Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Age of Stupid

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 11:44 PM
Original message
The Age of Stupid
Saw a really good documentary recently suggested by a good environmentalist David McKay (blog here: http://withouthotair.blogspot.com/ ).

It posits a future in 2100 where all of the worlds artifacts and species and knowledge is archived in a big tower. One of the guardians (the narrator in fact) sits down and goes over "present day videos." Nice little way to present a documentary if you ask me. Anyway, the videos go from the glacial melt in France to an airline mogul in India, and to environmentalist wind producers, to Iraqi's who escaped from Iraq during the war. From a man who lived in New Orleans during Katrina (and has a secret about what his life long job was) to a Nigerian woman who lived in a town overtaken by Shell oil company who broke many "restructuring" promises, such as building a new school and water filtration facilities.

It has a nice juxtaposition between the various people. The Nigerian woman, for instance, wants to be all prettified and throughout the film speaks highly of western consumerization, whereas the British man who produces wind farms insists on a zero impact life, and is introspectively regretful of his former lifestyle (yuppie gone zero impact, even stopped flying; his wife frowns sadly when they opt to mutually forgo a skiing vacation in France).

The Indian mogul illustrates clearly the consumerist mindset. At one point in the movie he speaks highly of how different he is and how he grew up rich and all of his servants had it poor, so he wanted to "change that" and "build a better business," that helped the poor. ie, sell plane tickets for several rupies. Then, of course, we see him yelling at his young Indian workers, telling one guy that if his steps to his planes have one scruff mark that the guy is fired. It's all so beautiful.

My favorite person, the guy who actually coins the name of the movie in his final statements, was the guy from New Orleans. I'll leave out the parts where he reveals his secret job position upon which he retired from, when you hear it the juxtaposition comes full circle.

I could go on, I just wanted to recommend it. There is one downside is that during the narration, especially in the beginning of the movie, the "guardian" of the worlds artifacts is constantly switching between various viewpoints on this 3D highly advanced viewing screen. It is discombobulating especially since the thumbnail videos are absolutely tiny, they could have probably done that better, by making the thumbnails bigger at the bare minimum.

Finally, the movie notes what I believe is the only plan that can work to save us from catastrophe. USA drops its (per capita) emissions to 90% what they currently are in 10 years (ten years). Europe likewise. China must also limit its emissions to whatever 90% USAs current emissions are, by that point (2020). India and the other developing nations then can grow their emissions to 90% current USA emissions, until by 2065 there are no emissions whatsoever. What is necessary though is an immediate and dramatic drop off of emissions. In a decade. That's why I like the plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Aragorn Donating Member (784 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. bad link
try this instead: http://www.ageofstupid.net/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Yeah, sorry, linked the blog that recommended the movie, but neglected a link to the movie site!
Silly me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
2. I've been waiting for it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
3. I don't suppose you've found it online anywhere?
I suspect It'll be a while before it reaches anywhere nearby. :(

BTW, I'll second "Moon" as a good watch, and agree that you should avoid discovering the plot in advance. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yeah, how I saw it...
...google the name of the movie + hotfile or rapidshare or megaupload, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Didn't think it's been out long enough for that
Shows what I know. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 04:54 AM
Response to Original message
7. That isn't a plan; that is a goal.
How you turn it into reality is a plan.

You wrote, Finally, the movie notes what I believe is the only plan that can work to save us from catastrophe. USA drops its (per capita) emissions to 90% what they currently are in 10 years (ten years). Europe likewise. China must also limit its emissions to whatever 90% USAs current emissions are, by that point (2020). India and the other developing nations then can grow their emissions to 90% current USA emissions, until by 2065 there are no emissions whatsoever. What is necessary though is an immediate and dramatic drop off of emissions. In a decade. That's why I like the plan."

I'd argue we need to do more than you have suggested; dropping down to 90% of current emissions within ten years doesn't seem nearly enough. Obama has reportedly agreed to set a 17% reduction below 2005 levels by 2020 and an 83% reduction by 2050 as targets.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. There's obviously a miscommunication. By 90% reduced, I mean that remissions are 10% what they...
...were in 2008 or whatever.

Assume we emitted 30 gt in 2009, by 2020 we'd be releasing 3 gt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. That doesn't track.
I haven't seen the movie so I'm just going by what you relate is in it. You said their goal is carbon free by 2065. Obama is calling for 85% reduction by 2050. That sounds similar.

You initially relayed their plan as a reduction to 90% of current levels by 2020; while Obama is calling for 17% below 2005 by 2020 - similar, but Obama is trying to set a faster pace.

Now you say there was a miscommunication and that the plan they present is a reduction to 10% of current levels by 2020 which I presume means that their plan allows 45 years to eliminate the other 10%.

It doesn't track.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Um, it does track, I explained it poorly. They're talking about world emissions.
Watch the movie.

Would I really say "What is necessary though is an immediate and dramatic drop off of emissions." if I thought I was saying a 10% reduction to 90% current levels? Really, you're just being stupid now. I already admitted that I misspoke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. "I presume means that their plan allows 45 years to eliminate the other 10%"
No, you presume wrong, because it's per-capita it leaves a lot of room for developing nations to grow. India, for instance, can grow their per-capita emissions to 10% current US emissions.

I don't think you comprehend how much per-capita emissions are in the United States.



US is around 20 mt per person, India is about 1.5 mt per person. US drops to 2 mt per person in 10 years, India grows to 2 mt per person in 10 years. No one goes higher than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I understand the distribution of emissions just fine; you're just telling another whopper.
Edited on Fri Nov-27-09 10:01 PM by kristopher
It looks like you made a mistake, can't admit it and are instead trying to deflect the issue with bullshit.

You endorsed the plan in the video. What is that plan calling for? It is a simple question and your tap dancing isn't necessary nor constructive. I was going by what you wrote, but apparently placing such trust in you is foolish since the truth doesn't seem to matter to you one iota.

I found this online:
The Age of Stupid is key part of a major push green lobby push this week to publicize their key goals:

1) Reducing the 3% per year increase in CO2 emissions we've seen this decade to 0% by 2015.
2) An 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.
3) An eventual return to CO2 levels of 350 ppm--well below the current level of 388 ppm.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1329


Obviously if they are aiming for 80% by 2050 then your assertion that their goal is 90% within 10 years is bullshit and the plan that Obama has announced is virtually the same as the one in the movie. If you want people to trust your judgment you need to display both a modest degree of accuracy and a commitment to being truthful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Am I? How about you apologize? Do you even have credibility here anymore?
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 11:58 PM by joshcryer
Really. I really look forward to your back peddling or "explaining."

I can admit when I am wrong (for instance, my phrasing left a lot to be desired), but you hardly ever do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Other than the difference between "to 90% of" and "by 90%" you were accurate.
That is a plan noted in the film.

However, since you are concerned with credibility, I'd suggest you reread the threads and consider that the original, extremely large mistake you made in stating the goal is the actual root of any issue dealing with credibility on this topic. Contrary to your assertion regarding your ability to admit you're wrong, I'm afraid you have a history of very poor application of new information; so I still consider my incredulity to be fully justified.

Your original statement, "Finally, the movie notes what I believe is the only plan that can work to save us from catastrophe. USA drops its (per capita) emissions to 90% what they currently are in 10 years (ten years). Europe likewise. China must also limit its emissions to whatever 90% USAs current emissions are, by that point (2020). India and the other developing nations then can grow their emissions to 90% current USA emissions, until by 2065 there are no emissions whatsoever. What is necessary though is an immediate and dramatic drop off of emissions. In a decade. That's why I like the plan."

