 PM

Quote
You do know the difference between a Baptist and a Methodist, right? The Methodist will say HI to you in the liquor store... <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I was raised Catholic, Irish Catholic.


IRISH!!! Now there's something we can talk about! My Irish mother was a holy terror. Do you know the phrase; "do you want to see me get my Irish up! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />" I hope not.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/29/07 04:55 PM

There were many a wooden spoon busted on my butt. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Jake

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/29/07 05:58 PM

When Bonnie and I were meeting with the priest in preparation for our wedding last year, he inquired as to what kind of a church goer I would be. When I replied with an indirect 'safe' answer, he shot more directly and said something to the effect of (as if it were perfectly acceptable), "so you'll pretty much be a major holiday guy - Christmas and Easter?". I replied "well, yeah mostly...but I have a big regatta every Easter".
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/29/07 06:01 PM

Quote

I was raised Catholic, Irish Catholic, but I don't "practice" any more.


What does that mean, Timbo? You stopped drinking? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/29/07 06:22 PM

Gotta beat you guys to the punch: God invented wheel barrows to teach us (Irish) to walk upright; then invented whiskey to keep us from ruling the world! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/29/07 06:40 PM

No Stank, it means I stopped confessing my sins, or trying to repent... <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: dacarls

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/29/07 07:01 PM

As Pete carefully emphasizes, citrus diseases keep moving to Florida, or evolving if you wish, to take advantage of the citrus monoculture. Citrus bugs do too. The industry has to stay ahead of them somehow, to survive. Then we get a little breeze in late September, and your oranges are whipped off onto the ground. What a business!

I solved the "natural gas expense for heating" 2 years ago. We turned off the gas house heat and its been off ever since. Now this is only N. Florida where it frosts my bananas sometimes.... but a 1500 watt electric heater will toast up my bathroom in 5 minutes for a quick morning shower in January, then it is turned off for the day, and we wear fuzzy clothes and go for a walk. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Dermot

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/29/07 10:04 PM

This reply shows the modern Ireland.

Irish Catholic - Practise or no - Yea OK.

WTF <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> Does $750/mo. mean that you pay 750 dollars a month for your electricity <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

No ? Of course not - Sorry - Thick Irish <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/30/07 02:24 AM

Unfortunately yes, I had a $750 electric bill last July and near that for August. They are the two hottest months and it's 96F every day, with an overnight low of 78, down here in the US of Africa. Remember, mid Florida is on the same latitude as Moroco.

As I mentioned earlier, the Utility co. raised their rates -considerably- after the three hurricanes and the oil prices shot up. That's why I started researching solar panels! In the fall and spring, we can turn off the air/heat and open all the windows, so the bill goes down, but it's still never cheap with 6 of us, and 4 of them are girls.

Hey, that's still a lot cheaper than the horse feed bill every month!
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/30/07 03:54 PM

Move closer to the seabreeze, Tim. My electric bill tops out in August at about $120. Only month where the windows aren't open all day.

Part of this is that mommy "freezes" if the house drops under 77 degrees F. I would guess the bill would be about $200 if we kept the thermostat at 72 d F.

Oh, and my shack is only 2500 sq. ft. under air. Not as big as your "Al Gore Mansion"....
Posted By: hobienick

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 03/30/07 05:01 PM

The plant I work in does have panels on it. But, the amount of power required to run the plant is more than the panels can produce. Automated production uses alot of power.
Posted By: Will_R

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/01/07 08:02 AM

Since I work as an engineer doing nothing but air emissions work (along with some hazmat/hazwaste), I know quite a bit a/b the power industry. Just to clarify, I'm a consultant, not and environmentalist.... the difference? I'm in it to get paid. ;-)

The fun thing about this is that we can blame the tree hugging enviro-nazi's for a large portion of our air quality woes.

