Some time ago, we introduce this discussion by stating, "This is an mature adult conversation about things done that relate to things to be done. If you have a sincere desire to move the Picken's Plan forward, check in here!" Somewhere along the way, the question of integrity became an issue with reference to the the web sites founder and benefactor, T. Boone Pickens.
From this point forward, we want to be clear about certain points;
Transition is still a lively but insightful discussion of the political ramifications and requirements to employ NG as a bridge fuel to future energy independence; AND a equally informative forum for the side issues that naturally arise in the associated ideas that form the components of action. Participants engaged in this discussion lend their keen minds to unifying a common strategic objective by commenting on the various alternatives with respect to the political agenda necessary to generate a National Energy Policy.
Transition is many voices in addition to the founders. They speak of changes in the American community with regards to energy consumption and production. These voices may come from liberal, progressive, right-wing and conservative thinking, but more importantly they are collaborative. We are looking for the people with knowledge who are willing to share their expertise and intuitions with their neighbors to find a consensus necessary to unity.
Please, add your voice to this discussion by considering what you have to offer in the way of your personal expertise, experience and understanding of alternative fuels such as natural gas, solar or wind energy, hydro or thermal power, and chemical or biological process. If politics are not your forte, keep the following in mind:
Paul - I hope you didn’t “Guffaw” your dinner. I highlight in red and made bold what was important. Maybe I should have shown pictures if what I said was too difficult to understand. Maybe the math threw you and William. It does upset me when satire is used to embellish ones comments. Paul - with your knowledge of fuel maybe you can graph, write or show what I said is incorrect. I would be interested. Carbon fuels do kill - show me different. There - You see I can be pithy.
There hasn't been any significant quantity of benzene in gasoline for 30 years, maybe longer... It's too valuable to burn. The rest of the 'data' reposted looks like 1960 public service announcements for not running your car in a closed garage while tuning the engine. It might have been correct in the past, but it isn't current.
Oh and the mortality numbers; just because they overlap, doesn't mean they are correlated. They are statistics only -- since there are no control exper-o-ments[sic] available to compute baseline data, the numbers could be wrong by up to 100% and no one would know.
Remember, I wan to see us use less oil too! Reduce, Reuse, Recycle is a motto of mine. But, irrational fear campaigns always leave a bad taste in my mouth. Other than that, the discussion is fun. ^_^
Paul - current EPA Data Benzene
Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, NJ. 1985.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS, online database). National Toxicology Information Program, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD. 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The Merck Index. An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). 1999 TLVs and BEIs. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents. Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH. 1999.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Occupational Safety and Health Standards, Toxic and Hazardous Substances. Code of Federal Regulations. 29 CFR 1910.1000. 1998.
Union of Concerned Scientists
If every vehicle on the road in
Testimony on the EPA's Proposed Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (PM NAAQS)
EPA March 8, 2006
Health Data from Inhalation Exposure
If you would, please send me an e-mail offline at email@example.com. Have some other topics that may be of interest to you.
I'm proud that some of us are trying to motivate government and/or private enterprise to move rapidly into alternative energies. My guess is both are essential to get rapid progress in a dozen or more areas. Which dozen? T, Boone Pickens made the best choice of wind power in West Texas in my opinion. Wind power has been harnassed in many countries, and we have made a good start in West Texas to the point that a HVDC = high voltage direct current power line is needed to take the surplus power to customers in the Tampa Bay,Florida area, and/or some other location about 1000 miles from West Texas.
The best solar power locations are in Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona, so HVDC is needed for solar power if we are going to persue that = my guess is several other alternatives are better than solar, but it is in the list of 12 alternative energies we should be expanding.
CNG = compressed natural gas should be the number two effort, as present vehicle design is easilly adapted. The global warming community has lost steam as the globe has stopped warming since 2000, but the urgency to stop giving lots of money to people who want us dead is as urgent as ever and CNG is our best near term approach to getting off foreign oil. Neil
My colleagues at NASA have finished a report on global surface temperatures for the period 2000 to 2009. It was the warmest on record since modern measurement apparatus has been widely used, since 1880.
Here are links:
a webpage discussing that 2010 produced the warmest November in spite of a European cold spell and a strong La ...
Here is the summary chart of the last 131 years:
So, why doesn't the graph set 1980 at the 0.0 (y-intercept) and report all prior years as abnormally cold?
"Remember 78% of all statistics are made up on the spot!" -anon
A fair question. The data has been good since 1880 since before then it was not. We had no global coverage and the instruments were not calibrated to international standards nor were the procedures for measurement consistent.
As NASA says in their report, the period of 1940 to 1980 reflected little change in global temperature, as did 1880 to 1920.
The rate of change looked at over 131 years appears to show a general long-term trend. Taken by itself, without corroboration by measurement of relevant causal data, it would mean little. The Keeling curve, and data such as the following provide an ominous implication.
Ominous, yes! We will deplete the globe of free carbon before we're able to get CO2 even close to 0.01% concentration in the atmosphere. Then we shall all *freeze*.