For what it's worth on the content of the goal, I actually agree with you and I think it *is* the one we should aim for. It is essentially the proposal endorsed by Gore and his Apollo Alliance.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Ah, yes, you spend dozens of posts insulting me, essentially calling me...
...a psychopathic liar who would go so far as to "pretend" to have misphrased something and completely twisted around what was said to be the exact opposite. Instead of fucking owning up and apologizing you quote the very misstatement that you were "using" as proof that I am a liar, and pretend it justifies your absolute insanity. Good job kristopher.

Which is the logical course of events?

I misphrased something and admitted to it.

I lied about the original contents of a message, lied that I misphrased, and attempted to pawn off a completely different story.

The fact that you believed the latter shows what kind of character you have. Your "incredulity" is misplaced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Disinformation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. No,
Just context. You come to the table with an established record of being someone with little regard for the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. OK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. 4 characters, btw. Dozens of insults over 4 characters.
USA drops its (per capita) emissions 90% what they currently are in 10 years (ten years). Europe likewise. China must also limit its emissions to whatever 10% USAs current emissions are, by that point (2020). India and the other developing nations then can grow their emissions to 10% current USA emissions, until by 2065 there are no emissions whatsoever. What is necessary though is an immediate and dramatic drop off of emissions. In a decade. That's why I like the plan.

And an identifier that clearly states the intent (immediate and dramatic drop off). Just like with Terry in Austin you purposefully go out of your way to insult people.

18. GIGO (garbage in, garbage out)
This is a graphic of the area each technology would require to power the US personal transportation fleet of electric drive vehicles:

20. It's the difference between a half truth and the whole truth.

As such it DOES disagree with his statement in the sense that a half truth conveys a meaning that is refuted by the whole truth.

30. It matters.

The number he gave is spacing, not actual land used. Wind is very popular precisely because it affords dual use of land that is beneficial to farmers since it augments their income handsomely with very little impact on their agricultural output. The scale of the difference is illustrated in the graphic.

34. Actually he did.

The meaning of "implication" is that it isn't expressly stated. The claim was obviously meant to convey a large penalty associated with land use.

36. I just reread the original

post by Terry.
You are right; I stand corrected.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=218612&mesg_id=218670


You stand corrected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Is this where you try to bury your misinformation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. No,
Just context. You come to the table with an established record having little regard for the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. That doesn't "prove" anything about me.
Edited on Sun Nov-29-09 06:58 PM by joshcryer
All it proves is your inability to read.

But this does prove your kneejerk reaction to people: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=218612&mesg_id=218670

Your untrusting nature (to the point of *irrationality*: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x218841

You have issues, it's obvious. The idea that anyone would suggest a 90% reduction in 10 years offends you so badly for some reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. It doesn't offend me at all.
In fact is the course advocated by Gore and I think we should pursue it. Unfortunately it isn't a goal that is in the realm of what is politically possible - something Gore also accepts.

I'm afraid the litany of deliberate "mistakes" by you in the thread referenced is a burden you are going to have to bear as a reflection on your credibility. Past demonstrations of wanton disregard for the truth must color the way people interpret all you say in the future, Josh.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=207597&mesg_id=208171
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. My credibility? You're the one who spent dozens of posts insulting me over your own ignorance and...
...character. If you were a respectable person then we wouldn't be having this argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Right....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Right indeed. Now will you stop spamming a thread I started? Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. I'm replying to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. No, you're trying to bury your insults and lack of credibility.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x218841

You have to go all the way back to the Nordell discussion to "prove" I am not trustworthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. No Josh
I'm going back to Nordell because it is one case I bookmarked among many, many others where you demonstrated that you have only a passing familiarity with the concepts of truth and integrity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=207597&mesg_id=208171

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Feel free to show more, and I can show plenty of instances where you spammed to bury criticism.
So people wouldn't see what kind of character you (don't) have.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x218841
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. We don't need to go far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. I'm still waiting for my apology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. You aren't owed an apology.
Edited on Sun Nov-29-09 08:48 PM by kristopher
You routinely tell whoppers so I have violated no norms by concluding in error that one of your poorly worded, error laden posts was also false. This instance just falls into the "even a broke clock is right twice a day" category.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=207597&mesg_id=208171


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=218781&mesg_id=219182

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. You called me a liar, without any evidence, and I don't deserve an apology? You admitted wrongness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. Riiiiiiight....
I'm *forcing* to you madness and *I'm* responsible for your continued posts...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. I'm just replying.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. There it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Later.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #39
65. untrustworthy
"You have to go all the way back to the Nordell discussion to "prove" I am not trustworthy."

er... i for one just have to read this conversation, anything you post.

You seem to be playing spin games, it doesn't take much to spot it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #65
76. You read in to everything I post, therefore your judgement is clearly impaired.
This thread proves that you read in to what people post, and you read the most negative, wrong interpretation possible. I mean, really, it takes some level of special thinking to think I was lying about the proposal I liked in The Age of Stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
24. a real plan.
"I'd argue we need to do more than you have suggested; dropping down to 90% of current emissions within ten years doesn't seem nearly enough. Obama has reportedly agreed to set a 17% reduction below 2005 levels by 2020 and an 83% reduction by 2050 as targets."

17 percent is a joke. Going green is not even about climate change, it can be only about economics. Green energy is orders of magnitude cheaper than fossil fuels or etc.

we can transform over to green energy as quickly as two years if we just dig old dry oil wells into geothermal power stations.

That 90 percent is achievable in theory in only 2 years. Why can't we do it in ten?

---------------------


1. There are many different ways to derive energy.
2. Each of these methods has different relationships with the environment
3. Each of these methods has different costs and different benefits
4. Each of the these methods has different pros and cons.
5. A partial list of methods; oil, coal, shale, wood, gas, Biofuels (a. food crop, b. hemp crop c. algae) Solar, Thermal Solar, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal, Hydrogen, Hydrolic, Zero Point, Nuclear.