Back when nukes were coming on-line, the enviros said, "NO NUKES" and wanted coal plants. Now, 80% of our "carbon" emissions are produced from industrial sources. I don't know the exact numbers, but a SUBSTANTIAL portion of that is from COAL plants which the enviro nuts pushed for. Well, now they want, "NO coal!!"... well, we need power...

So, the gov decides to build a storage facility for the nuke waste in the US (Yucca Mtn). The DOE said, "no more nuke plants till we have a centralized storage facility". Well, our friend the enviro wackos don't like Yucca Mtn. The governor of the state of NV said he was going to kill the project. Hmmm... no more nukes till we get Yucca and people want to kill it. Do you know how much and where our current nuke waste stock pile is? If consolidated, it would cover a foot ball field, three meters deep. Not a lot of waste given how many years we've been generating it. Right now it's stored individually all over the country. There have been several releases to the environment, causing health and safety issues.

Or, we can think about the quantity of emissions that have gone into the air from coal plants. I worked at an 1,100 mega Watt facility while in college for a summer. We burned ~110 railroad cars of coal PER DAY!!! Think about that on the grand scale of the whole US!! Do you know how much NOx, CO, SOx, PM, Metals, etc that is?!?!?! OR... we could have built nuke plants, put the waste in drums and kept the air a lot cleaner. Nothing like having people who say they want to protect the environment be the same ones who are causing it's destruction.

P.S. man-made global warming is BS. 100ppm (0.01%)... causing our climate to change!?!? it's not that delicate of a system!! Also, the dem's who like to say they are strong on environmental issues... ask a/b ole' Ted Kennedy and the wind farm up in his neck of the woods.... or D.S. Al Gore and his "carbon foot print"... only 20x the national average energy consumption in ONE of his houses... doh, I'm up on my soap box again.....
Posted By: Bob_Curry

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/01/07 12:50 PM

Like I said in another thread....

GLOBAL WARMING = FAD

<img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Timbo

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/01/07 03:05 PM

Stanky, you have never seen my "Al Gore mansion", if you had, you would know it is only a 2,800 sq. ft. 1962 Ranch, with 3 bedrooms, being lived in by 6 people, which is only 466 square feet per person. My wife and kids are in the house all day, all summer, running the air, TV, washer and dryer constantly, I have no idea what temp they set because I'm in Bombay for a week, but I can tell you they keep it cold.

The house has no insulation, no shade, and the walls are 50% glass, for the "View of the lake". If you wanted a more energy inefficient house, you would have to work very hard to build one!

Being a ranch, it has a very long East-West roofline, facing south, which would be perfect for solar panels. And no, we don't get any help from your fancy Sea Breeze! When it's 98 outside, it's 98 inside, unless you run the air all day, which she does. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/01/07 03:49 PM

Quote
. . . the tree hugging enviro-nazi's . . ......


Sir, I resemble that remark, but only superficially!

I still don't want any Chernobles or Three Mile Islands. That is my big concern with Nukes. You can't make a "little" mistake.

So, since you seem to be an expert, maybe you'd answer a couple of questions.

How serious was TMI?

And, why do nukes have to be so big? Can you really make small, economically feasible ones?

My reason for asking about size, is the transmission problem. The lines themselves are still at risk to earthquakes, hurricanes and the like.
Posted By: H17cat

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/01/07 08:09 PM

Too bad USA is so far behind in the production of clean, safe nuclear power, see http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=352 Our Government regulations have shut down many facilities before they could go on line, Including WWPS 3 and 5 in my state of Washington.

BTW, I do know a little about power plants. Like all BSME grads at WVU, West Virginia Univ. we had to design a coal fired power plant, from coal delivery to electrical power distribution. At that time, the first nuclear plants were on line, and scheduled to take over a large percent of power production. Government regulations prevented this from happening, at least in this Country.

Caleb Tarleton
Posted By: Will_R

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/03/07 05:25 PM

Sorry for the slow reply, been covered up with work and horse stuff.

