DEAR EUROS!:EU greenhouse gas emissions rise

[rogue]

I figure with Iraq in the rebuilding stage and the fact that Laughing Cow and I are agreeing way too much maybe this will restore to proper equalibriam to KFO. :D

EU greenhouse gas emissions rise
By Gareth Harding
UPI Chief European Correspondent
From the International Desk
Published 5/6/2003 3:06 PM


BRUSSELS, Belgium, May 6 (UPI) -- European Union greenhouse gas emissions rose for the second year running in 2001, the European Environment Agency said Tuesday in its annual report on the bloc's strategy to curb global warming.

Ten of the EU's 15 states overshot national targets, increasing total emissions by 1 percent in the last year for which data is available.

The figures threaten to blow a hole in the EU's ambitious climate change strategy, which has been sharply criticized by the United States and sections of European industry.

Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which has been ratified by the EU, Japan and Canada but rejected by the United States and Australia, the Brussels-based club is committed to cutting greenhouse gases by 8 percent on their 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.

EU emissions of the six main gases believed to be responsible for rising temperatures levels are still 2.3 percent below 1990 levels, but this is largely due to the dash to gas in Britain and industrial restructuring in eastern Germany during the 1990s.

The EEA says the latest increase is due to a cold winter in many EU countries, higher emissions from the transport sector and greater use of fossil fuels in electricity production.

Big increases were recorded in Austria -- up almost 5 percent -- and Finland, which saw emissions rise by 7.3 percent over 2000 figures.

However, it is Ireland, Spain and Portugal that are furthest away from meeting their share of the EU target.

Ireland's emissions in 2001 were 31 percent above 1990 figures, well over double the 13 percent increase it negotiated under the EU's 'burden-sharing' agreement.

Spain saw a modest drop in emissions between 2000 and 2001, but its output of greenhouse gases has still risen by almost a third since 1990. Emissions in Portugal have also risen spectacularly since the Kyoto treaty's base year.

The most dramatic cuts in gas emissions have been made in Britain, down 12 percent since 1990, Germany, down 18 percent and Luxembourg down a whopping 44 percent. France has managed to stabilize emissions from fossil fuels largely due to its reliance on nuclear power.

These largely positive figures are in sharp contrast to the United States, where emissions have jumped by over 20 percent since 1990.

Matthias Duwe, a policy adviser from the Brussels office of Climate Network Europe, said the EEA figures showed "the EU still has a long way to go to meet its Kyoto targets."

But Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom said Europe's greenhouse gas emissions could be slashed by over 15 percent if member states signed up to a raft of policy measures proposed by the EU executive.

"Our findings demonstrate that the Kyoto targets can be met without imposing unacceptable costs on society. Meeting them is a question of political will and full and effective implementation of the measures agreed," said Wallstrom.

Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International

[Vapour]

Is this supposed to be Euro v.s. U.S. debate.

If so, it's waste of time. U.S. is still the biggest pollutor in this categories especially if one consider in term of per capita.

[Laughing Cow]

Naah, he is just saying it is ok, because if others do it we can too.

;)

Plus, we know who got all those "safe" SUV's.
:D

[joedoe]

Hey, we Aussies want some recognition here. We are among the worst greenhouse producers per capita. Not bad for a country of only 18 million people :D

[Chang Style Novice]

17,999,998 - you can't legally count Paul Hogan and Yahoo Serious as 'people.' Although they are obviously polluters, and will be as long as their movies are shown in any medium.

[guohuen]

ooooooooh, 8%, That's alot. No wonder we won't sign it. Someone may be able to breath.

[MasterKiller]

When President Bush unveiled his plans for a hydrogen-powered car in his State of the Union address in January, he proposed $1.2 billion in spending to develop a revolutionary automobile that will be "pollution-free." The new vehicle, he declared, will rely on "a simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen" to power a car "producing only water, not exhaust fumes." Within 20 years, the president vowed, fuel-cell cars will "make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of oil."