6. Oils relationships with the environment are
a. oil is ancient organic material that has undergone geological processes.
b. oil is removed from the ground via oil wells. Ie oil is mined from the Earth.
c. oil is burned in order to get heat and chemical reaction to create the energy.
d. burning it creates smoke. the smoke is toxic. it is multiply toxic to the ecosystem in multiple ways.
e. its causing global warming
f. it causes cancer
g. it causes acid rain
h. thus it hurts humans personally and the whole ecosystem as whole in these different ways.
7. oil costs a certain amount of money to obtain from the earth, depending on how deep it is and at what pressure it is under.
8. oil costs a certain amount of money to refine and process, as well as to transport.
9. The pros of oil are that ;
a. it is accessible with very primitive levels of technology
b. our current energy infrastructure is based on oil
c. oil costs less than biofuels or, at least, it used to.
d. oils over all cost benefit analysis remains do-able from the perspective of economics alone.
10. The cons against oil are
a. oil is actually very expensive as technology compared to other forms of energy in which initial
costs render yields not limited by physical quantities. Solar power stations, Wind, and Geothermal all provide energy options which
are simply cheaper over the long term.
b. oil pollutes the ecology as mentioned in its environmental analysis above.
c. that pollution will cause the extinction of life on earth as we know it should it continue.
d. we have already reached a tipping point where we have raised the global temperature so high that the new larger contributor to
greenhouse gasses is the ice that is being melted.
e. thus we need solutions to reverse global warming, or, our civilization is doomed.
11. Coal. The specifics change, but Coal, like oil, is an ancient organic substance exposed to geological processes, mut be burned, and thus
contributes to pollution and global warming.
12. oil Shale and coal Shale. Similar to oil and coal or extensions of them, shale is harder to mine and harder to extract oil from.
thus it costs more to process.
13. Biofuels. The difference between biofuels and oil or coal is that biofuels have not been exposed to geological processes, but rather,
similarly effecting technological processes.
a.Biofuels still have toxic smoke which pollutes and which contributes to global warming
b. Biofuels trade energy shortage and economic stress for food shortage and economic stress, thus creating c +d
c. Biofuels create food shortages, hunger, and contribute to global poverty
d. Biofuels make food more expensive.
14. Solar Power
a. solar power is derived from the suns light and chemical processes.
b. Solar panels are a permanent fixture which will continue to derive energy whenever the sun shines.
c. Solar panels have real but comparatively very tiny environmental costs.
d. Solar panel technology is up to date and evolved, no more research is actually required.
e. assorted pundits and candidates and politicians and so forth like to tell us that they favor more research for solar power.
Thats a secret unsecret way of saying that they don't support employing it as a real world solution, because solar power has worked
and has been feasible and economically viable for over 20 years.
f. Solar power is derived at a specific rate depending on the size of the panel, the efficiency of the absorption of the sunlight, and the amount of
sunlight available.
g. Solar power does better at high altitudes because theres less atmospheric interference.
h. Solar Power has very low yields per physical system cost. In order to run a car on Solar energy, you have to panel the entire car,
and in order to run your house on solar energy, you would have to panel your entire rooftop and buy energy saving appliances.
i. Solar power is most attractive and useful in a whole energy strategy because it is uniquely mobile. Geothermal wells or Wind
power or tidal power (for obvious reasons) won't run a car directly.
j. Solar power could in theory be used to solve the energy crisis almost by itself, by paneling over a very large surface area. This surface area
has been calculated variously, with low estimates ranging in 10 by 10 miles, and high estimates ranging upto 200 by 200 miles.
h. The problem with this is that the cost/ benefit analysis shows us that this would be very expensive when compared to a holistic energy strategy.
i. Solar power has very low yields when compared to geothermal power.
15. Thermal Solar. Thermal Solar is a variation of Solar power with a much cheaper cost, a much lower per square foot yield, and operating at a much simpler technology level.
a. about 100 miles by 100 miles (median estimate) of Thermal solar paneling could in theory meet our energy needs.
b. Thermal Solar can be done in such a way that it has lower materials costs and lower materials environmental impact.
c. Thermal solar involves using light to heat a liquid which creates energy by pushing a turbine when the fluid expands.
16. Wind Energy.
a. Wind energy is derived from creating large turbines called wind mills.
b. Wind mills are generally very large affairs.
c. The larger a windmill is, the more energy it creates relative to its overall material cost.
d. This means that the cost/ benefit analysis shows that larger windmills are cheaper.
e. Windmills create medium yields of energy when they are operating.
f. One good large windmill can probably meet the energy needs for perhaps a dozen homes.
g. The USA could in theory meet all of its energy needs via wind power, if we invested heavily also in enormous
distribution network infrastructure.
h. The USA is rich in wind energy compared to most places on the earth.
i. the problem with windmills is downtime when theres no wind.
j. This is significantly less a problem than with solar downtime due to no sun.
k. Wind and Solar together as a team can capitalize on the two extremes of climate, and should thus be employed
alternately depending on the location one wishes to provide energy for.
l. for instance, Solar power is better in New Mexico, Arizona, California, Texas, And sunny places.
J. And yet Wind power is better in places like New Jersey, Oregon,...places alongside the Canada Border.
k. The other problem with wind power is that it can create quite an eye sore to look at.
l. Wind power also can be very devastating to local bird populations.
m. Wind and Solar might be good tandem partners for cities like Denver, where theres lots of wind and lots of sun,
but not usually at the same time except for when it is.
This allows such a system to generate power in the sunny months with solar and in the winter months with wind.
17. Tidal Power
a. Tidal power is derived much like wind power is, from the movement of water instead of air.
b. Tidal power is slightly higher in potential yields because water is denser.
c. Tidal power would have to be done more or less on remote beaches , probably in large fenced
areas to protect the systems from animals and animals and humans from the systems.
d. Tidal power is obviously only viable on the coastlines of oceans or very large bodies of water such as lakes.
e. Tidal power could in theory meet all of our energy needs.
f. the cost/ benefit analysis for tidal power is a bit murky because its a mostly unexplored technology.
g. however, proof of concept units do exist and the technology is very simple.
h. tidal power has problems due to the corrosive nature of salt water and erosion.
i. Tidal power is unpopular because it ruins one beach per facility.
j. Most accessible tidal power exists in the energy of waves.
k. Cost/ benefit analysis shows that tidal power can be done out at sea, but it becomes increasingly more expensive the further out
you go to get the power back to land.
l. Tidal power is probably a good solution for arctic regions which don't get much sun, and whose wind conditions might on some occasions be too intense,
pulling windmills down.
m. Along with Solar power and Wind power, tidal power provides a third leg of medium level yield energy for low materials cost in situations where
geothermal power would be too expensive.
18. Geothermal Power
a. Geothermal power is energy derived from the heat of the earth.
b. that heat is on average several miles beneath the surface.
c. However, there is a lot of variance in how deep that heat is, and every state has regions where that heat is within a few hundred meters of the surface.
d. Geothermal power like wind power becomes cheaper per materials cost the larger the plant is.
e. Geothermal power has very high potential yields, and is in fact competitive with nuclear power in terms of sheer yield.
f. Geothermal power plants could in theory be built with higher energy yields than nuclear power plants. However, this is not advised or advisable, due to
potential tectonic stresses such high energy plants could create.
g. in the range around 100th or even 1 tenth the yield energy of a nuclear power station, geothermal power stations could be built which would have
virtually no impact on tectonic stresses.
h. Tectonic stress is an important variable. Frequently geothermal power is most accessible along fault lines. However, these should be ignored for
caldera like situations where the system is not contributing or in danger due to tectonic stresses.
i. There are many different ways of configuring a geothermal power station, and only one which this author supports. This is called double circuit closed system geothermal power.
j. double circuit simply means that the water drops on one circuit and the steam comes up on the other.
k. closed circuit means that no water is ever lost in the system, because even the heating element chamber is a well engineered container
L. Geothermal power can in theory meet all of our energy needs
M. of the resources available to us, it does this with the cheapest over all cost, the smallest possible ecological footprint, and the highest level of
permanency.
N. Geothermal power is not a good solution in situations where a small amount of power is needed for small communities or remote estates. It has a high material cost and start up cost to drill the well.
O. Geothermal power is theoretically available almost everywhere on the surface of the earth.
P. current oil wells now go as deep as 7, 8, 9 miles deep.
Q. Enough Geothermal power is accessible within 200 meters depth to meet all of our energy needs.
R. where larger power sources are wanted in places where that heat is deeper, it is still true that geothermal heat in most places is not
deeper than 4 miles.
S. In some rare situations where the crust is thick, geothermal power might be as deep as 20 miles.
Don't drill there, import the energy from 150 miles away somewhere.
19. Hydrogen power;
a. Hydrogen power is an up and coming technology which we can expect to see having good strong applications 20 or 30 years from now.
b. Hydrogen power is very promising, but currently, its still mostly a way to store energy, not create it.
c. The two main exceptions to this are using corrosive rare earth metals to get reactions, and using phased electrical energy to short out the binding force.
d. The problem with the former is that the rare earth metal is itself a form of fuel, and that creating it, and "burning" it with water both create toxic
substances as side effects.
e. the problem with the latter is containment of the field and what happens when organic matter is exposed to high energy bursts of electricity.
f. To the knowledge of this author, water based solutions which continue to use a combustion engine are frauds.
g. When Hydrogen becomes a used technology, it will probably be for very large equipment and uses, such as trains, planes, and large boats
20. Hydrolic or Hydro Electric power.
a. This energy is created by damming a river and using falling water to drive a turbine.
b. this is incredibly damaging to the ecology.
c. Yields are fairly high per materials cost, but, still, hydro electric materials costs are comparable to geothermal power, which doesn't destroy an entire
ecosystem per power plant.
d. Hydro electric power does not exist in anywhere near sufficient quantities to meet all of our energy needs.
e. This author finds hydro-electric power to be a bad idea all the way around, not even as useful as nuclear power.
21. Nuclear power
a. Nuclear power (currently) is derived from using rare earth metals in reactions which turn some fraction of those fuels directly into energy.
b. The radioactive fuels must be mined, and this results currently in the deaths (and serious health problems) of many Miners.
c. Nuclear power currently creates hyper toxic and radio active wastes, which cost money to tend and babysit, and which in an accident
of ignorance 10 thousand years from now could wipe out an entire continents worth of our descendants.
d. Nuclear power is in many senses still a futuristic technology with much promise and much potential.
e. Thus nuclear power should be studied and refined in the laboratory.
f. The focus of such studies should be in finding ways to use non radioactive fuels,
finding ways to create dissipating forms of radiation only, and finding ways to eliminate the problem of wastes.
g. Nuclear power is very high yield, but it has exorbitant costs, especially over the long term.
h. Compared to Geothermal power, nuclear power is extremely expensive, gets more expensive instead of less expensive over time, is extremely
dangerous, and perhaps most importantly, sooner or later we will run out of nuclear fuels, and still be forced to move on to geothermal power.
i. Nuclear power will be most useful for purposes of exploring our solar system and our galaxy.
j. There is no good reason to use nuclear power for domestic use considering the other much better alternatives.
22. Zero point energy
a. Zero point energy is derived from quantum phase state fluctuations where energy is created in contradiction to the "laws" of conservation of mass and
energy.
b. Zero point energy is a futuristic technology which may become realistic within the next 100 years.
c. Final stage proof of concept zero point energy research should be conducted at least as distant from the earth as the oort cloud, due to the unforseeable
nature of potential dangers.
d. In theory, zero point energy could create a self sustaining quantum phase reaction which could create nearly unlimited energy in spaces literally too small to be seen by the naked eye.
e. Early stage research into zero point energy is the entire field of quantum mechanics, specifically Singularities, branes, and quantum holographics.


