RadioBanter - View Single Post - BTW Stevie were watch the news lately about NASA

October 9th 05, 06:00 AM

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

K4YZ wrote:

wrote:

K4YZ wrote:

"THOSE" cars have been pretty much standard for 20 years now...

Yet they still burn gasoline and other petroleum based fuels. The fleet
mileage standards are not improving. The USA imports much more energy
(almost all of it in the form of oil and natural gas) than in the
1970s.

My mileage standards are doing fine. I'm on my third Dodge Neon. The
2 liter engine delivers about 33 mpg on the highway. I'm tall but I
have 4 or 5 inches of space between the top of my head and the roof of
the car.

Yes, the U.S.A. imports more oil than it produces. It looks as if we
*do* have an energy policy and part of it seems to be, "Let's use
theirs before we use ours".

Well, if that is our game plan, we better have enough reserves to
fight most of the world off. Otherwise it is dangerous brinkmanship.

The countries which produce oil are interested in selling it. We're
interested in buying it. I don't see any danger in that at all.

The danger is what happens if they decide not to sell it. Or jack up
the price. Or require all sorts of conditions.

Fortunately, OPEC isn't very cohesive. We're not very good at accepting
conditions and we do have political and economic leverage.

Most of all, there's what they do with the money. Buying anyhting from
anyone empowers that person to do things, some of which you may not
like.

Okay. How much time do you spend thinking about what the people from
whom we buy oil do with the proceeds? I don't spend much time thinking
about what the Kroger company does with the money I spend on food and I
spend even less pondering what the Nigerians do with their oil loot.

Why isn't there a massive program to solve our energy problems? The
White House has been in the hands of a former oilman for more than half
a decade now. You'd think there's be some understanding of what needs
to be done for the future, but where's the leadership?

Well, we aren't going to be driving electrics because of limited
range. The hybrids are quite expensive. The hydrogen-powered car
won't be viable until we can produce hydrogen cheaply.

I really doubt that H is going to ever be a valid fuel.

I used to think that but I heard a recent radio story which might change
my mind. The South Africans are developing a "pellet bed" small nuclear
reactor. Tennis ball-sized spheres of graphite and ceramic are packed
with yellow cake. Core temps can never get hot enough for meltdown but
are high enough to produce hydrogen and to desalinate sea water.

At what cost per btu of hydrogen produced?

As I understand it, the core heat is a byproduct of generating
electricity from these pellet bed reactors. It'll be a bonus. No cost
per btu of hydrogen was mentioned in the story.

What kind of leadership would you like to see?

I would like to see some leadership realizing that driving single
digit fuel millage SUV's is an unpatriotic act, that building under
insulated McMansions that take immense amounts of energy to heat is an
unpatriotic act.

Naaaah. Those who drive the SUVs are being bitten in the wallet. I
know a number of pickup truck owners hereabouts, who are buying small
cars. Nobody is building underinsulated anything these days.

The problem is that we have an enormous existing stock of cars, trucks
and houses, and it won't turn over so fast.

How fast if fast enough?

We've been this way before, too. You'd think we'd have learned.

What's this "we"? I learned a long time ago. It has been decades since
I owned a fuel guzzler.

My pal
W8RHM built his dream home three years ago. It is large and it has
geothermal heating. The heating system was supposed to pay for itself
within ten years or so. With the energy hikes of the past few years,
it'll be paid off much sooner. 'RHM is now paying winter heating bills
of 45-65 bucks.

Most of which is electricity to run the pumps.

That's right.

Those who have big, old homes will sell 'em to someone
who can afford to heat them.

If they can.

There's always somebody who wants a great big classic showplace of a
home. That somebody would generally have pockets deep enough to enable
him to heat it, cool it or to have it insulated. Full masonry
construction aside, it is pretty easy to insulate the exterior walls of
a barn. One can make holes in the existing walls from the inside and
blow in insulation before applying new drywall or simply patching where
the holes are drilled. One can make holes in the existing walls from
outside and apply vinyl siding.

The way we are with oil and gas in recent times reminds
me of the legendary lighting of cigars with 100 dollar bills. In yo'
face consumption...

You may feel free to paint me with that brush. My lease agreement with
Columbia Gas provides me with 300,000 cubic feet of gas yearly. I'm
barely using more than half.

Not everyone can live atop a gas well.

....nor would everyone *want to*. Around here, it is quite possible for
just about anyone who wants to own such property, to do it. Some of 'em
receive residuals from the gas wells. Some receive free gas. In these
days, the free gas folks are the winners. My point was that if I'm
entitled to 300,000 cubic feet per year, I'm going to think of as many
ways as I can to use that much natural gas. In the cold weather months,
it would be practical to run my generator a day or two at a time in
order to reduce my electrical bill. It wouldn't be practical in hot
weather because my generator isn't big enough to run the central air.

