Posts
We've all seen the "make your car run on water" websites that look like (and probably are) scams. The concept is real, though, I'm just dubious about the get-rich-quick-style websites that promote the "kits" to ad this to your car.
Here's a good demonstration of how a simple fuel cell works:
I'm not sure who this guy is, but if he's actually from "hho4all.com" he needs to have his site looked at. GoDaddy says the site is "under construction."
Monday, January 12, 2009
Friday, January 9, 2009
Where I Want To Work if I Ever Have To Get a Real Job
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3HPX0D2mU
This is where I really want to work if I ever have to go get a real job. Sweet!
This is where I really want to work if I ever have to go get a real job. Sweet!
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Nuclear officially more expensive than renewables
According to a new report from the generally pro-nuclear organization, Climate Progress, nuclear power is just about the most expensive carbon-free option on the table today. In response, the organization is considering completely eliminating nuclear power from it's plan to make the world's power generation carbon free.
Nuclear power plants being built today are required to have strict safety measures as well as waste disposal plans that make them significantly more expensive than previous nuclear power plants. The result is that prices for nuclear power have increased, currently at around 30 cents per kW/h. Or, roughly three times the cost of today's average utilities, ten times the cost of reducing power use through efficiency and double the cost of solar thermal.
Nuclear power plants being built today are required to have strict safety measures as well as waste disposal plans that make them significantly more expensive than previous nuclear power plants. The result is that prices for nuclear power have increased, currently at around 30 cents per kW/h. Or, roughly three times the cost of today's average utilities, ten times the cost of reducing power use through efficiency and double the cost of solar thermal.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Toshiba Goes Solar
Toshiba organizes unit to pursure solar business, leveraging its strengths in batteries, power systems, and grid integration.
Pretty cool. Read more about it at their website here.
"Toshiba will secure orders for large solar power generation systems by drawing on its competitive advantages. In components, the company's expertise includes high-efficiency power conditioning systems and the SCiB - the Super Charge ion Battery - Toshiba's breakthrough rechargeable battery that offers excellent safety, long life and rapid charging. In system integration, Toshiba can point to world-class capabilities in system integration, particularly in connecting generation systems to distribution systems; in microgrids that connect and manage dispersed small-scale power generation sources, including renewable energy sources; and in large plant system engineering capabilities."
Pretty cool. Read more about it at their website here.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Road Taxes Based on Miles Driven, Not Fuel: Take a Hike, Fuel Efficiency!
Nobody ever accused government of being smart except for those who are actually in government. In a world where gasoline-powered vehicles are supposedly the cause of all of our environmental worries, government is stepping in to...take away your incentive for buying a fuel-efficient vehicle, of course. What else would they do?
This headline from Yahoo! news is illustrative of how this works...and how they'll invade your privacy in order to do it: Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline
Welcome to the New World Order (of stupidity) chum. I have an idea: why not just tax each vehicle when it's registered and have the money go into the county's road maintenance coffers (as it does now). Then the state can tax the counties for the state-run roads that run through them. That would eliminate the gasoline tax altogether and mean no more worries about who drives how far and how much and how you're going to track it. It just taxes your vehicle's registration, which makes it legally drive-able on public roads.
Those who don't use public roads (e.g. show cars, cars that are trailered-only, such as racing vehicles, and garaged museum pieces) don't get taxed, since there's no point either. Plus the tax is flat: the fairest kind of tax there is. If taxes can ever be called "fair," that is.
Here's another idea: tax the tires people buy to put on their cars that drive on those roads. New tires mean taxes paid. The more you drive, the more often you'll buy tires. Hey! Novel concept! Easy to understand and nobody needs to register anything or be tracked and accounted for.
Nope, these concepts are too easy and logical for government work. Better come up with something that's as complicated, unwieldy, and unfair as possible. Preferably something that creates more government overhead and more government "jobs." Bureaucracy loves to grow, after all. Efficiency is not allowed in government. The two words shouldn't even be in the same sentence.
Ya, welcome to the New World Order (of stupidity).
This headline from Yahoo! news is illustrative of how this works...and how they'll invade your privacy in order to do it: Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline
Welcome to the New World Order (of stupidity) chum. I have an idea: why not just tax each vehicle when it's registered and have the money go into the county's road maintenance coffers (as it does now). Then the state can tax the counties for the state-run roads that run through them. That would eliminate the gasoline tax altogether and mean no more worries about who drives how far and how much and how you're going to track it. It just taxes your vehicle's registration, which makes it legally drive-able on public roads.
