The "Green Jobs" Fantasy

[schaabdl]

Originally Posted by Irish flu

I haven't put one in a house of my own for various reasons. My father had one in a house we built in OlyWA. It was too cold for it really, too many times the system had to drain itself or get frozen. And one wonders when the valve that drains it when the temp sinks to 34 or so will stop working.

I helped a friend put one in his house - they require some attention, more than a lot of people are going to want to put into it. Makes more sense here in Cal than in WA state. The active system makes the most sense. Can keep the heater from cycling on and off as much. It's much lower tech than photovolatic cells.

We have a geo-thermal system in our house - the water exchange in the closed loop pipes goes into the hot water tank. During the summer with the AC, we pay nothing for heating water as the exchange water is VERY hot so that the heater on the tank doesn't do anything. During the winter, the water is warmer than what comes through the ground pipes (normal replacement) but the difference is negligible to detect a benefit. In all systems you still need some active heating element to insure hot water availability. Our worse time is like now - neither cooling or heating events.

[Irish flu]

Is that the type where you run pipes underground under the house and just take advantage of the difference between ground and ambient temps? I mean I don't imagine it would be possible for the individual home owner to get hot water a la hot springs unless you happened to be living over one of them. I know of a small resort in Breitenbush, OR that does that. They have a hot springs resort thing going, pretty small, and they heat the guest cabins and other buildings with piped in hot water.

[schaabdl]

Geo-thermal - we have a closed loop system with a pipe that loops four times into earth (250 feet down so a 2000 foot earth loop). This brings the water to a constant 68-degrees and is used for the exhaust of heat (hence the running of hot water during AC season into the tank). Winter, it gains heat from the water - still 68 degrees and exhaust a colder water (I think close 40 degrees). Our water lines for normal use in the winter run at 40 or lower so we don't see much savings on heating water in the winter - thankfully a short season.
***
An open loop uses either a surface pond / lake or subterranean water but then you can't use the water in the hot water tank.

[FastEddy]

David: " ... This is a classic example of how libs come up with feel good nomenclature that when you break it down is simply another flim flam scheme to grow government. ..."

Irish_Flu: " ... Discovering means by which to become prosperous while using less energy is a wide open field. About 40 and 50 years ago, various communities such as Seattle realized that they had a nasty water pollution problem. So they came up with some methods to uhhh, treat sewage - using govt. funds, growing govt. all the while, and now water quality is much better. ..."

Of course, of course, both correct ... With enough government money passing through a system, installing improvements, accomplishing better results, etc., etc., ... Well, it does work for a while, unless and until the g'ment revenue stream dries up.

That water treatment system in Seattle is totally taxpayer funded ... and considered by most economists to be the most expensive water treatment system the world has ever seen. (The Roman water ways, canals and included treatment systems, proportionally, cost approximately half as much ... and they had slaves doing most of the work.)

Now, if we really need "green job" creation, the best and most cost effective and the methodology that will produce the most jobs, is to let the private sector do it and get government completely out of it. Even tax breaks don't help as these become selective to narrower technologies or ineffective methodologies or subject to corruption ... or all of these.

Currently, so called green jobs seem to be completely misguided and related to some totally fallacious formula involving CO2, CH4 (methane), N2 + NOx (atmospheric nitrogen) and who gets to say which winds up where.

To my mind and that of many trained in the hard sciences, CO2 is valuable to the plant kingdom and the planet needs more, not less. CH4 can be cleaned out of combustion by products by tweaking the carburation for better efficiency ... and the NOx should be left alone for Mother Nature to resolve. All of which means that allowing entrepreneurial efforts to work will create many more "green" jobs than government micromanagement ever will.

[Rifleman]

The other method H1N1 is thinking about uses the subsoil as a heat sink. It is far more efficient than an air cooled condenser, because when an air conditioner is needed, the outside air temperature is quite high. Another strategy is to use a water spray as an evaporative cooler for the condenser, and some air conditioners use condensate draining from the evaporator to absorb heat from the condenser. One man I worked for had rigged some of the misters to cool his condenser, but I cautioned him as any left over minerals will deposit on the condenser coils from the evaporating water.