By launching an ambitious program to develop what he calls the "Freedom Car," Bush seemed determined to realize the kind of future that hydrogen-car supporters have envisioned for years. Using existing technology, hydrogen can be easily and cleanly extracted from water. Electricity generated by solar panels and wind turbines is used to split the water's hydrogen atoms from its oxygen atoms. The hydrogen is then recombined with oxygen in fuel cells, where it releases electrons that drive an electric motor in a car. What Bush didn't reveal in his nationwide address, however, is that his administration has been working quietly to ensure that the system used to produce hydrogen will be as fossil fuel-dependent -- and potentially as dirty -- as the one that fuels today's SUVs. According to the administration's National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap, drafted last year in concert with the energy industry, up to 90 percent of all hydrogen will be refined from oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels -- in a process using energy generated by burning oil, coal, and natural gas. The remaining 10 percent will be cracked from water using nuclear energy.

Such a system, experts say, would effectively eliminate most of the benefits offered by hydrogen. Although the fuel-cell cars themselves may emit nothing but water vapor, the process of producing the fuel cells from hydrocarbons will continue America's dependence on fossil fuels and leave behind carbon dioxide, the primary cause of global warming.

Mike Nicklas, chair of the American Solar Energy Society, was one of 224 energy experts invited by the Department of Energy to develop the government's Roadmap last spring. The sessions, environmentalists quickly discovered, were dominated by representatives from the oil, coal, and nuclear industries. "All the emphasis was on how the process would benefit traditional energy industries," recalls Nicklas, who sat on a committee chaired by an executive from ChevronTexaco. "The whole meeting had been staged to get a particular result, which was a plan to extract hydrogen from fossil fuels and not from renewables." The plan does not call for a single ounce of hydrogen to come from power generated by the sun or the wind, concluding that such technologies "need further development for hydrogen production to be more cost competitive."

But instead of investing in developing those sources, the budget that Bush submitted to Congress pays scant attention to renewable methods of producing hydrogen. More than half of all hydrogen funding is earmarked for automakers and the energy industry. Under the president's plan, more than $22 million of hydrogen research for 2004 will be devoted to coal, nuclear power, and natural gas, compared with $17 million for renewable sources. Overall funding for renewable research and energy conservation, meanwhile, will be slashed by more than $86 million. "Cutting R&D for renewable sources and replacing them with fossil and nuclear doesn't make for a sustainable approach," says Jason Mark, director of the clean vehicles program for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The oil and chemical industries already produce 9 million tons of hydrogen each year, most of it from natural gas, and transport it through hundreds of miles of pipelines to fuel the space shuttle and to remove sulfur from petroleum refineries. The administration's plan lays the groundwork to expand that infrastructure -- guaranteeing that oil and gas companies will profit from any transition to hydrogen. Lauren Segal, general manager of hydrogen development for BP, puts it succinctly: "We view hydrogen as a way to really grow our natural-gas business."

To protect its fuel franchise, the energy industry has moved swiftly in recent years to shape government policy toward hydrogen. In 1999, oil companies and automakers began attending the meetings of an obscure group called the National Hydrogen Association. Founded in 1989 by scientists from government labs and universities, the association was a haven for many of the small companies -- fuel-cell designers, electrolyzer makers -- that were dabbling in hydrogen power. The group promoted the use of hydrogen but was careful not to take any position on who would make the fuel or how.

All that changed once the energy industry got involved. "All of a sudden Shell joined our board, and then the interest grew very quickly," says Karen Miller, the association's vice president. "Our chair last year was from BP; this year our chair is from ChevronTexaco." The companies quickly began to use the association as a platform to lobby for more federal funding for research, and to push the government to emphasize fossil fuels in the national energy plan for hydrogen. Along with the big automakers, energy companies also formed a consortium called the International Hydrogen Infrastructure Group to monitor federal officials charged with developing fuel cells. "Basically," says Neil Rossmeissl, a hydrogen standards expert at the Department of Energy, "what they do is look over our shoulder at doe to make sure we are doing what they think is the right thing."

As hydrogen gained momentum, the oil companies rushed to buy up interests in technology companies developing ways to refine and store the new fuel. Texaco has invested $82 million in a firm called Energy Conversion Devices, and Shell now owns half of Hydrogen Source. BP, Chevron-Texaco, ExxonMobil, Ford, and General Electric have also locked up the services of many of America's top energy scientists, devoting more than $270 million to hydrogen research at MIT, Princeton, and Stanford.