23. Summary of findings.
a. Geothermal, Solar, Wind, Tidal, and Hydrogen Technologies together provide a clear and easy path towards green and sustainable energy.
b. Geothermal energy specifically is the solution which a realistic green energy infrastructure should be rooted in.
c. It is reasonable to project a total holistic solution in which 80 percent of our energy comes from geothermal, 10 percent from Solar, 5 percent from
Wind, and 5 percent from Tidal.
d. It is also worth mentioning that electric cars are a current and viable technology.
e. This is all of it simply a sumary of known and provable science fact. The only reason why most people don't know all of this is that oil companies
and rich evil jerks have spent billions of dollars to flood the public with propaganda and misinformation.
f. The other strategy of the evil empire jerks is to promote energy resources such as biofuels or nuclear power which create a situation of extreme expense so that they can continue to exploit our need for energy in order to make money. A Geothermally based energy infrastructure would provide
extremely cheap energy (especially over the long term) and this would be the death of the energy industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Not really...
That is a hodgepodge of miscellaneous information that (if accurate - I only scanned it briefly) informs us only at the most rudimentary level.

You now need to take that information and establish the way we use it to *seamlessly* meet the power needs for 300 million people during a transition. You also must find a way to pay for it.

This is pure bullshit: "Green energy is orders of magnitude cheaper than fossil fuels or etc. we can transform over to green energy as quickly as two years if we just dig old dry oil wells into geothermal power stations."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. you seem angry
"That is a hodgepodge of miscellaneous information that (if accurate - I only scanned it briefly) informs us only at the most rudimentary level."

I could go longer and deeper, but you'd not read it.
The information is accurate, correct, and sufficient for you to then look it up.



"You now need to take that information and establish the way we use it to *seamlessly* meet the power needs for 300 million people during a transition. You also must find a way to pay for it."

Yes those are problems, however, i do have answers for that.


"This is pure bullshit: "Green energy is orders of magnitude cheaper than fossil fuels or etc. we can transform over to green energy as quickly as two years if we just dig old dry oil wells into geothermal power stations."

really? please tell me why you think so?

you play with fossil fuels, you dig a well, its costs a million bucks, you run out of oil, you get a ten million bucks out of it,
you have to go drill a new well. Geothermal power, you drill a well for two million and the well gives you that million bucks every
day it operates over geothermal time.

so explain to me, in your ideation of cause and effect and science, how it works any other way?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Not angry, just impatient with pie in the sky nonsense.
You are right, I didn't even read the first screed, as it followed the obvious nonsense claim regarding 2 years off of fossil fuel and renewable energy being cheaper than fossils.

Quoting you: "you play with fossil fuels, you dig a well, its costs a million bucks, you run out of oil, you get a ten million bucks out of it,
you have to go drill a new well. Geothermal power, you drill a well for two million and the well gives you that million bucks every
day it operates over geothermal time.

so explain to me, in your ideation of cause and effect and science, how it works any other way?"


Excepting one brief comment I'll just go with that as a reflection of your knowledge and understanding of the issues confronting us.

If it so easy and if it is less expensive, why are we still using fossil fuels? Do you also believe that car companies are suppressing 100MPG carbs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #34
61. truth versus fictions and expensive primitive garbage
"You are right, I didn't even read the first screed, as it followed the obvious nonsense claim regarding 2 years off of fossil fuel and renewable energy being cheaper than fossils."

You call that obvious nonsense, but, I'm a civil engineer and I know how long it would take to bring 1000 geothermal power stations to up and running.



Quoting you: "you play with fossil fuels, you dig a well, its costs a million bucks, you run out of oil, you get a ten million bucks out of it,
you have to go drill a new well. Geothermal power, you drill a well for two million and the well gives you that million bucks every
day it operates over geothermal time.

so explain to me, in your ideation of cause and effect and science, how it works any other way?"

"Excepting one brief comment I'll just go with that as a reflection of your knowledge and understanding of the issues confronting us."

in other words, you don't have an answer.


"If it so easy and if it is less expensive, why are we still using fossil fuels?"

billions of dollars have been spent to suppress alternative technologies, because they would be less profitable, and because rich people are addicted to the easy means of keeping the oligarchy pinned down which is oil. Meanwhile, trillion dollar subsidies are going to coal and oil and etc.