The thing is, the greenies are NEVER satisfied. In case you are near brain dead and haven't noticed, greenies seem to be more interested in power and forcing people to do and buy stuff, than solving problems. For years they were frustrated in making us serve them, and now they think with Obama as president and their stooges in everywhere as "czars", they can exceed their wildest dreams. They believe they can be "GOD", and decide who is born and when everyone dies. That little cartoon on ABC about the next 100 years is their dream or rather a fantasy to support their agenda. They fully intend to control every part of our lives. Capitalism, freedom, and private property have no place in their world. And a international government is the perfect vehicle. There will be no where to run to and no way of opposing their agenda.

[FastEddy]

" ... Here's the problem: The pioneers sometimes get the arrows. Politics does not reward transformational change. We have already seen some of these DOE programs steered towards the more established players and, more often than not, less innovative solutions. For example, the DOE recently issued $2.4 billion in grants to support advanced battery technologies. Only 1 of 48 winners was a small startup business. [And very little new "green" job creation as a result.]

To effect real change on the energy front, Congress should support the DOE in focusing more on cleantech breakthroughs from early stage startups that have historically been the source of the most transformative innovations. It seems to us that the DOE, especially under its laudable ARPA-E program, should be encouraged and directed to take the kind of early-stage risks that commercial funders--even venture capital--will not. Yes, the risk is greater, but the long-term benefit to taxpayers and the future of our country is also commensurately higher. The evidence of this return on investment to our country is indisputable.

As energy and climate legislation is debated in the Senate, we would like to see a strong bill that encourages innovation in small startup businesses, whether through a "Green Bank", more loan guarantees, a renewable electricity standard, or additional ARPA-E grants. Finally, we must put a price on carbon. Climate legislation will spur us to recognize the costs of an energy past that we cannot continue to pursue if the United States is to remain competitive. [Or not!]

American entrepreneurs are waiting. The government should not shy away from aggressive standards that will drive transformational innovations in our industrial economy. This will help immeasurably in erasing cleantech's dirty little secret and putting us on a path to a true clean-energy and modern industrial future." - SOURCE - "Clean Tech's Dirty Little Secret" - Josh Green and Will Coleman, 10.09.09 at Forbes.com

[dcannady]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I don't agree with dcannady on this one, if the Earth is being warmed by the use of fossil fuels, which is still debatable, it isn't enough to be significant, and it is not the main cause.

dcannady doesn't believe that the Earth is being warmed by the use of fossil fuels. dcannady is not even convinced that global climate warming is happening at all. It gets warm sometimes and it gets cooler sometimes. I'm old enough to remember the looming Ice Age that was predicted 30 years ago.

[schaabdl]

The earth is experiencing the similar climatic changes as other planets in the solar system (not certain about Mars' CO2 emissions) - I think I will stay with the good ol SOL being the main cause and man's influence negligible.

[Irish flu]

Originally Posted by FastEddy

Irish_Flu: " ... Discovering means by which to become prosperous while using less energy is a wide open field. About 40 and 50 years ago, various communities such as Seattle realized that they had a nasty water pollution problem. So they came up with some methods to uhhh, treat sewage - using govt. funds, growing govt. all the while, and now water quality is much better. ..."

Of course, of course, both correct ... With enough government money passing through a system, installing improvements, accomplishing better results, etc., etc., ... Well, it does work for a while, unless and until the g'ment revenue stream dries up.

That water treatment system in Seattle is totally taxpayer funded ... and considered by most economists to be the most expensive water treatment system the world has ever seen. (The Roman water ways, canals and included treatment systems, proportionally, cost approximately half as much ... and they had slaves doing most of the work.)