Such funding will help ensure that oil and gas producers continue to profit even if automakers manage to put millions of fuel-cell cars on the road. "The major energy companies have several hundred billions of dollars, at the least, invested in their businesses, and there is a real interest in keeping and utilizing that infrastructure in the future," says Frank Ingriselli, former president of Texaco Technology Ventures. "And these companies certainly have the balance sheets and wherewithal to make it happen."

The stakes in the current battle over hydrogen are high. Devoting the bulk of federal research funding to making hydrogen from fossil fuels rather than water will enable oil and gas companies to provide lower-priced hydrogen. That, in turn, means that pipelines built to transport hydrogen will stretch to, say, a BP gas field in Canada, rather than an independent wind farm in North Dakota. Even if the rest of the world switches to hydrogen manufactured from water, says Nicklas, "Americans may end up dependent on fossil fuels for generations."

The administration's plans to manufacture hydrogen from fossil fuels could also contribute to global warming by leaving behind carbon dioxide. Oil and coal companies insist they will be able to "sequester" the carbon permanently by pumping it deep into the ocean or underground. But the doe calls such approaches "very high risk," and no one knows how much that would cost, how much other environmental disruption that might cause, or whether that would actually work. "Which path we take will have a huge effect one way or the other on the total amount of carbon pumped into the atmosphere over the next century," says James MacKenzie, a physicist with the World Resources Institute.

Even if industry manages to safely contain the carbon left behind, the Bush administration's plan to extract hydrogen from fossil fuels will wind up wasting energy. John Heywood, director of MIT's Sloan Automotive Lab, says a system that extracts hydrogen from oil and natural gas and stores it in fuel cells would actually be no more energy efficient than America's present gasoline- based system.

"If the hydrogen does not come from renewable sources," Heywood says, "then it is simply not worth doing, environmentally or economically."

[fa_jing]

this type of thing doesn't surprise me in the least

[Christopher M]

Be careful what you read, it just might be a load of crap.


Originally posted by MasterKiller
According to the administration's National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap...

The opinion piece draws its conclusions from the National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap (NHER). However, it's unclear as to whether or not the author actually bothered to read this document.

Notably, while the author treats this document as if it were a drafted policy; the document itself makes quite clear that it "is neither a government research and development plan nor an industrial commercialization plan. Rather, it explores the wide range of activities required to realize hydrogen's potential."

This in itself invalidates the bulk of what the author claims; but it is far from the only mistake he makes.


up to 90 percent of all hydrogen will be refined from oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels -- in a process using energy generated by burning oil, coal, and natural gas. The remaining 10 percent will be cracked from water using nuclear energy.

The only NHER statement even resembling the above is "Steam methane reforming accounts for 95 percent of the hydrogen produced in the United States."

The author has his tenses confused though. This is a statement about the present, not about a policy for the future.

Secondly, he's confounding two very different processes for obtaining hydrogen. From NHER: "[Steam methane reforming] is a catalytic process that involves reacting natural gas or other light hydrocarbons with steam to produce a mixture of hydrogen and carbon dioxide." Conversely, "[Partial oxidation of fossil fuels] involves the reaction of a fuel with a limited supply of oxygen to produce a hydrogen [carbon, and carbon dioxide] mixture."

While he lumps them together, the 95% figure is entirely from steam methane reformation, not from partial oxidation of fossil fuels. Moreover, he incorrectly attributes the "burning" of fossil fuels (recall, which is not occuring) to the process of steam methane reformation (which is not burning). The problem with burning (partial oxidation) is that it leaves behind carbon and generates other pollutants ("soot and smoke").

Finally, I have no idea where he got the 10% figure for nuclear energy. There's not anything even remotely resembling this in the NHER.

The only remarks the NHER makes about the future of hydrogen production come in the form of eight recommendations in their "Paths Forward" section. Of these, three related to improving hydrogen production by electrolysis with renewable or nuclear resources ("Optimize and reduce cost of electrolyzers", "Develop Advanced Renewable Energy Methods", and "Develop Advanced Nuclear Energy Methods") and only one related to hydrogen production by natural gas and fossil fuels ("Develop and Demonstrate Small Reformers").


"the process of producing the fuel cells from hydrocarbons will continue America's dependence on fossil fuels and leave behind carbon dioxide, the primary cause of global warming."

A result of the author's previous flawed reasoning: he continues to confound fossil fuels with natural gas.

Regarding carbon dioxide, it's important to note that all of the methods currently available, including electrolysis, produce carbon dioxide.

Also... global warming? Haha.


"The sessions, environmentalists quickly discovered, were dominated by representatives from the oil, coal, and nuclear industries."

I wonder what definition of "dominated" we are working under here. The sessions were headed by seven leaders, depending on the topic. Of these seven, only one was from the oil industry, ChevronTexaco. None were from coal nor nuclear industries. Four were from the hydrogen fuel industry proper: Avista Labs, Air Products and Chemicals, Quantum Technologies, and the National Hydrogen Association. One was a car company: Ford. And the last was based out of Princeton University.


"To protect its fuel franchise, the energy industry has moved swiftly in recent years to shape government policy toward hydrogen."

What, exactly, is surprising to people about this statement?

The energy industry is investing in the future of the energy industry. Seriously, what else do you expect? Who else has the money, skills, and interest to do this?

Finally... in what possible way could this be a criticism of Bush? Even if all of these allegations were accurate (which they're not), he would at least be doing something towards hydrogen energy, which is more than any other president has done.

NHER: www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/national_h2_roadmap.pdf

Opinion pieces are a good tool for directing your attention at something, but they shouldn't be where you get your information from.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by guohuen
ooooooooh, 8%, That's alot. No wonder we won't sign it. Someone may be able to breath.

Other factors that might make USA not want to sign it might be the 3.5 million jobs it will cost; the billions of dollars it will cost; that there are no scientific studies suggesting it's changes will do anything; that there are no scientific studies suggesting the specific problems it outlines even exist; and that even if you agree with its hypotheses, the major source of the problems it outlines are given exemption from its mandates.

[Mojo]

Glaobal warming may not be all its made out to be. It now seems that the computer projections about a temp rise may be way overstated. For more info check out this article...

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-03m.html

[Marky]

Hi all,

Fuel cells won't take over as long as Big Oil is around to make clean fuel supporters disappear.

Also, despite George Bush's intentions, there is NO WAY to make a fuel cell that is a clean energy source. There needs to be a fuel source to power the electrolysis, and that will come from fossil fuel. It's not that Bush is "tryint to make fuel cells fossil fuel dependent", it's just a fact, and nothing will change it (given current technology). Hydrogen fuel cells sound like a nice idea, but they really just add an expensive middle-man to a system that already produces pollution.

On that note.... it's true that hydrogen fuel cell engines will produce only water vapor (discounting the energy to power the electrolysis, that is), and everyone acts like that won't do any harm to the environment. The reason: "It already naturally occurs in the environment." And when gasoline powered cars were created, they used this reasoning for allowing carbon dioxide to be a byproduct: "It already naturally occurs in the environment." The fact is, when BILLIONS OF PEOPLE are releasing high-temperature water vapor into the air, it will have impacts that we can't predict! But it all looks good on paper.

A couple interesting facts that have nothing to do with the topic:

1. If we could capture all the energy of the Sun that falls on a several mile area of Earth over a year, it would be equal to the energy of ALL the fossil fuel energy on the world combined (including that which we have already used, and that which we haven't extracted)!

2. Nuclear power is still the most efficient energy source at 35% efficiency.

As for the EU going over expected pollution amounts... maybe they should use a pollution credit system like the US does (or do they already?). It's good because it caps the pollution. It's bad because the pollution won't go down!

The "Freedom Car", eh? Was it originally going to be called the "French Car"? HAHA

[guohuen]

I view the industries usage of fuel cells as another tool not to share primary fuel production (read: give up any power ) As far as I'm concerned this is another (like gasahol) knee jerk reaction to the alchohol industry or farmers or any small producers getting a piece of the pie. If cleaner air standards are costing too much money perhaps the executives should take smaller salaries and benefit packages considering as "leaders" most of us believe they have responsibilities to their employees and the neighborhoods they operate in.

[Marky]

Hi guohuen,

An even BETTER IDEA is for the President to institute a cradle-to-grave tracking system on all government spending. The billions of dollars a month that just "disappear" would really add up! Of course, that would remove a lot of fiscal corruption from the government (as long as the system was actually ENFORCED), so no President or Congress would ever propose such a thing. Imagine how great the United States would be if the government had to return trillions of tax dollars to its citizens every year... the horror, the HORROR!!! =)

Politicians forget that the government has no money, and that THEY have no power. The money is given by us, and the power is bestowed on them by us. I wish we could have a government that actually respects that fact.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Marky
Fuel cells won't take over as long as Big Oil is around to make clean fuel supporters disappear.

I dunno about that... it seems like Big Oil is coming around to support fuel cells, as discussed above.


Also, despite George Bush's intentions, there is NO WAY to make a fuel cell that is a clean energy source. There needs to be a fuel source to power the electrolysis, and that will come from fossil fuel.

This too was discussed above. Natural gas is the current ideal choice, not fossil fuel. Nuclear power and renewable energy sources are other alternatives.


The fact is, when BILLIONS OF PEOPLE are releasing high-temperature water vapor into the air, it will have impacts that we can't predict!

That's a good point.


If we could capture all the energy of the Sun that falls on a several mile area of Earth over a year, it would be equal to the energy of ALL the fossil fuel energy on the world combined

But there still needs to be a storage, distribution, and usage system in place to take advantage of that potential. Fuel cells are one way of doing this.


Nuclear power is still the most efficient energy source at 35% efficiency.

**** straight. Not to mention, among the cleanest energy source. Unfortunately, self-proclaimed environmentalists have chosen to put nuclear power on the "Not" list, without adequately considering the ramifications (along with GE foods, irradiation, DDT... those are all other topics though).

Again though, there's the issue of power storage, distribution, and usage. And again fuel cells seem like an obvious solution.


An even BETTER IDEA is for the President to institute a cradle-to-grave tracking system on all government spending.

****, **** straight! Did you catch my rant about direct taxation on the other thread?

[Marky]

Hi ChristopherM,

I wasn't trying to imply that all of the Sun's energy COULD BE STORED. In fact, since most of it is the equivalent of an energy byproduct (heat), we can't very well store most of it, nor would we want to. Which is why solar power is only 6% efficient AT BEST. Of course, all of our power is solar power, but you know what I mean!

I was only supplying that fact because it's interesting. It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.

[Laughing Cow]

Yeah, let's go for nuclear fuel, store the waste on the moon and hope it doesn't blow up and push the moon out of Earth's orbit.

Slap, slap.

Sorry, we just had 3 days of Gerry Anderson stuff on TV here.
Who happens to be one of my favorite SF and model artists.

Time to go back to "Firestorm" now, you can guess by who.

Cheers.

P.S.: Need to add that my home-country is nuclear power free. We get a lot of our electricity from water works.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Need to add that my home-country is nuclear power free.

Is this something to be proud of? :confused:

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Christopher M
Is this something to be proud of? :confused:

Yes, for a range of reasons.

1.) Most of our electricity comes from water works, i.e. non-poluting.
2.) We as the citizens voted against the goverment that wanted to open a nuclear reactor without having storage facilities for the waste.
3.) We export excess elecricity in summer in exchange for heating oil in winter.

Maybe a new concept for you guys , but back home the goverment does as we the citizens tell it to.
:D

We are NOT opposed to nuclear energy perse, but at that time there was NO plan to store the waste only to ship it to france as many other countries did to store it there temporarliy.

Guess what France is shipping that waste back now to the originating countries where it is often parked at the side of the road as STILL no adequate facilities for storage exist.

Seeya.

[Christopher M]

What do you use other than hydro power?

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Christopher M
What do you use other than hydro power?

Mostly coal.
:(

But the nations as a whole is very eco minded:

Usage of Solar & Ground heating and similar for houses is getting fairly common.
In summer a lot of people change from cars to bicycles for commuting.
etc.
Electric Cars and hybrids have dramastically increased in the last few years.

Not saying it is perfect, but we try to do our part to keep the environment intact and healthy.
Which we need as a large part of our revenue comes from tourism.

Seeya.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Mostly coal.

That's what I thought.

Can you explain to me again why being nuclear-free is laudible, when the alternative is coal? Or even how it could possibly be considered "eco-minded" to favor coal over nuclear?

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Christopher M


That's what I thought.

Can you explain to me again why being nuclear-free is laudible, when the alternative is coal? Or even how it could possibly be considered "eco-minded" to favor coal over nuclear?

Having a discussion with you is useless.

Did you ever read why we rejected "nuclear energy" or our efforts to rely on less harmful energy consumption methods in my earlier post?

I don't think so, and THAT is why I refuse to discuss anything with you.
The answers are above to anybody that has their eyes open and their brain switched on.

You simply pick and choose things from my posts to attack me further and try to proof me inferior to you.

Go away you are boring.

[Christopher M]

I read your post. It didn't answer my questions.

By any standard whatsoever, nuclear is a far less harmfull energy source than coal. You say you're interested in less harmfull energy sources, then you say you prefer coal to nuclear. Something isn't right here, so I asked you to clarify.

I'm not sure what problem you have with that. Which I guess is why I asked...

[Vapour]

If you include the cost of waste disposale, nuclear energy become the most expensive energy. that is why not having nuclear power station is very smart idea.

[Marky]

Hi LC,

"Need to add that my home-country is nuclear power free. We get a lot of our electricity from water works."

The US is big on hydro power too, but we're currently tapping all the hydro-power sources we have. We're just too greedy!

As far as nuclear power goes (this isn't directed at anyone in particular), I think a lot of people imagine glowing green goo as a byproduct of nuclear power. The byproducts are slightly irradiated water and the metal pipes that the water flows through. Storing the spent uranium rods is the biggest problem in the US, and that's what takes so much money. But in all fairness, when some environmentalists talk about the dangers of nuclear power, they're actually spouting off the dangers of hazardous waste byproducts in industry. Nuclear byproducts follow a cradle-to-grave system across the world to make sure everything is accounted for and kept away from civilians. Unfortunately, hazardous waste can "slip through the cracks"... somehow, nuclear power gets a bad rap from that!


On a side note, the reactors in the US are a far cry from many of the reactors in Europe and ALL OF THE REACTORS IN FRANCE. The US uses Uranium reactors and the materials are not enriched to weapons grade. Unfortunately, a far cheaper reactor is the Tokamak reactor, which runs on plutonium and is, for all intents and purposes, a renewable nuclear energy source. Unfortunately, it's weapons-grade. Many reactors in Europe are Tokamaks, and ALL of the reactors in France are Tokamaks. Those are EXTREMELY dangerous, both in terms of meltdown consequences and terrorist attacks, etc.


If someone wanted to get technical, they could bring up the negative environmental impacts of hydroelectric power, such as aquatic ecosystem devastation, soil erosion, effects on rain patterns (and thereby, aquifer recharge), etc. No method "creates energy", we take it all from the environment, and everything has it's impact.

Of course, NO ONE would argue that nuclear power is cleaner than hydro power! We're in agreement there.

[joedoe]

We should hook up all the treadmills, rowing machines, and exercise bikes in our gyms to turbines to generate power :D

Actually, I wonder how much power you would generate out of something like that in the average gym?

I still think wind power is something that needs to be investigated more closely. Seems like a good renewable power source to me.

[Laughing Cow]

Marky.

Thanks, I am aware of all those things.
We did a LOT of research before we rejected nuclear power.
As for straining our water-supply at the moment we only use about 3% of the available fresh water in the country.
Thus we got plenty resources to keep those hydro power plants going.

Like I said the reason why we rejected nuclear power are multiple:

1.) There was no need for it at that time and there still is not.
2.) The Goverment had insufficient plans to build and store the waste, waste storage would have been finished YEARS after the reactor went online.
3.) We import a lot of gas and oil from other countries in exchange for excess electricity, thus making it cheap.
4.) The goverment supports and sponsors a drive towards alternate and eco-friendly solutions.
i.e.: Put Solar panels, groud heating, etc on your house and the goverment pays a portion of it.

Cheers.

[Marky]

Hi joedoe,

wind power is a good idea, except that there are very few places with a constantly high wind velocity, and those are the only places where wind power would be a "cost-effective" energy gathering method. There are some in Canada and the US and they have windmill fields. There are a few impacts however. For one, it takes A LOT of wind energy to generate electricity. For that reason, there are entire fields of windmills, and each mill has three or four blades that are over thirty feet long!