Simply put, the technology was there for geothermal power at the same time we first had cars. There was a technology fork, and we took the stupid direction because that direction would allow for energy monopolies.



"Do you also believe that car companies are suppressing 100MPG carbs?"

Belief is irrelevant, I'm a scientist. And yes, There are any of a dozen different ways to reliably get much better fuel mileage, the most obvious being rotary internal combustion engines instead of pistons, which lose energy every time they rise and fall.
The wankl engine was designed to fail by being built at one third scale.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. Well there are a lot of very competent people who also know...
Edited on Mon Nov-30-09 03:04 PM by kristopher
And they say you are in error. Geothermal will play an important role but it isn't ready for that role yet and two years isn't going to happen. There are a number of significant technological hurdles yet to be overcome.
From 2007
http://www.geo-energy.org/publications/reports.asp

New Report Concludes Improved Technology Key to Achieving Full Potential of
Geothermal Energy

Washington -- The Geothermal Energy Association released a new report today that
assesses the state of geothermal energy technology. It concludes that improved
subsurface technologies are the key to developing the vast potential of the resource base.
ìTo utilize most of the geothermal resource base subsurface technologies need to be
improved, new exploration technologies developed, and costs for drilling significantly
reduced,î Mark Taylor, author of the report states.

The report, entitled The State of Geothermal Technology, Part I: Subsurface Technology,
examines how companies today are trying to find and exploit geothermal heat under the
ground. It follows and explains the series of steps that a geothermal project takes from
exploration to resource confirmation. It was built upon interviews and site visits with
companies actively developing projects, and portrays the state of geothermal technology
from their perspective.

ìThere is significant, untapped geothermal potential that can be effectively developed
with todayís technology,î comments Mark Taylor, ìbut to unlock the vast potential of the
resource ñ involving hundreds of thousands of megawatts of energy ñ will require an
investment in developing new technologies that allow us to find hidden resources and
utilize unconventional sources of heat.î

Among issues it identified, the report cites development of new exploration tools, better
resource characterization, advances that reduce drilling costs, and better tools to predict
reservoir behavior as critical near-term needs.
In the longer-run, the report points to some new and emerging geothermal technologies,
such as Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). The report states: ìEnhanced
Geothermal Systems (EGS) are those in which low or non-producing resources are
engineered to become commercially viable. Although there have been several successful
tests examining parts of EGS technology, what is needed is the significant commitment
of funds to determine if EGS is technically feasible by building a facility that produces
electricity over a period of time.î
In addition, the potential of producing energy from hot water co-produced from oil and
gas wells, deep volcanic or supercritical resources, and geopressured systems that hold
both hot water and natural gas are highlighted as potentially significant future energy
sources.

Full report and more available at above link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #66
70. very competent? lol
"And they say you are in error."

and i'm supposed to care what groupthink saddled morons have to say?



"Geothermal will play an important role but it isn't ready for that role yet and two years isn't going to happen. There are a number of significant technological hurdles yet to be overcome."


No, geothermal power has been completely clear and present as a technology as long as oil has been. This is about the same as the ignorant or spin doctors who claim we can't have electric cars because we don't have the batteries for it. Then why has the all electic city bus been running in SB for 20 years?


From 2007
http://www.geo-energy.org/publications/reports.asp

New Report Concludes Improved Technology Key to Achieving Full Potential of
Geothermal Energy

"Washington -- The Geothermal Energy Association released a new report today that
assesses the state of geothermal energy technology. It concludes that improved
subsurface technologies are the key to developing the vast potential of the resource base.
ìTo utilize most of the geothermal resource base subsurface technologies need to be
improved, new exploration technologies developed, and costs for drilling significantly
reduced,î Mark Taylor, author of the report states."

Thats nonsense, we have the technology now, this is just stalling bs.


"The report, entitled The State of Geothermal Technology, Part I: Subsurface Technology,
examines how companies today are trying to find and exploit geothermal heat under the
ground. It follows and explains the series of steps that a geothermal project takes from
exploration to resource confirmation. It was built upon interviews and site visits with
companies actively developing projects, and portrays the state of geothermal technology
from their perspective."

Obviously not that great considering that most geothermal exploration being done is half azzed, and that exploding
rock to get down to heat with water is rock stupid.


"ìThere is significant, untapped geothermal potential that can be effectively developed
with todayís technology,î comments Mark Taylor, ìbut to unlock the vast potential of the
resource ñ involving hundreds of thousands of megawatts of energy ñ will require an
investment in developing new technologies that allow us to find hidden resources and
utilize unconventional sources of heat.î"

There is 4000 times more geothermal energy in known near surface reservoirs than the usa currently uses.



"Among issues it identified, the report cites development of new exploration tools, better
resource characterization, advances that reduce drilling costs, and better tools to predict
reservoir behavior as critical near-term needs."

none of which would be required to actually switch over to geothermal power.


"In the longer-run, the report points to some new and emerging geothermal technologies,
such as Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS)."

which is an oxmoron and a misnomer, its just blowing up rock with water, which is a waste of time and money
and which creates tectonic stresses.


"The report states: ìEnhanced
Geothermal Systems (EGS) are those in which low or non-producing resources are
engineered to become commercially viable."

which is totally un-needed since all the energy we need is within 200 meters of the surface.




"Although there have been several successful
tests examining parts of EGS technology, what is needed is the significant commitment
of funds to determine if EGS is technically feasible by building a facility that produces
electricity over a period of time.î"


No, abandon the stupid expensive stalling technology and go for the slightly more expensive but well understood basic technology.


"In addition, the potential of producing energy from hot water co-produced from oil and
gas wells, deep volcanic or supercritical resources, and geopressured systems that hold
both hot water and natural gas are highlighted as potentially significant future energy
sources."

gee, thats swell.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #70
78. Single projects versus large scale deployment.
So your argument is basically two fold; oil and gas companies want to shut down geothermal, and they have subverted the industry association and are lying to everyone about the resource.

Well, what about the people who don't work for the oil, coal and gas companies that want to build a renewable infrastructure? There are lots of people throwing money at renewables, and the utilities across the nation were unbundled a decade ago. Since geothermal fits into the existing grid design, it doesn't suffer from the intermittency issues that have obstrocted adoption of wind and solar in the past; so how have these dark actors (and I agree they exist and that they act to obstruct renewable development) prevented groups spending money on renewables from investing in this technology you claim is road ready?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #66
71. and they are actually who? (oil and gas companies)
http://www.geo-energy.org/membership/members.asp

a short perusal of members shows that they include edison power company, gas companies, oil companies, and a variety of front organizations for oil companies.