I'm not an advocate of polluting, but I am an advocate of common sense. We have to weigh our risks. IMHO the risk of nuke problems is less than the health problems produced by coal fired power plants due to the quantity and type of pollutants emitted. 80% of Frances power comes from nukes. How many problems have we heard of? Yeah... see what I mean? Controls have come a LONG way since the days of Chernoble and TMI. Chernoble was caused by the typical over zealous communist "get-r-done" attitude. They had a known equipment problem, however a middle manager in an attempt to not disappoint his supervisor pushed ahead with a planned test of the reactor. It was easily avoidable. They should have prudently not run their scheduled test and the whole thing would have never happened. TMI from what I understand was caused by an instrumentation failure coupled with a lack of procedure and know how.

I'm sure they could be made smaller, but it's an economy of scale. Most nuke plants have a higher output than a coal plant of similar foot print. Also, given the cost of many of the components, I don't know if building multiple small facilities would make any sense. You would have a lot of duplication of jobs and that would push operational costs higher.

The thing that makes the nuke plants look big is the cooling tower. Sadly enough, you have a lot of heat that has to be dealt with and that's the best way to do it. If you just dumped or diluted the hot water into the rivers, you would cause all sorts of other ecological problems.
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/03/07 08:07 PM

Can they use the waste heat to "pre-heat" the incoming water to the boiler? I presume they already do this, which should reduce the overall waste heat generated.

And I do recall some testing done with sodium as the coolant which allowed the reactor to run at higher temps and efficiency (= less waste). Did they ever move beyond the bench scale and lab scale on these?
Posted By: Will_R

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/03/07 09:10 PM

They do all kinds of heat transfer and pre heating on power plants. The more energy they recover the better their profit margins. Even at the coal plant I worked at, they were only able to economically get the flue gas temp down to ~350 F. The nuke plants typically have a double closed loop cooling system to isolate the water that have been in contact with nuclear fuel.

Nice graphic showing the process:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power2.htm

I have not heard much about the sodium reactors outside of the research stage. I know there was a lot of problem with corrosion due to how caustic the molten sodium is.
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/03/07 09:29 PM

So what is your take on total environmental impact between nukes and other means of production.
Posted By: H17cat

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/03/07 10:32 PM

Will, good link. The early nukes ran at a much lower steam pressure than the coal fired. Not sure if that is still true. Tiki, see http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&catid=13 The exposure level in a nuke plant is probably much lower than your current job. Do you wear a doseometer?

Caleb

Caleb
Posted By: H17cat

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/03/07 10:45 PM

In case you missed it here is the comparison.
"To put this in perspective, you would have to live near a nuclear power plant for over 2,000 years to get the same amount of radiation exposure you get from a single diagnostic medical X-ray. Sources: NCRP and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). See Graphics Gallery for the chart Comparison of Radiation Sources providing a visual format for easy use of this data."
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/03/07 10:45 PM

No, I don't wear a dosemeter. Hopefully, there is no need.

I read the aritcle on TMI from the enclosed link. Very impressive. And, Frankly, I'd rather have a nuke than the coal plant that is in the offing here at home.

Nuke or coal, they will be a long time coming. I still don't see why we aren't doing more with wind and solar, and with a greater since of urgency.
Posted By: pitchpoledave

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/03/07 11:24 PM

Get a Candu reactor...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor
Posted By: Karl_Brogger

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/03/07 11:46 PM

Quote
In case you missed it here is the comparison.
"To put this in perspective, you would have to live near a nuclear power plant for over 2,000 years to get the same amount of radiation exposure you get from a single diagnostic medical X-ray. Sources: NCRP and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). See Graphics Gallery for the chart Comparison of Radiation Sources providing a visual format for easy use of this data."


My uncle is a electrician at nuclear powerplants. He said that the sensors can be set off walking into the plant because of high (I think) radon levels in the persons home.

I think he was the one who also told me that the slag from coal power plants was more radioactive than the waste from nuclear power plants.