I'm heating a glassed-in side porch and a workshop in the barn. As soon
as I get around to it, I'm adding a greenhouse lean to on the back of
the barn. I've a gas conversion kit for a gasoline generator. In
short, I'm going to very conspicuously use right up to that 300,000
cubic feet and I'm not going to feel any guilt over it at all.

I think that one critical lesson that should be gleaned from these
two hurricanes this summer is that we are incredibly vulnerable in a few
important areas. under the right circumstances, losing that much oil and
gas production could be a near fatal blow.

That's right. We need to drill in more places. ANWAR should be
hurricane proof.

But not blizzard-proof. Nor drunken-oil-tanker-captain-proof.

I don't see high odds of those things taking out drilling platforms.
Environmentalists have claimed that pipelines would be disruptive to the
caribou herds. In other areas of Alaska, where there are currently such
pipelines, the caribou huddle near the pipes and enjoy the heat.
They're thriving.

Nor can it provide near enough oil to solve the problem.

We don't need enough from the one source to solve the problem. We need
enough sources to reduce the problem until additional sources are up and
running.

Nobody wants to discuss one of the real solutions to sufficient energy:
more nuke reactors.

Are they a real solution?

How much does it cost to extract the fuel to run them?
How much to build and operate them?
How much to decomission after they are worn out?
How much to deal with the waste?

I don't have the answers. I think the new pellet bed reactors are worth
looking into.

A lot of those costs have been hidden from the utility customer.

Not really. The consumer gets to pay the tab in the end.

I say the best thing to do now is to *not* rebuild the parts of NO that
are below sea level. Salvage what can be saved, and move away.

Will Our President exhibit leadership and say that's what should be
done? Or will he make exorbitant promises, pouring much more money into
rebuilding than it would take to relocate?

Do you really think that the POTUS has the clout to declare that NOLA
won't be rebuilt?

Nope. New Orleans will be rebuilt, and will be rebuilt again, and
perhaps a third or forth time, until it slips beneath the waves for good.

Yep and people are free to build where they choose.

Not really.

Really, within reason.

Without the freedom
to make choices, America wouldn't be America. I won't be
rushing to buy
a home in New Orleans but most of those folks wouldn't live on a hilltop
in rural West Virginia. That suits their needs...and mine.

The problem isn't the choice. It's the fact that we are expected to
fund and support other people's bad choices.

There's the rub. As in my post which responded to Mike, others should
be free to make bad choices, but it is up to them to fund them.

The factor that is forgotten here is that almost all construction
requires permits, insurance and financing. Government gives the
permits, and has an influence on the insurance and financing.

I don't know about your area. It isn't necessary to have a permit to
build a home within the county here. An electrical inspection is
necessary. Towns all have different regulations and permits.
If you have sufficient acreage here, it isn't even necessary to install
a septic system, as long as you aren't discharging sewage into or near a
stream.

How many people will choose to rebuild in NO if the govt says that the
whole thing is a bad idea and they're not going to fix the levees, nor
provide new flood insurance for below-sea-level construction?

That "if the government says" thing is a hypothetical. The rebuilding
of New Orleans is a given.

Suppose I were to build a house whose roof could not stand the snow
loads encountered here in EPA in a bad winter.

And suppose a bad winter came along and the roof collapsed.

Should I expect the govt. to pay to rebuild my roof?

No. If you had insurance which covered such an occurance, your policy
should pay. If you were unable to to obtain such insurance, you'd pay.

Worse - should I expect that they would allow me to build it the same
way again?

Sure. If you're paying for the roof and for the insurance, I think you
have the freedom to be unwise as many times as you can afford it.

Of course the above isn't likely to happen because I'd never get a
permit nor pass inspection to put up such an inadequate structure. But
the principle is the same as building below sea level in a flood zone.

You might obtain a permit to construct an approved structure which might
still be destroyed. It could also be that something other than the roof
might fail.

My house is at a little over 1500' in elevation. I did not purchase
flood insurance. Last year's rains from Ivan flooded my basement to a
depth of a couple of feet. My furnace and electronic air cleaner
circuit boards were ruined. I had to pay for repairs. I still don't
have flood insurance...but I have a sump pump. I paid for that too.

One thing's for su We'll not see leadership on this issue from the
current administration.

Then it won't be any different from the last four or five
administrations, will it?

Anyone else chase K7C?

Dave K8MN