Also, windmill fields decimate many, many, MANY flocks of migrating birds every year, which ends up having a serious ecological impact.

Ultimately, a combination of power sources is the best option. However, in the end a FORM OF NUCLEAR POWER will be the best energy source, though it will be nothing like it is now. I mean nuclear in the most general sense; the power that keeps an atom in it's structure is, pound for pound, the greatest force on Earth, we just need to find a safe, efficient, and cheap way to harness it! (that'll be the day!)

[Marky]

Hi LC,

That does it, I'm moving to your country! Sounds like the Netherlands or Norway to me, but I'm probably mistaken.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Marky
Hi LC,
That does it, I'm moving to your country! Sounds like the Netherlands or Norway to me, but I'm probably mistaken.

Yep, you are, we are more in the south.
Feel free to come and join us.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Marky
Hi joedoe,

wind power is a good idea, except that there are very few places with a constantly high wind velocity, and those are the only places where wind power would be a "cost-effective" energy gathering method. There are some in Canada and the US and they have windmill fields. There are a few impacts however. For one, it takes A LOT of wind energy to generate electricity. For that reason, there are entire fields of windmills, and each mill has three or four blades that are over thirty feet long!

Also, windmill fields decimate many, many, MANY flocks of migrating birds every year, which ends up having a serious ecological impact.

Ultimately, a combination of power sources is the best option. However, in the end a FORM OF NUCLEAR POWER will be the best energy source, though it will be nothing like it is now. I mean nuclear in the most general sense; the power that keeps an atom in it's structure is, pound for pound, the greatest force on Earth, we just need to find a safe, efficient, and cheap way to harness it! (that'll be the day!)

I visited a wind farm about a year ago that had been set up down south. They were huge things but surprisingly quiet. We were told that on average each one can produce enough power to power 1000 homes. The farm itself produced enough power to power the nearby town.

We asked them about the ecological impact and they said that they had spent years studying the migratory movements of birds before they built it. I don't know what environmental regulations are like elsewhere, but in Australia they are pretty strict.

I guess it probably isn't viable for large urban environments (though this one was in the middle of nowhere but fed its power into the power grid). It did seem like a good way to generate power though.

So what about the gym machine idea? :D

[Marky]

The gym machine idea is good, but it would never work. There are enough machines, just not enough people who are dedicated to using them! For most people, as soon as they see a chocolate cake they're led astray. Maybe they could hook people's mouths up to power generators?

I visited a wind farm in Canada. The windmills were quiet, but the wind was so powerful that I could barely hear anything! There were dead birds everywhere, but that was probably a case where the wind power was so promising, they decided to ignore the birds in that instance. I'm sure most of them are as you described.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Marky
The gym machine idea is good, but it would never work. There are enough machines, just not enough people who are dedicated to using them! For most people, as soon as they see a chocolate cake they're led astray. Maybe they could hook people's mouths up to power generators?

I visited a wind farm in Canada. The windmills were quiet, but the wind was so powerful that I could barely hear anything! There were dead birds everywhere, but that was probably a case where the wind power was so promising, they decided to ignore the birds in that instance. I'm sure most of them are as you described.

I got to thinking about the gym machines one night while I was staring at the arse of this gorgeous chick .. ahem. :D I mean, I was watching everyone expending energy in the gym one night and thought that all the generated power was being wasted. At the very least, the gym could probably lower its own power costs by hooking the machines up.

Probably too low returns on something like that.

[Serpent]

If only we could harness the combined energy of all the fingers typing away on KFO each day! ;)

[shaolin kungfu]

Everyone should hook up there keyboards to little generators. We could use the power generated while typing to power our computers, but be careful, if you stop typing, your computer looses power and whatever you were working on will be lost.

[Serpent]

No bad thing for most of the content on KFO.

[Laughing Cow]

No, better idea, hook up the generator to the Body and generate energy to power your PC by training your MA style.

Minimum of 3 hours training for 1 hour of PC power.

Hmmm, I can think of a few names we might not see on here again.
:D :D

[joedoe]

Like me :D