I also heard an interesting statistic about China today on the radio. China is putting up coal powered plants at the rate of one a week! Wow. I know a couple of years ago 75% of the concrete poured globally was is china. Better learn Chinese
Posted By: Will_R

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/04/07 05:19 AM

I think the breeders are quite a bit more interesting. Given the quantity of uranium on the planet is fixed, the breeder is nice because it creates more fissile material which can later be used to start another reactor. i.e. we would be able to stretch our supplies MUCH further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

IMHO, the nukes can be more environmentally friendly as the waste can for the most part be containerized as opposed to openly dispersed into the atmosphere. IF the US and other countries would allow re-processing of spent fuel rods, the quantity of waste could be further decreased.
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/04/07 12:30 PM

A very good read, thanks for the link(s). The reference to a Fast Breeder Reactor using the lead cooled Russian Naval propulsion does give pause however. [ try to visualize Beaker, of Muppet fame, with hair standing on end!] But, all in all a very positive, forward looking article.

I get so tired of doom and gloom.

As a boni fide tree hugger, I'm about ready to throw in the towel. It is said that culture is much like a river: it will resist change and always attempt to return to its original course. America's energy consumption has always been determined by the market place. I don't believe that will change.

Given the state of current technology, nukes may be a trees best friend.
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/04/07 01:10 PM

We're kind of like ****. Hard to kill off, use up all the resources in an area, fill it with waste, and move somewhere else.

Technology has allowed us to push the biological carrying capacity of the Earth upward, but there's always a limit to everything. With greater efficiency, we can continue to thrive underneath this threshold, or multiply and push past it again.
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/04/07 01:31 PM

Quote
We're kind of like ****. . .


Yuk! We can do better than that.
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/04/07 02:04 PM

Okay.... how about locust?
Posted By: hobie1616

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/04/07 05:57 PM

How about centipedes? They're hard to kill and will bite you on the butt when you're asleep.
Posted By: Dermot

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/04/07 09:50 PM

Quote
How about centipedes? They're hard to kill and will bite you on the butt when you're asleep.

We have catterpillars - and they squash real easy <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: dacarls

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/06/07 11:50 PM

WillR and TikiPete et al. make excellent, well informed points, and I surely hope we can get standardized nukes built as fast as possible. IMHO, 3 Mile Island LACKED a simple 1/4 inch stainless steel tube running up into the top of the containment vessel to allow the unexpected hydrogen gas to be removed: this H2 bubble drove the water down & caused the core to be exposed. Very bad consequence!

Note: I read that these Brown & Root nukes from 1970 or so (TMI = the Crystal River nuke in Florida) have all been recertified for 20 more years since hydrogen embrittlement of their container steel is apparently not as bad as originally calculated. Good news.

Note: Little or Big NiCad batteries are RECYCLABLE!
Note: We cannot eat Florida freshwater largemouth bass anymore, because they are loaded with mercury. IMHO, coal-fired power plants are the reason. The wild animals generally do not know this, but the pelicans in Tampa Bay are mostly gone, as are most of the seabirds and fish. We have lots of Hummers, Ford 350s etc. tho, permanently plugging up the Tampa Bay bridges, and running over any stupid wild animals that get in their way.....
Note: Fresh water is running out in Sarasota this week.

OK folks- tell me about the bright spots. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/07/07 11:24 PM

Quote

OK folks- tell me about the bright spots. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />


Really, I'm too old to give a [censored]! Probably because I have no children.

Great day at GYC! Where were you?
Posted By: BobG

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/07/07 11:28 PM

Apparently whatever you have on the agenda is a pain in the butt for the rest of the world! Sorry but we need to put a big twist on most of the talk on this web it has become very twitchy!
Posted By: fin.

Re: politics, petroleum and climate - 04/08/07 12:11 PM

Quote
Apparently whatever you have on the agenda is a pain in the butt for the rest of the world! Sorry but we need to put a big twist on most of the talk on this web it has become very twitchy!


Is that English? Perhaps you had too much ritalin as a child.
© 2024 Catsailor.com Forums