Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler Cold weather...

Grunt,

I like the idea of home based wind turbines. The area we live can get pretty windy, and I understand some of the 1KW wind turbines available now are extremely quiet and they'll run 24X7. The only problem is that local councils would give me a hard time for installing them.

I too like the idea of not being reliant on the big end of town for the basics. Here in Australia, with the amount of sun we get, I really like the idea of solar panels on every home roof. I understand some of the new techs coming out are in fact roof tiles which act as PV units. If this can be manufactured cheaply enough, then we're looking at a great way to prevent having to build a large number of new power stations.

Murph,

I am assuming by 100% green and cheap you mean green from both a manufacturing perspective as well as a maintenance perspective. If there was such a thing, it would be fantastic, however, I think the best bet is finding the most efficient option to what is in use currently.
As for coal use, even though it's a controversial thing to say, Nuclear power has got to be a well considered option for replacing coal stations, IMHO.
I think you will find the oil companies would be some for the first to jump on board with a new tech like that - after all, all businesses must evolve right?

I think it's only controversial amongst certain "groups". In fact Nuclear Power would already have weened the free world off of foreign oil had these "groups" not set the industry back, what, a couple of decades. There is a lot of misinformation about the Nuclear industry imo, praying on people's fears. The initial cost and time to build a Nuclear plant is quite great, but fuelling them is very cheap and efficient beyond the initial cost. The waste materials must obviously, be dealt with in a responsible manner. China seems to be forward thinking and is currently building some 20 or so plants with more to come where other nations twiddle their thumbs and spend millions, if not billions, on feasablity studies wasting time and money.

There are a number of possibilities out there, but when the majority of people learn how much extra they will end up paying, above what they are accustomed to, more than likely they will balk and most of the alternatives.

While nuclear power is certainly a viable option for many purposes I don’t like it as a general replacement for fossil fuel for a reason not generally associated with the hysteria of the anti-nuclear movement. The centralized nature of it’s production and high startup costs which invariably mean it’s going to be big companies (read monopolies) and heavily government regulated both of which are completely at odds with personal liberties bothers me. I could see it being used for supporting large industrial parks and even large built up cities where other options may not be viable but I’d rather see more localized even individualized power generation especially in the wide open places like Arizona.

Thorium reactors seem to be an interesting alternative to traditional uranium reactors. I'd be interested in seeing more research towards those. Unfortunately, Grunt's issues still remain.

I'm feeling guilty for speeding yesterday. I'm going to buy some carbon credits from Gore to make up for it. - sorry, pointles jab. I need to refrain from this thread. Having a career tied to power generation, and the oil and gas industry makes me too biased…..

I will say that Tom summed up my feelings to a T.

I knew this was coming, looks like the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is going to impose some fisheries closures due to the massive fish kills from the recent cold weather ... FWC responds to widespread cold-weather saltwater fish kills. Word around the rumor mill is that the current snook closure 'til September of this year may extend upwards of three to five years, that's a hit for us.

Good news is that I'm hearing the sailfish are hot and heavy at the moment, if we can only get some decent seas offshore.

Here's an interesting link

It looks like NASA and GISS have joined the University of East Anglia with "climate gate".

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/climategate-arrives-in-the-us/

wow, lots of cool links off of the one provided. thanks.

Alright. I have resisted posting so far, but...

If a baby once drowned in a bathtub does that make all bathtubs murderous devices that should be banned from the planet? Not likely.

I think that describes the current 'climate gate' scandal quite well.

We now have more than 50 years of research and data and it all points in the same direction. Humans have had a direct impact on the global climate making it warmer.

Some of the theories on the mechanisms behind the warming have pr oven wrong, but the basic premise has not.

The 'debate' over global warming is more like a war. There is a winner and a looser. Nobody gets points for playing nice and over the last 30 years, the scientific community has learned how to play the same hardball private interests have been playing for years.

Take a look at big pharma. The have been fudging the data for less promising drugs for a long time. The tobacco industry is another fine example of the rules of engagement for this sort of debate/war.

What does this mean? It means that you can pretty much throw out the stuff crap from the mainstream media that passes for news these days, switch on your brain really read what is published.

The current climate gate is just another front in the war.

An interesting report I heard last night, which describes the probable cause of the cold weather. Despite what I had been thinking, it's not related to climate change--it's the Arctic oscillation. The Arctic is up by some 10-15 degrees this winter.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122649916

BTW, discarding anomalous data points and drawing graphs is standard practice in just about ever science out there.