Your information resource is garbage, if it were paper it would be replacing my tp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_renewable_energy_topics_by_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Sustainable_development

http://geothermal.marin.org/pwrheat.html

http://www.geo-energy.org/

http://egs.egi.utah.edu/

http://geocen.iyte.edu.tr/english/indexEnglish.htm

http://terresacree.org/geothermieprofondeanglais.htm

http://www.newsunfiltered.com/archives/2005/09/expanding_geoth.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels/dn11010-us-urged-to-boost-its-geothermal-power-capacity.html

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/geothermal_powe.php
all geothermal power options are not equal. Dry rock for instance is a lot more hazardous.
The ideal would simply create a closed circuit with a pooling area at the bottom, and this would not cause
problems like this place did because the water would not be going out into the surrounding rock.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/geothermal-energy-and-its-advantages.html

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/17819/Geothermal-Power-Generation-The-sleeping-giant

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/PlusSide/geothermal.html

http://www.nuclearpowerprocon.org/pop/geothermal.htm

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/03-the-great-forgotten-clean-energy-source

http://www.planetpuna.com/geothermal/geothermal%20critique.htm
this is just to be fair. It should be noted that this is all about one plant thats operating too close to the magma
and not using double closed circuit.

http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/geothermal-power-station.html




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. law firm? lol
http://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Index.aspx

this ones just a law firm. I started at the bottom and could work my way up. The long and short of it is that these "highly competent" people are just paid liars who need lawyers to tell them what they can get away with.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #66
72. more real information...
http://www.ecofriend.org/entry/geothermal-power-plants-an-expensive-way-to-generate-clean-electricity/

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/04/jefferson_teste.html

http://www.gordonmoyes.com/2007/01/10/crossbench-comment-better-than-nuclear/

http://www.answers.com/topic/geothermal-power?cat=technology

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/altarock-breaks-new-ground-with-geothermal-power-918.html

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17236/

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080227/geothermal-cheap-abundant-cheap

http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2007/10/geothermal_the_other_base_load_power.html

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/05/engineered-geothermal-power.html

http://seekingalpha.com/article/76811-geothermal-energy-sources-101

http://www.smu.edu/geothermal/2004NAMap/2004NAmap.htm

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geomap.html











http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.utpb.edu/ceed/renewableenergy/texas.htm&h=977&w=974&sz=876&hl=en&start=20&um=1&tbnid=pSChvCFQN38TsM:&tbnh=149&tbnw=149&prev=/images%3Fq%3DGeothermal%2BMap%2Bof%2BNorth%2BAmerica%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

New Tectonic Source of Geothermal Energy?

volcan42.jpg Geochemists from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Arizona State University have discovered a new tool for identifying potential geothermal energy resources. The discovery came from comparing helium isotopes in samples gathered from wells, springs, and vents across the northern Basin and Range of western North America. High helium ratios are common in volcanic regions. When the investigators found high ratios in places far from volcanism, they knew that hot fluids must be permeating Earth's inner layers by other means. The samples collected on the surface gave the researchers a window into the structure of the rocks far below, with no need to drill.

"A good geothermal energy source has three basic requirements: a high thermal gradient—which means accessible hot rock—plus a rechargeable reservoir fluid, usually water, and finally, deep permeable pathways for the fluid to circulate through the hot rock," says Mack Kennedy. "We believe we have found a way to map and quantify zones of permeability deep in the lower crust that result not from volcanic activity but from tectonic activity, the movement of pieces of the Earth's crust."

Geothermal is considered by many to be the best renewable energy source besides solar. Accessible geothermal energy in the United States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii, is estimated at 90 quadrillion kilowatt-hours, 3,000 times more than the country's total annual energy consumption. Determining helium ratios from surface measurements is a practical way to locate promising sources.

Julia Whitty is Mother Jones' environmental correspondent. You can read from her new book, The Fragile Edge, and other writings, here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. liars and spin doctors and innacurate information... oh my!
"I consider this an important issue and I'm dedicated to seeing our decisions are based on accurate information."

BZZT! Epic Fail. Try again.





(So... when will your accurate info be forthcoming?)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #24
38. The reason is can't happen in 10 (or 20) is because people like kristopher put profit...
...over human beings. That's why. You look at the Iraq war budget, the bailouts, etc, it is clear where the political priorities lay.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. That is false.
Another case of you playing fast and loose with the truth, Josh. You don't like what I post so you resort to lies in order to attack me.

I acknowledge that some people lie and it is a fact that we must deal with; that doesn't mean that I lie or endorse lying.

I acknowledge that greed is a strong motivating force in the world; that doesn't mean that I am greedy or that I endorse greed.

So when I say that a political reality exists that doesn't mean that I endorse what lies at the root of that political reality or that I share the values causing it.

Simple enough for even you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. When you say "a political reality exists" it just justifies your derision of other posters here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. Perhaps you could explain that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Well, if someone likes something you don't think is "political reality," you insult them.
If it doesn't fit within Jacobson's review of renewable energy path, which we know won't keep emissions from staying below 2.0C or even 3.0C without government intervention, then you deride people for merely speaking of a way that can work technologically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. You are drifting deeper and deeeper into a fugue...
The technological part of the discussion is, for all intents and purposes, over. What is now on the table is human motivation - getting people to do it.

You have no concept of either part of the problem. All you have to contribute is a level of fear bordering on hysteria and irrationality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. Fear? I do simple math. Remember GGs wind turbine thread?
Did you initially think his numbers were too high? I personally think you did: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=218612&mesg_id=218648

The technological part of the discussion should always be welcome here, it should not be met with increasing derision if you have any respect for fellow posters (which you do not).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. Consdering...
I've authored peer reviewed, published papers on offshore wind resource assessment I suspect your conclusions are colored more by your hate of me than by the content of my posts. Try reading them again.

Just because you let your biases dictate what information you want in the public realm doesn't mean that you should project that type of ethical foundation on others. I often correct mistakes about renewables - even those that are overly optimistic (you saw that just a bit ago on another thread).

I consider this an important issue and I'm dedicated to seeing our decisions are based on accurate information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. What papers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. The point is my state of mind when I replied to GG.
REread those posts with what I just wrote in mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. Not going to play games.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #56
63. based on accurate information.
Edited on Mon Nov-30-09 02:36 PM by Prometheuspan
"I consider this an important issue and I'm dedicated to seeing our decisions are based on accurate information."

So... when will your accurate info be forthcoming?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #56
67. Now that piqued my interest.
I'd be very interested in reading some of your work. Can you point me to some, either on-line or paper?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #67
75. Fat chance, if he was really credible he would have stated already.
I never state accomplishments unless I can prove them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. i try to leave the my i out of it. its irrelevant.
"I never state accomplishments unless I can prove them."

besides, its too much like boasting to even go there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #42
64. "So when I say that a political reality exists"
you give your power to that so called reality and deny the possibility of making escape energy from that dead end.

We could create a new political reality, all we have to do is quit wanking.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #64
68. Really? We could?
You write "So when I say that a political reality exists" you give your power to that so called reality and deny the possibility of making escape energy from that dead end."

"Making escape energy from that dead end"?

I'm afraid I don't understand your remark. Please explain it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. political realities are made, not innate
its very simple. Every time you run for the cover of a "political reality" you are making that reality more real.

those realities can in theory be changed, they are not static, they are not immutable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #69
79. Well, they change, but that doesn't mean that "we" can initiate the change.
Edited on Mon Nov-30-09 06:30 PM by kristopher
When dealing with public policy the realities of what is politically possible are relevant. Just waving your hand and saying "we can change the political realities" does not change them. Having faith in the future and/or being willing to work hard for a goal you believe in is admirable, however you are bordering on being delusional.

Again, I agree that geothermal is an important part of the solution to our energy security, pollution and climate change needs, but it can't perform in anything like the time frame you propose.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/publications.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #79
81. you are still here?
i would have assumed you'd scoot off with your tail between your legs.


"When dealing with public policy the realities of what is politically possible are relevant. Just waving your hand and saying "we can change the political realities" does not change them."