To my mind and that of many trained in the hard sciences, CO2 is valuable to the plant kingdom and the planet needs more, not less. CH4 can be cleaned out of combustion by products by tweaking the carburation for better efficiency ... and the NOx should be left alone for Mother Nature to resolve. All of which means that allowing entrepreneurial efforts to work will create many more "green" jobs than government micromanagement ever will.

I lived in Seattle for 20 years and never heard mention of the sewage system there being unreasonably expensive. I did a web search just now and couldn't find mention of it either. Not saying it's not so but I'd like to know a little more about it. I lived there from '72 to '92, IIRC the problem with pollution in Lake Washington flared up in the 50s. From what I've read, the lake was a health hazard, and it's a big lake - about 20 miles long.

Seattle is a wet area. I imagine building and maintaining a sewage treatment system there would be sorta expensive. Imagine if the sewage system were private:

Can't afford the bill? Well, me laddie, you'll just have to poop in the river, you mangy cur.

Yes, you're right, experts in plant science will in fact tell you that plants need CO2 to live and grow. But more is not necessarily a great boon. The plant would need additional water and sunlight to make use of it. I've heard good arguments from Botanists that more CO2 is not an automatic benefit. But some scientists do say that more CO2 will result in faster growth. Who knows, but it's not a settled issue.

[Rifleman]

Irish H1N1 wrote: Yes, you're right, experts in plant science will in fact tell you that plants need CO2 to live and grow. But more is not necessarily a great boon. The plant would need additional water and sunlight to make use of it. I've heard good arguments from Botanists that more CO2 is not an automatic benefit. But some scientists do say that more CO2 will result in faster growth. Who knows, but it's not a settled issue.

Granted but much of the Global Warming fraud is even less proven science. Much was made with the inten of causing panic and coercing the peasants "to go along with" a new Kyoto treaty, over a theory that the masive melting of Arctic and Anarctic ice as well as the major glaciers would release massive premordial CO2 into the atmosphere causing a cascading effect of Global Warming. Trouble is, the Arctic and Anarctic ice and many galciers aren't melting. And as for the "other" requirements, evidience shos that some of the vast deserts, once had vegetation on them in former times. What I am saying is that vegetation would expand onto areas that now can't support it. Here in Texas we have had several years of wetter weather. It has broken droughts, and outside, where during a normal year or as long as I can remember, nearly everything would be dead by July, it is stll green in October. We have an abundance of Anoles, geckoes, and skinks, where they were rarely seen before.

So once again the science is that most of everything on earth, from minerals, water, and the atmosphere serve as buffers to the system keeping things in balance relatively. There is also far more corelation to the average temperature and the sun than human activities, and records don't go back that far.

And thanks fro clarifying your position on Global Warming, dcannady, it is one I agree with, and FYI, I don't buy into the Freon and Ozone holes either.

[FastEddy]

schaabdl ...

Here is a company that does that "geo-thermal" thingy for big companies, big g'ment, etc. >> http://www.mcquay.com/McQuay/CaseStudies/CaseStudies

They charge reasonable rates for private enterprise and show them how to improve their over all efficiencies using heat pumps, heat exchangers, solar water collectors, etc, etc, ... They charge g'ment a whole lot more ...

[Irish flu]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Granted but much of the Global Warming fraud is even less proven science. Much was made with the inten of causing panic and coercing the peasants "to go along with" a new Kyoto treaty, over a theory that the masive melting of Arctic and Anarctic ice as well as the major glaciers would release massive premordial CO2 into the atmosphere causing a cascading effect of Global Warming. Trouble is, the Arctic and Anarctic ice and many galciers aren't melting. And as for the "other" requirements, evidience shos that some of the vast deserts, once had vegetation on them in former times. What I am saying is that vegetation would expand onto areas that now can't support it. Here in Texas we have had several years of wetter weather. It has broken droughts, and outside, where during a normal year or as long as I can remember, nearly everything would be dead by July, it is stll green in October. We have an abundance of Anoles, geckoes, and skinks, where they were rarely seen before.

So once again the science is that most of everything on earth, from minerals, water, and the atmosphere serve as buffers to the system keeping things in balance relatively. There is also far more corelation to the average temperature and the sun than human activities, and records don't go back that far.

And thanks fro clarifying your position on Global Warming, dcannady, it is one I agree with, and FYI, I don't buy into the Freon and Ozone holes either.

I don't think you've examined the science regarding AGW or holes in the ozone layer enough to merit such certitude. Your opinion is the one you've wanted from the beginning and that of large portions of your cohort.

Certainty is the enemy of science. You need to approach this, or anything for that matter, with the realization firmly in place that all of your previous conclusions might actually be in error, or at least based on incomplete information.

There is such a blizzard of competing claims and alleged science backing this or that up that I'm uncertain what to believe.

There is much evidence, however, to indicate that we have substantially altered the surface of this planet, in a relatively short time. Some of it may prove to be a serious problem. We don't have precedence to guide us.

[Rifleman]

Irish H1N1 wrote: I don't think you've examined the science regarding AGW or holes in the ozone layer enough to merit such certitude. Your opinion is the one you've wanted from the beginning and that of large portions of your cohort.

Certainty is the enemy of science. You need to approach this, or anything for that matter, with the realization firmly in place that all of your previous conclusions might actually be in error, or at least based on incomplete information.

There is such a blizzard of competing claims and alleged science backing this or that up that I'm uncertain what to believe.

There is much evidence, however, to indicate that we have substantially altered the surface of this planet, in a relatively short time. Some of it may prove to be a serious problem. We don't have precedence to guide us.

And who is? That is the point! I have nothing against science, and you are absolutely correct that it often produces counter claims regarding what is going on in the world or the universe for that matter, as it should on complex issues.

But what you and the other socialists under the green cover are doing precisely what you are accusing me of. We are having neophyte and partisan politicos pick the winners and losers among competing science. And it is all under the threat of an imagined Apocalypse. High fuel prices and diminishing supplies will correct themselves under a free market system, which is why we have problems because every year ours is less free market. When an actual breakthrough comes through that is also economically viable, everything will correct itself, and it will do so as efficiently as possible. Wind power will never replace anything, it will only supplement it.

The Ozone hole was incomplete science, and was pushed prematurely, and purposely. The conventional refrigerant gasses are more efficient than the new ones. The new ones may be theoretically less harmful to the Ozone layer, but they are more toxic in other areas. The same happened with MTBE. It is a toxic chemical that was chosen for a specific purpose, and the havoc it created was predictable. The Clinton administration made that choice, and they assumed the certainty of one science over the other. In my opinion NO progress was made. And even now, we will commit to a "cure" that is even more uncertain and even more expensive. We are basing that on Lithium Ion battery technology, and doing so simply for the sake of "progress".

I have long written on these subjects, and been very specific about it. Lithium Ion batteries are simply NOT much of a breakthrough. They can explode, they are lighter and retain capacity longer than conventional batteries, but they are still not reliable. They also cost currently twice as much as Nichol cadmium batteries. So what are the problems? First, there is still the problem of diminishing wattage for electrical distribution. We are "solving" that by preventing the construction of coal power plants, some of the most economical, efficient, and reliable available. In the short term, an investment in plug-in hybrids will transfer the pollution from the car to the power plant. And even then the hybrids will still need gas stations. There is also the matter of commercial vehicles. You CAN cram more people into a less safe and structurally compromised vehicle to reduce actual fuel usage, but you can't do the same thing with a commercial truck. There was already an expensive transition to smaller diesel engines, a questionable improvement. Are we to force transition again? There is also the idea of a short battery life for plug-ins, one that will become even more apparent as these are forced to be adapted in the US in the warmer parts of the country. Lithium Ion batteries are dangerous as I mentioned under extreme high temperatures, and if discharged suddenly. As a result LI batteries include circuitry to avoid those conditions. And IF, this is information I have already posted. When you make false accusations about my science, it has already been posted. I shouldn't even have to repeat it.

And yes, we HAVE altered the surface of the planet substantially, but at the same time it is not proven to be a substantial problem. You seem to side with the "pristine Earth" crowd, but that isn't a realistic stance and certainly not one that is practical in any way. Massive forest fires were a natural event, and so is mass extinction. We didn't cause the blight that almost destroyed the American Chestnut trees. But you want to win anyway. Excuse me when I don't play along with fraudulent "save the Earth schemes".

[Irish flu]

One of my favorite Limabaugh whoppers concerns the ozone layer. He went on some years back about how the volcano at Pinatubo spewed more chlorine into the atmosphere than man made CFCs possibly could. Only thing is, that was a different compound of chlorine, one that rinses out of the atmosphere with rainfall. Not sure if Rush realizes it, but he had some chlorine, more than likely, on his eggs at breakfast this morning: NaCl - sodium chloride - table salt.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895

CFCs are a bit different - they rise to the upper atmosphere and act as a catalyst with UV rays to destroy ozone. The catalyst is not consumed and survives to do many more such reactions.

How do you know that ozone layer science is woefully incomplete? You are a competing scientist in this area?

[schaabdl]

IF: Actually, Rush never used the word "chlorine" - the exact quote is at the beginning of the article and later changed in the article to claim he said chlorine. (So much for accuracy from FAIR). Unless there is a claim that chlorine alone is responsible for ozone depletion, his statement could be in fact, truthful.

[Rifleman]

Irish H1N1 wrote: CFCs are a bit different - they rise to the upper atmosphere and act as a catalyst with UV rays to destroy ozone. The catalyst is not consumed and survives to do many more such reactions.

How do you know that ozone layer science is woefully incomplete? You are a competing scientist in this area?

They did the research AFTER they had banned CFC's! And yes I saw all the PBS doomsday shows about the Ozone hole. They had nothing other than theory to back them up. So answer me, if CFC's were such a problem, why is Ozone formation at ground level, considered a pollutant, not stopped by the CFC's? Why not ban Chlorine from drinking water? Is it the "right" type? Why not ban CFC's from aerosol cans and permit the continued use for air conditioning? They do so in other countries, it was just the US and the major economic powers that were banned from using it. The US with its large Southwest, sacrificed far more than the others. And what did we get for it? Did Bush 41 get the praise of foreign leaders? You know the answer to that. We got nothing!

[Irish flu]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

They did the research AFTER they had banned CFC's! And yes I saw all the PBS doomsday shows about the Ozone hole. They had nothing other than theory to back them up. So answer me, if CFC's were such a problem, why is Ozone formation at ground level, considered a pollutant, not stopped by the CFC's? Why not ban Chlorine from drinking water? Is it the "right" type? Why not ban CFC's from aerosol cans and permit the continued use for air conditioning? They do so in other countries, it was just the US and the major economic powers that were banned from using it. The US with its large Southwest, sacrificed far more than the others. And what did we get for it? Did Bush 41 get the praise of foreign leaders? You know the answer to that. We got nothing!

Your limitations in science are showing. Have you ever encountered pure sodium? It's an alkali metal - will burst into flames or explode if tossed in a pot of water. I've done it. Great fun. I was an asst. to the chemistry teacher at my high school and spirited a small chunk of sodium away for me and a science nerd buddy to perform magic tricks with at lunch time. Potassium and a few others behave similarly in pure form.

Some compounds of chlorine are highly toxic to humans. Others, like NaCl (sodium chloride - salt) are very stable and not toxic at all. The stuff that is used to purify water would be quite toxic in high concentration or if handled wrongly but in the small concentrations that are present in municipal water supplies, it's toxic to small contaminants but not to people.

CFCs are a different chemical altogether. Their molecular shape makes them good catalysts when combined with intense UV as present in the upper atmosphere. Here are some reference assets that may be useful:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=yf...ne%20depletion

[dcannady]

Originally Posted by Irish flu

Your limitations in science are showing. Have you ever encountered pure sodium? It's an alkali metal - will burst into flames or explode if tossed in a pot of water. I've done it. Great fun. I was an asst. to the chemistry teacher at my high school and spirited a small chunk of sodium away for me and a science nerd buddy to perform magic tricks with at lunch time. Potassium and a few others behave similarly in pure form.

Some compounds of chlorine are highly toxic to humans. Others, like NaCl (sodium chloride - salt) are very stable and not toxic at all. The stuff that is used to purify water would be quite toxic in high concentration or if handled wrongly but in the small concentrations that are present in municipal water supplies, it's toxic to small contaminants but not to people.

CFCs are a different chemical altogether. Their molecular shape makes them good catalysts when combined with intense UV as present in the upper atmosphere. Here are some reference assets that may be useful:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=yf...ne%20depletion

OMIGOD! The supergenius is enlightening us with High School science facts. Wow!

"Have you ever encountered pure sodium?" Something new and wonderful for you, boys and girls! I think he's being serious, Rifleman.

[Rifleman]

Irish H1N1 wrote: Your limitations in science are showing. Have you ever encountered pure sodium? It's an alkali metal - will burst into flames or explode if tossed in a pot of water. I've done it. Great fun. I was an asst. to the chemistry teacher at my high school and spirited a small chunk of sodium away for me and a science nerd buddy to perform magic tricks with at lunch time. Potassium and a few others behave similarly in pure form.

Why do you mock me for your ignorance? Water is chlorinated with a salt or a hydroxide, yet is is in solution in water as chlorine gas, and as a gas escapes into the atmosphere. I don't deny the chemistry, I deny that is is the major cause of Ozone depletion. Anyway it was only banned in large countries where it was more likely to be responsibly used. And it was banned BEFORE comprehensive research was conducted by NASA, which took one form as the Pegasus drone. Ozone is depleted by all sorts of actions, another being high flying jets. The main component of Ozone formation is sunshine, just like it is a ground level.

If you actually read your own sources you would know that it isn't so cut and dried.

Here are a few quotes from Wiki:

"Ozone can be destroyed by a number of free radical catalysts, the most important of which are the hydroxyl radical (OH·), the nitric oxide radical (NO·) and atomic chlorine (Cl·) and bromine (Br·). All of these have both natural and anthropogenic (manmade) sources; at the present time, most of the OH· and NO· in the stratosphere is of natural origin, but human activity has dramatically increased the levels of chlorine and bromine. "

"New research on the breakdown of a key molecule in these ozone-depleting chemicals, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2), calls into question the completeness of present atmospheric models of polar ozone depletion. Specifically, chemists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, found in 2007 that the temperatures, and the spectrum and intensity of radiation present in the stratosphere created conditions insufficient to allow the rate of chemical-breakdown required to release chlorine radicals in the volume necessary to explain observed rates of ozone depletion. Instead, laboratory tests, designed to be the most accurate reflection of stratospheric conditions to date, showed the decay of the crucial molecule almost a magnitude lower than previously thought.[5][6][7]"

And most importantly:"Since the ozone layer absorbs UVB ultraviolet light from the Sun, ozone layer depletion is expected to increase surface UVB levels, which could lead to damage, including increases in skin cancer. This was the reason for the Montreal Protocol. Although decreases in stratospheric ozone are well-tied to CFCs and there are good theoretical reasons to believe that decreases in ozone will lead to increases in surface UVB, there is no direct observational evidence linking ozone depletion to higher incidence of skin cancer in human beings. This is partly due to the fact that UVA, which has also been implicated in some forms of skin cancer, is not absorbed by ozone, and it is nearly impossible to control statistics for lifestyle changes in the populace."

Just like I said.

[Rifleman]

dcannady wrote: OMIGOD! The supergenius is enlightening us with High School science facts. Wow!

"Have you ever encountered pure sodium?" Something new and wonderful for you, boys and girls! I think he's being serious, Rifleman.

Sounds like a Bill Nye the science guy show huh? At least he didn't try to explain that Flatus were Methane and he used to light them up!