Those who don't use public roads (e.g. show cars, cars that are trailered-only, such as racing vehicles, and garaged museum pieces) don't get taxed, since there's no point either. Plus the tax is flat: the fairest kind of tax there is. If taxes can ever be called "fair," that is.
Here's another idea: tax the tires people buy to put on their cars that drive on those roads. New tires mean taxes paid. The more you drive, the more often you'll buy tires. Hey! Novel concept! Easy to understand and nobody needs to register anything or be tracked and accounted for.
Nope, these concepts are too easy and logical for government work. Better come up with something that's as complicated, unwieldy, and unfair as possible. Preferably something that creates more government overhead and more government "jobs." Bureaucracy loves to grow, after all. Efficiency is not allowed in government. The two words shouldn't even be in the same sentence.
Ya, welcome to the New World Order (of stupidity).
Monday, January 5, 2009
Climate Scammers Prepare to Sacrifice Some Impoverished Asthmatics
by Vin Suprynowicz
As usual, it was initially reported as unmitigated “happy news.”
“Your Metered-Dose Inhaler is Changing to Help Improve the Environment,” is how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration chooses to present word that the inhalers used by those who suffer from asthma and other respiratory ailments are being pulled from the shelves as of Jan. 1.
Back in 1987, representatives of the federal government signed the “Montreal Protocol,” in which 27 major industrialized nations agreed to halve their use of chlorofluorocarbon gases, which some believe could damage the earth’s ozone layer.
Real-world experiments to prove the theory have been in short supply – it’s hard to imagine how one would be devised, since it would first have to be shown how chlorofluorocarbons, which tend to be heavier than air, could reach the ozone layer in the first place.
Nor did the Montreal deal actually call for banning the propellant from the inhalers, since that use represents only about 1.5 percent of all CFC uses (it was less than 1.0 percent at the time), and signatory nations get to choose what uses to change. (Car air-conditioning systems were the first use targeted – Greens hate cars – whereas the Environmental Protection Agency saw no immediate need to go after document-preservation sprays, foam insulation for coaxial cable, or CFC-based fire extinguishers.)
But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ruled the switch would be mandatory as soon as a viable replacement could be marketed.
So 22.9 million American asthma sufferers now face a changeover to more expensive brand-name alternatives that use the “environmentally friendlier” propellant hydrofluoralkane – which can be three times as expensive, raising the cost to about $40 per inhaler.
Why not wait to make the change after generic alternatives become available? Skeptics point out that changing now could mean billions more dollars for the three drug companies that hold patents on the replacement HFA-albuterol inhalers, according to Emily Harrison, writing in the August issue of Scientific American.
At least one member of the FDA advisory committee, Nicholas J. Gross of the Stritch-Loyola School of Medicine, has publicly regretted the decision, recanting his support and requesting that the ban be pushed back until 2010, when the first patent expires, Ms. Harrison wrote.
Meantime, multiple studies have shown that raising costs leads to poorer adherence to treatment; one study found that patients took 30 percent less anti-asthma medication, for instance, when their co-pay doubled. There are also concerns about patients getting proper instruction on use of the new inhalers, which need to be primed more often than the old models, and which also tend to clog and need to be cleaned more often.
Considering that asthma and other respiratory diseases disproportionately strike the poor, is it possible that what seemed to be a good, responsible environmental decision might in the end exact an unexpected human toll – leading to more asthma deaths? How should that risk be weighed against the risk of the chlorofluorocarbons to the ozone layer, and the subsequent health risks to all mankind?
To answer that question, we’d need to know whether CFCs really damage the ozone layer, and by how much – the kind of real-world scientific data (as opposed to jury-rigged computer models, dubbed “GIGOs” in the trade) that the radical greens show little patience for gathering, prone as they are to shout: “The debate is over! No time to dilly-dally! By the time we know, it’ll be too late!”
Funny how that always works out.
As usual, it was initially reported as unmitigated “happy news.”
“Your Metered-Dose Inhaler is Changing to Help Improve the Environment,” is how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration chooses to present word that the inhalers used by those who suffer from asthma and other respiratory ailments are being pulled from the shelves as of Jan. 1.
Back in 1987, representatives of the federal government signed the “Montreal Protocol,” in which 27 major industrialized nations agreed to halve their use of chlorofluorocarbon gases, which some believe could damage the earth’s ozone layer.
Real-world experiments to prove the theory have been in short supply – it’s hard to imagine how one would be devised, since it would first have to be shown how chlorofluorocarbons, which tend to be heavier than air, could reach the ozone layer in the first place.
Nor did the Montreal deal actually call for banning the propellant from the inhalers, since that use represents only about 1.5 percent of all CFC uses (it was less than 1.0 percent at the time), and signatory nations get to choose what uses to change. (Car air-conditioning systems were the first use targeted – Greens hate cars – whereas the Environmental Protection Agency saw no immediate need to go after document-preservation sprays, foam insulation for coaxial cable, or CFC-based fire extinguishers.)
But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ruled the switch would be mandatory as soon as a viable replacement could be marketed.
So 22.9 million American asthma sufferers now face a changeover to more expensive brand-name alternatives that use the “environmentally friendlier” propellant hydrofluoralkane – which can be three times as expensive, raising the cost to about $40 per inhaler.
Why not wait to make the change after generic alternatives become available? Skeptics point out that changing now could mean billions more dollars for the three drug companies that hold patents on the replacement HFA-albuterol inhalers, according to Emily Harrison, writing in the August issue of Scientific American.
At least one member of the FDA advisory committee, Nicholas J. Gross of the Stritch-Loyola School of Medicine, has publicly regretted the decision, recanting his support and requesting that the ban be pushed back until 2010, when the first patent expires, Ms. Harrison wrote.
Meantime, multiple studies have shown that raising costs leads to poorer adherence to treatment; one study found that patients took 30 percent less anti-asthma medication, for instance, when their co-pay doubled. There are also concerns about patients getting proper instruction on use of the new inhalers, which need to be primed more often than the old models, and which also tend to clog and need to be cleaned more often.
Considering that asthma and other respiratory diseases disproportionately strike the poor, is it possible that what seemed to be a good, responsible environmental decision might in the end exact an unexpected human toll – leading to more asthma deaths? How should that risk be weighed against the risk of the chlorofluorocarbons to the ozone layer, and the subsequent health risks to all mankind?
To answer that question, we’d need to know whether CFCs really damage the ozone layer, and by how much – the kind of real-world scientific data (as opposed to jury-rigged computer models, dubbed “GIGOs” in the trade) that the radical greens show little patience for gathering, prone as they are to shout: “The debate is over! No time to dilly-dally! By the time we know, it’ll be too late!”
Funny how that always works out.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Carbon Capture and "Storage" As a Fix
One of the latest and most touted technologies for saving the planet from our evil carbon emissions is to capture that carbon and store it, usually by stuffing it into the ground. In a karmic sense, this is a pretty great idea since the carbon likely came out of the ground to start with.
In Europe, it's being done at coal-burning power plants. The emissions are literally piped into the ground and stuffed into porous rock, which acts like a sponge to water. This technology works similarly to the oil extraction process used in Canada, in which water is shoved into the ground to displace oil captured in porous rock, forcing it to come out and keeping the ground stable in the process.
The problem with carbon stuffing, which is my term for this capture process, is that it's only a temporary solution to a problem whose existence is debatable. I don't like pollution any more than the next guy, but these power plants are rarely near city or urban centers, adding to smog and air quality concerns. The other problem is the environmental impact this could be having, especially on ground water and other things. I don't see anyone studying that phenomenon.
At any rate, at least they're thinking about it realistically instead of in some dream-world state like Al Gore and his cronies seem to be always floating in, way up in the sky in that multi-million dollar, fossil-fuel burning corporate jet they cruise around in to meet their various appointments to preach about "going green."
In my mind, this carbon stuffing is really nothing more than a stop-gap, feel-good measure that doesn't actually solve any problems, but does get the abusive greenies off your back. You know, those people who drive around in their Subaru Foresters and complain about the lack of "alternatives" so they can be "greener."
I would point them to the multitude of very green, very available electric vehicles spreading around the planet. Sure, they generally either look stupid or cost way too much, but that shouldn't be a problem for these people who're willing to sacrifice (everything everyone else has) so that they can feel better about their "footprint." Right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)