No, what creates change say for instance is people like you quitting the devils advocate position and say, running this off to everybody in your mailbox. You decide it can't change, so you take no action and you tell everybody its impossible. Thats a perfect way to ensure that indeed, there will be no change.

I on the other hand fight at the forefront of the cutting edge of the awakening, where all thigns are possible if humans were to decide to awaken. Political realities can be changed. Not by magick, but by right action, by having very good answers to high order problems, and by having people work together for change, not against each other.



" Having faith in the future and/or being willing to work hard for a goal you believe in is admirable, however you are bordering on being delusional."

No, I am very determined and very powerful, there is a difference. I know full well the difficulties involved, the only question is how truly insurmountable those obstacles are. All it would take is for humanity to listen, and change could be very rapid,.

as tori amos once observed famously, all of the white horses are still in bed.


"Again, I agree that geothermal is an important part of the solution to our energy security, pollution and climate change needs, but it can't perform in anything like the time frame you propose."

You are simply wrong about that. Its big of you to agree that its central. What kind of time frame are you trying to tell me
we have to wait for, and is this another batch of garbage information?

Having seen what you use for an information resource previously, why should we take your opinion on this seriously at all?
You are linking us to information without merit and which could be easily spotted as being propaganda.

but lets look...


http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/publications.htm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #81
82. eere
Edited on Tue Dec-01-09 12:27 AM by Prometheuspan


"Geothermal Publications
Photo of the cover of Geothermal Tomorrow publication.

Publications like Geothermal Tomorrow (PDF 2 MB) highlight current DOE activities.

Here you'll find the Department of Energy's most recent publications about enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) technologies and research and development activities."

I'm supposed to trust a batch of reports generated out of the bush administration?

Look, fella, you don't seem to grasp who you are talking to here. This ain't some yahoo. I can tell you how to build them and maintain them down to drawing you schematics.

I have the start up files already drawn.

I'm a civil engineer,. I'm an energy scientist. This is just propaganda crap.


It could be put on fast track and done in two or 3 years. In that a short amount of time we could co0nvert over to dominantly geothermal power.

as far as "advanced" ...

those systems are not advanced, they are stupid cheating trying to go ultra cheapo excuses for geothermal that shouldn't even be tried. Blwoing up rock with steam causes tectonic activity. We want the simple old fashioned kind of geothermal system where you actually dig the well to the required depth the hard way.


http://issues.ni4d.us/index.php?title=Geothermal_Power_Details


http://issues.ni4d.us/index.php?title=Common_Myths_and_Misconceptions_about_Geothermal_Power


http://issues.ni4d.us/index.php?title=Geothermal_Power_Responsible_Versus_Irresponsible_Technologies


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #82
83. ROTFLMAO
You wrote, "I'm a civil engineer,. I'm an energy scientist. This is just propaganda crap."

That is the funniest thing I've ever heard. You're an "energy scientist" that rejects the industry trade association as an entity fighting against their product and the DOE as "a batch of reports generated out of the Bush administration" and in their place you offer only a simpleminded blog post that you wrote.

You are a sham and a charlatan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #83
85. propaganda culture wars of oil and coal
"hat is the funniest thing I've ever heard. You're an "energy scientist" that rejects the industry trade association"

of oil and coal businessmen...


"as an entity fighting against their product"

against a competitor product

"and the DOE as "a batch of reports generated out of the Bush administration" and in their place you offer only a simpleminded blog post that you wrote."

its not simple minded, its quite nuanced, rather deep, and in any case, the information is factual to the question of what geothermal power can do for us now, not fabricated by industry involved in oil and coal to keep geothermal off the table.

You seem to find the whole idea of me knowing what i am talking about ludicrous. Its a lot more ludicrous to tell me that those are the energy gyys for their pwn product and yada when we all know full well that the real truth is they spend millions of dollars to lie to the public over climate change.

"Advanced" geothermal systems are geothermal lite systems designed to fail so that we can pretend we are working on the problem, about the same as building a one third scale wankl engine and saying that we tried rotary internal combustion engines and it didn't work. Well, it didn't work because they did it the most expensive and obtuse way they could and still make it look like they were trying.





"You are a sham and a charlatan. "

you are a fool and a troll.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #85
87. Well, we have a point of agreement.
Edited on Tue Dec-01-09 01:33 AM by kristopher
You wrote of me, "You seem to find the whole idea of me knowing what i am talking about ludicrous."

Yes, you've shown that pretty well. You might have technical knowledge related to a specific system (that has yet to be established on way or the other), but your understanding of the larger picture we have been discussing is clearly lacking any substance whatsoever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #87
88. i see morons...
You wrote of me, "You seem to find the whole idea of me knowing what i am talking about ludicrous."

"Yes, you've shown that pretty well. You might have technical knowledge related to a specific system (that has yet to be established on way or the other), but your understanding of the larger picture we have been discussing is clearly lacking any substance whatsoever."

Let me spell it out for you. I have provided information which has more than supported my points. You have provided two links to information resources which are completely non credible.

I have provided personal explanations, babysat your trolling little nonsense generation, and in all ways bent over backwards to accomodate you, while you have offered this thresd nothing but sheer nonsense, garbage, and a long string of ad hominems.

You don't know what you are talking about, you have no business opening your mouth in public on this topic at all, but gallavanting around you go, spreading false information, and shooting down peoples real and good hopes for a better future.

The sham charlatan is you, the ignorant fool of narcistic vice is you, the moron in the living room is you.

I know what I am talking about, and I am competently able to discuss any and all of the details regarding it.

Quit bringing me obvious propaganda pages from people who are manipulating the truths and facts and science pro oil and pro fossil fuels, and start listening, and get off your high horse.

Are you paid to piss all over green energy or is this just a hobby you have picked up on your own?

The actual truth in this matter is that I am an expert, And I am an expert on a level that ought to make you, and frankly even obama, sit down and shut up and then ask a lot of pointed and meaningful questions, not waste our time with ridiculous industry lies.

The question of time to implementation is not that complicated of a problem, there is time to dig or redig the wells, and time to put in the geothermal power components such as a turbine. Given that we already have thousands of dry oil wells 9/10s of the way to geothermal heat, drilling a little deeper and putting in a geothermal system should take very little real time.

Now if you want to talk about political will, I never said anything about that in a two year estimate, I'm just talking about how long it would take for a competent rush job to convert our country over to primarilly geothermal energy.

And thats how long it would take. If you are unhappy with that estimate, you could stretch it upwards, ask for a long term estimate or a more conservative estimate, or ask meaningful questions.

Shooting me down because you are a moron (probably one whos paid) does not further this discussion in any way, does not answer any problems, and certainly does not demonstrate that I'm a charlatan or a scam artist. What it does demnstrate is that you have no argument, because if you did, you would employ it.

Since you have nothing, all you can do is resort to pathetic ad hominems.

You are pond scum, quit wasting my time and the time of people who want to have a serious discussion on these issues.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #88
89. ROTFLMAO
Edited on Tue Dec-01-09 12:47 PM by kristopher
You wrote, "I'm a civil engineer,. I'm an energy scientist. This is just propaganda crap."

That is the funniest thing I've ever heard. You're an "energy scientist" that rejects the industry trade association as an entity fighting against their product and the DOE as "a batch of reports generated out of the Bush administration" and in their place you offer only a simpleminded blog post that you wrote.

Your entire argument is premised on the assumption that powers that be would reject geothermal because it is "renewable" and I presume it would decrease their revenues from fuel.

That is total hookum.

While geothermal is renewable and will decrease spending on fuels, the gatekeepers to the grid are the utilities, who, as stakeholders have different interests than fossil fuel/mineral mining interests as it relates to consumption of fuel.

The utilities perspective is based not on the drive to sell fuel to produce electricity, but rather on sales of electricity produced.
Their second consideration is whether a generating source is dispatchable, which geothermal is. Geotermal fits perfectly into the current generating mix; it isn't used because it isn't technologically ready.

The structural obstacle to wind and solar isn't fuel consumption it is their ability to function within a system that is designed to operate around large scale central generation.

For a utility, bug free geothermal would be a godsend that would insulate them against fuel price fluctuations that inevitably eat into their profits.

I asked you before why renewable investors aren't pursuing goethermal, and of course you ignored it because the answer contradicts your bullshit; just as the profit motive of utilities contradicts your bullshit.

You are a sham and a charlatan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. dah dah dah with ignorance...
You wrote, "I'm a civil engineer,. I'm an energy scientist. This is just propaganda crap."

That is the funniest thing I've ever heard. You're an "energy scientist" that rejects the industry trade association as an entity fighting against their product and the DOE as "a batch of reports generated out of the Bush administration" and in their place you offer only a simpleminded blog post that you wrote.

Your entire argument is premised on the assumption that powers that be would reject geothermal because it is "renewable" and I presume it would decrease their revenues from fuel.

That is total hookum.

"While geothermal is renewable and will decrease spending on fuels, the gatekeepers to the grid are the utilities, who, as stakeholders have different interests than fossil fuel/mineral mining interests as it relates to consumption of fuel."

irrelevant, they are in bed with the fossil fuel folks.


"The utilities perspective is based not on the drive to sell fuel to produce electricity, but rather on sales of electricity produced."

And cheap electricity would cut into those proffits.


"Their second consideration is whether a generating source is dispatchable, which geothermal is. Geotermal fits perfectly into the current generating mix; it isn't used because it isn't technologically ready."

Its been ready for the whole century.
Stalling by playing games with blowing up rocks and starting earthquakes is just stalling.


"The structural obstacle to wind and solar isn't fuel consumption it is their ability to function within a system that is designed to operate around large scale central generation."

You seem to think you have a point there. What is it?


"For a utility, bug free geothermal would be a godsend that would insulate them against fuel price fluctuations that inevitably eat into their profits."

great point.


"I asked you before why renewable investors aren't pursuing goethermal,"

they are, but the best answer is that the lies are thick, and geothermal requires long term versus short term thinking,
because there are some high start up installation costs.


"and of course you ignored it because the answer contradicts your bullshit;"

no, i answered it, you ignored the response.

"just as the profit motive of utilities contradicts your bullshit."

Except that in fact, the reverse is true, green energy is too cheap to make money off of.
Thats the problem.


"You are a sham and a charlatan. "

You keep saying that, all it proves is that you have no argument, no integrity, and aren't interested in a real conversation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #90
91. ROTFLMAO
You wrote, "I'm a civil engineer,. I'm an energy scientist. This is just propaganda crap."

That is the funniest thing I've ever heard. You're an "energy scientist" that rejects the industry trade association as an entity fighting against their product and the DOE as "a batch of reports generated out of the Bush administration" and in their place you offer only a simpleminded blog post that you wrote.

Your entire argument is premised on the assumption that powers that be would reject geothermal because it is "renewable" and I presume it would decrease their revenues from fuel.

That is total hookum.

While geothermal is renewable and will decrease spending on fuels, the gatekeepers to the grid are the utilities, who, as stakeholders have different interests than fossil fuel/mineral mining interests as it relates to consumption of fuel.

The utilities perspective is based not on the drive to sell fuel to produce electricity, but rather on sales of electricity produced.
Their second consideration is whether a generating source is dispatchable, which geothermal is. Geotermal fits perfectly into the current generating mix; it isn't used because it isn't technologically ready.

The structural obstacle to wind and solar isn't fuel consumption it is their ability to function within a system that is designed to operate around large scale central generation.

For a utility, bug free geothermal would be a godsend that would insulate them against fuel price fluctuations that inevitably eat into their profits.

I asked you before why renewable investors aren't pursuing geothermal, and of course you ignored it because the answer contradicts your bullshit; just as the profit motive of utilities contradicts your bullshit.

You are a sham and a charlatan. If you can support your claims with reputable information, then do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #81
84. Are you still wafting your hands about your head
and proclaiming that "all thigns (sic) are possible if humans were to decide to awaken...".

If a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass, either; but they don't and consequently they do.

As to the "information resources" in question, let me point you to my response on another thread where you wrote of the DOE, "I'm a civil engineer,. I'm an energy scientist. This is just propaganda crap."

That is the funniest thing I've ever heard. You're an "energy scientist" that rejects the industry trade association as an entity fighting against their product and the DOE as "a batch of reports generated out of the Bush administration" and in their place you offer only a simpleminded blog post that you wrote.

I'm sorry, but those are not the words of a scientist, energy or otherwise. You are a sham and a charlatan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #84
86. i see morons
"and proclaiming that "all thigns (sic) are possible if humans were to decide to awaken...".

"If a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass, either; but they don't and consequently they do."

this logic does not follow, wings do not ensure no ass bumpage.


"As to the "information resources" in question, let me point you to my response on another thread where you wrote of the DOE, "I'm a civil engineer,. I'm an energy scientist. This is just propaganda crap."

"That is the funniest thing I've ever heard. You're an "energy scientist" that rejects the industry trade association as an entity fighting against their product and the DOE as "a batch of reports generated out of the Bush administration" and in their place you offer only a simpleminded blog post that you wrote.

I'm sorry, but those are not the words of a scientist, energy or otherwise. You are a sham and a charlatan. "

thats a duplicate of what you just wrote last time, which is bunkum, and i answered it there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheuspan Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #38
62. perfectly awesome graph!
thanxxx!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
8. For UK viewers ...
... it is scheduled to be on BBC FOUR in December:

>> Storyville – The Age Of Stupid
>> Monday 14 December
>> 10.00-11.30pm BBC FOUR (Schedule addition 24 November)

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/2009/wk50/mon.shtml)

Shame they picked that date - I'm away from home that night and we
can't record anything from the FreeView box ... looks like I'll have
to wait for the DVD ...

:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Do you mean this DVD?
http://www.ageofstupid.net/product/the_age_of_stupid_dvd

Fellow US Readers, please note this DVD is not available for us yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #9
60. That's the one - thanks for the link and the reminder!
I've just ordered it - the kids can give it to me for Christmas :-)

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
15. Here's a link to a video of an emissions reduction proposal in the movie:
Edited on Sun Nov-29-09 12:08 AM by joshcryer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stuntcat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
28. we went to the opening night!
When it played at the same time in different countries, with live parts before and after! :headbang:
I love Pete Postlethait(sp!?) and Franny Armstrong now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Noseyaboutpollution Donating Member (49 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
80. Heard great things about this. Thanks.
Appreciate the link. We were wanting to know more. Thanks.

Trying to stop business dumping car fluids on our property/gardens.

Can use all the info that we can get.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP0PIzs-YVE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 06:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC