Thursday, December 30, 2010
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Very interesting Minneapolis Star Tribune comment on solar energy by someone who installs it.
Main story. http://www.startribune.com/local/112486579.html
The environmental math challenge is showing here. We can save $1,330 per year for a system that cost $61,670 and have a 10 year payback. Maybe the Star should buy the author a calculator to check facts. I have installed large solar projects and I am invested in a wind company through family ownership. Solar and wind are both great tools where you don't have an electric line running. When you use wind to supplement available electric you are paying 20 times the cost for the additional electricity. As far as heating water for showers ect, a good rule of thumb is that the solar will heat water 15 degrees higher then the outside temperature. A shower on a sunny 60 degree day with 75 degree water may not be very comfortable. Remember, these are your tax dollars being squandered here and they are being thrown away on these useless, feel good projects.
posted by notaxmax on Dec. 27, 10 at 8:16 AM
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Pradva-Russia:New theory of climate change
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/30-11-2010/115987-climate_change-0/
For many years, climatologists attempted to correlate the number of sunspots with various climate variables, including temperature and precipitation. By the 1980s these attempts were determined to be futile, because the percentage change in solar heating was found to be insufficient to explain the variations. However, this interest began to increase the connection between cosmic rays and sunspots, carbon-14 in the atmosphere, beryllium-10 on the surface of meteorites, and other processes. In particular, it was found that carbon-14 dating needed to be corrected for fluctuations in cosmic ray flux. Without such adjustments, many carbon-14 dates were inconsistent. The question was raised, could cosmic rays affect other geophysical phenomena as well?
A New Climate Theory
(full story at link)
For many years, climatologists attempted to correlate the number of sunspots with various climate variables, including temperature and precipitation. By the 1980s these attempts were determined to be futile, because the percentage change in solar heating was found to be insufficient to explain the variations. However, this interest began to increase the connection between cosmic rays and sunspots, carbon-14 in the atmosphere, beryllium-10 on the surface of meteorites, and other processes. In particular, it was found that carbon-14 dating needed to be corrected for fluctuations in cosmic ray flux. Without such adjustments, many carbon-14 dates were inconsistent. The question was raised, could cosmic rays affect other geophysical phenomena as well?
A New Climate Theory
(full story at link)
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Irony alert: The unusually chilly global-warming summit
http://theweek.com/article/index/210181/irony-alert-the-unusually-chilly-global-warming-summit
The irony: As negotiators fromnearly 200 countries met in Cancun to strategize ways to keep the planet from getting hotter, the temperature in the seaside Mexican city plunged to a 100-year record low of 54° F. Climate-change skeptics are gleefully calling Cancun's weather the latest example of the "Gore Effect" — a plunge in temperature they say occurs wherever former Vice President Al Gore, now a Nobel Prize-winning environmental activist, makes a speech about the climate. Although Gore is not scheduled to speak in Cancun, "it could be that the Gore Effect has announced his secret arrival," jokes former NASA scientist Roy W. Spencer. (MORE AT LINK)
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Scientists see fatal flaws in the NASA study of arsenic-based life.
http://www.slate.com/id/2276919/?from=rss
But how could the bacteria be using phosphate when they weren't getting any in the lab? That was the point of the experiment, after all. It turns out the NASA scientists were feeding the bacteria salts which they freely admit were contaminated with a tiny amount of phosphate. It's possible, the critics argue, that the bacteria eked out a living on that scarce supply. As Bradley notes, the Sargasso Sea supports plenty of microbes while containing 300 times less phosphate than was present in the lab cultures.
FULL ARTICLE AT LINK
Monday, November 29, 2010
Spanish Woman Claims She Now Owns Sun
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpps/news/offbeat/spanish-woman-claims-she-now-owns-sun-dpgonc-20101126-gc_10808147
Spanish Woman Claims She Now Owns Sun
Updated: Friday, 26 Nov 2010, 2:16 PM EST
Published : Friday, 26 Nov 2010, 2:16 PM EST
(AFP) - After billions of years the Sun finally has an owner -- a woman from Spain's soggy region of Galicia said Friday she had registered the star at a local notary public as being her property.
Angeles Duran, 49, told the online edition of daily El Mundo she took the step in September after reading about an American man who had registered himself as the owner of the moon and most planets in our solar system.
There is an international agreement which states that no country may claim ownership of a planet or star, but it says nothing about individuals, she added.
"There was no snag, I backed my claim legally, I am not stupid, I know the law. I did it but anyone else could have done it, it simply occurred to me first."
The document issued by the notary public declares Duran to be the "owner of the Sun, a star of spectral type G2, located in the centre of the solar system, located at an average distance from Earth of about 149,600,000 kilometers."
Duran, who lives in the town of Salvaterra do Mino, said she now wants to slap a fee on everyone who uses the sun and give half of the proceeds to the Spanish government and 20 percent to the nation's pension fund.
She would dedicate another 10 percent to research, another 10 percent to ending world hunger -- and would keep the remaining 10 percent herself.
"It is time to start doing things the right way, if there is an idea for how to generate income and improve the economy and people's wellbeing, why not do it?" she asked.
Copyright 2010 AFP. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Gore: On Second Thought, I Was Just Pandering To The Farm Vote On Ethanol
http://www.looktruenorth.com/limited-government/policy/14715-gore-on-second-thought-i-was-just-pandering-to-the-farm-vote-on-ethanol.html
Gore: On Second Thought, I Was Just Pandering To The Farm Vote On Ethanol
Written by Ed Morrissey
Monday, 22 November 2010 11:23
Too often, Americans punish politicians for reversing their previous and sometimes obviously wrong positions on policy. They label such politicians as flip-floppers, and even when these officeholders switch to their preferred policy, some continue to castigate them and warn of their unreliability. But sometimes, well, those reversals can seem just a little too convenient — especially when the politician in question admits that he took the first stance just to curry votes. Al Gore makes the obvious just a little too explicit in his sudden reversal on ethanol subsidies:
Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore said support for corn-based ethanol in the United States was “not a good policy”, weeks before tax credits are up for renewal. …
“It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol,” said Gore, speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank.
“First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.["]
So far, so good. Ethanol as a replacement or supplement for gasoline was a mistake, especially in the massive government subsidies spent on the effort. Ethanol only has two-thirds of the potential energy as gasoline, is harder to transport, and winds up being more expensive. Worse, as Gore admits now, the subsidies for ethanol have sparked a price war for a food staple as we shove legitimate food into our gas tanks. It makes starvation worse by making food too expensive, and Gore now admits that “the competition with food prices is real.”
Why, then, did Gore spend most of the last two decades pushing for ethanol subsidies? It wasn’t because he was trying to help humanity:
“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.”
In other words, Gore wasn’t particularly enthusiastic about ethanol; he was just particularly enthusiastic about Gore. Thanks to pressure from Gore and others with “a certain fondness” for playing prairie politics over common sense, the US spent almost $8 billion subsidizing ethanol in just the last year. Slate reported in 2005 that between 1995 and 2003, ethanol subsidies went over $37 billion in the US, most of which took place in the Clinton/Gore administration.
Gore now says he supports second-generation ethanol to avoid using food, instead using wood, waste fiber, and grass. But the same Slate report shows that these technologies actually perform worse than corn for ethanol:
David Pimentel, a professor of ecology at Cornell University who has been studying grain alcohol for 20 years, and Tad Patzek, an engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, co-wrote a recent report that estimates that making ethanol from corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel itself actually contains.
The two scientists calculated all the fuel inputs for ethanol production—from the diesel fuel for the tractor planting the corn, to the fertilizer put in the field, to the energy needed at the processing plant—and found that ethanol is a net energy-loser. According to their calculations, ethanol contains about 76,000 BTUs per gallon, but producing that ethanol from corn takes about 98,000 BTUs. For comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains about 116,000 BTUs per gallon. But making that gallon of gas—from drilling the well, to transportation, through refining—requires around 22,000 BTUs.
In addition to their findings on corn, they determined that making ethanol from switch grass requires 50 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol yields, wood biomass 57 percent more, and sunflowers 118 percent more. The best yield comes from soybeans, but they, too, are a net loser, requiring 27 percent more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced. In other words, more ethanol production will increase America’s total energy consumption, not decrease it.
Ethanol production won’t dent the US demand for fuel. At best, it nibbles around the edges. But, given Gore’s track record on his endorsements, perhaps he’s looking for another area for investment in Al Gore Inc.
Update: On that note, here’s this from commenter Selias:
Google avaiation biofuels and algae. Then Google Al Gore’s investment into biofuel companies like Abengoa.
Then read this article last week in The Hill, written by none other than Abengoa VP, Christopher G. Standlee:
America needs new investment: In the next generation of biofuels
Then ponder the Federal lands and wetlands bonanza buy-ups in recent years, even pointed out by our very own Michelle Malkin.
Why would the progressive Federal gov’t need so much land? With quotes like this:
The Department of Energy says algae grown on a 15,000-square-mile area, about the size of Maryland, could theoretically meet the nation’s oil needs.
…it’s easy to put this puzzle together.
It’s all about Al Gore Inc.
Cross-posted at Hot Air.
Gore: On Second Thought, I Was Just Pandering To The Farm Vote On Ethanol
Written by Ed Morrissey
Monday, 22 November 2010 11:23
Too often, Americans punish politicians for reversing their previous and sometimes obviously wrong positions on policy. They label such politicians as flip-floppers, and even when these officeholders switch to their preferred policy, some continue to castigate them and warn of their unreliability. But sometimes, well, those reversals can seem just a little too convenient — especially when the politician in question admits that he took the first stance just to curry votes. Al Gore makes the obvious just a little too explicit in his sudden reversal on ethanol subsidies:
Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore said support for corn-based ethanol in the United States was “not a good policy”, weeks before tax credits are up for renewal. …
“It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol,” said Gore, speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank.
“First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.["]
So far, so good. Ethanol as a replacement or supplement for gasoline was a mistake, especially in the massive government subsidies spent on the effort. Ethanol only has two-thirds of the potential energy as gasoline, is harder to transport, and winds up being more expensive. Worse, as Gore admits now, the subsidies for ethanol have sparked a price war for a food staple as we shove legitimate food into our gas tanks. It makes starvation worse by making food too expensive, and Gore now admits that “the competition with food prices is real.”
Why, then, did Gore spend most of the last two decades pushing for ethanol subsidies? It wasn’t because he was trying to help humanity:
“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.”
In other words, Gore wasn’t particularly enthusiastic about ethanol; he was just particularly enthusiastic about Gore. Thanks to pressure from Gore and others with “a certain fondness” for playing prairie politics over common sense, the US spent almost $8 billion subsidizing ethanol in just the last year. Slate reported in 2005 that between 1995 and 2003, ethanol subsidies went over $37 billion in the US, most of which took place in the Clinton/Gore administration.
Gore now says he supports second-generation ethanol to avoid using food, instead using wood, waste fiber, and grass. But the same Slate report shows that these technologies actually perform worse than corn for ethanol:
David Pimentel, a professor of ecology at Cornell University who has been studying grain alcohol for 20 years, and Tad Patzek, an engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, co-wrote a recent report that estimates that making ethanol from corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel itself actually contains.
The two scientists calculated all the fuel inputs for ethanol production—from the diesel fuel for the tractor planting the corn, to the fertilizer put in the field, to the energy needed at the processing plant—and found that ethanol is a net energy-loser. According to their calculations, ethanol contains about 76,000 BTUs per gallon, but producing that ethanol from corn takes about 98,000 BTUs. For comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains about 116,000 BTUs per gallon. But making that gallon of gas—from drilling the well, to transportation, through refining—requires around 22,000 BTUs.
In addition to their findings on corn, they determined that making ethanol from switch grass requires 50 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol yields, wood biomass 57 percent more, and sunflowers 118 percent more. The best yield comes from soybeans, but they, too, are a net loser, requiring 27 percent more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced. In other words, more ethanol production will increase America’s total energy consumption, not decrease it.
Ethanol production won’t dent the US demand for fuel. At best, it nibbles around the edges. But, given Gore’s track record on his endorsements, perhaps he’s looking for another area for investment in Al Gore Inc.
Update: On that note, here’s this from commenter Selias:
Google avaiation biofuels and algae. Then Google Al Gore’s investment into biofuel companies like Abengoa.
Then read this article last week in The Hill, written by none other than Abengoa VP, Christopher G. Standlee:
America needs new investment: In the next generation of biofuels
Then ponder the Federal lands and wetlands bonanza buy-ups in recent years, even pointed out by our very own Michelle Malkin.
Why would the progressive Federal gov’t need so much land? With quotes like this:
The Department of Energy says algae grown on a 15,000-square-mile area, about the size of Maryland, could theoretically meet the nation’s oil needs.
…it’s easy to put this puzzle together.
It’s all about Al Gore Inc.
Cross-posted at Hot Air.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
US scientists significantly more likely to publish fake research
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-scientists-significantly-publish-fake.html
US scientists are significantly more likely to publish fake research than scientists from elsewhere, finds a trawl of officially withdrawn (retracted) studies, published online in the Journal of Medical Ethics. (MORE AT LINK)
US scientists are significantly more likely to publish fake research than scientists from elsewhere, finds a trawl of officially withdrawn (retracted) studies, published online in the Journal of Medical Ethics. (MORE AT LINK)
Sea Life Flourishes in the Gulf
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/253233
The catastrophists were wrong (again) about the Deep Water Horizon oil spill. There have been no major fish die-offs. On the contrary, a comprehensive new study says that in some of the most heavily fished areas of the Gulf of Mexico, various forms of sea life, from shrimp to sharks, have seen their populations triple since before the spill. Some species, including shrimp and croaker, did even better.
And meanwhile, the media has greatly exaggerated damage found in studies about coral, which is in some ways more vulnerable to oil and dispersant. Most of it is doing fine.
The growth of the fish population is not occurring because oil is good for fish. Rather, it is occurring because fishing is bad for fish. When fishing was banned for months during the spill, the Gulf of Mexico experienced an unprecedented marine renaissance that overwhelmed any negative environmental consequences the oil may have had, researchers say. (MORE AT LINK)
The catastrophists were wrong (again) about the Deep Water Horizon oil spill. There have been no major fish die-offs. On the contrary, a comprehensive new study says that in some of the most heavily fished areas of the Gulf of Mexico, various forms of sea life, from shrimp to sharks, have seen their populations triple since before the spill. Some species, including shrimp and croaker, did even better.
And meanwhile, the media has greatly exaggerated damage found in studies about coral, which is in some ways more vulnerable to oil and dispersant. Most of it is doing fine.
The growth of the fish population is not occurring because oil is good for fish. Rather, it is occurring because fishing is bad for fish. When fishing was banned for months during the spill, the Gulf of Mexico experienced an unprecedented marine renaissance that overwhelmed any negative environmental consequences the oil may have had, researchers say. (MORE AT LINK)
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Gore Pocketed ~$18 Million from Now-Defunct Chicago Climate Exchange
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/11/gore-pocketed-18-million-from-now.html
Gore Pocketed ~$18 Million from Now-Defunct Chicago Climate Exchange
Although the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) collapsed and shut down this week, Al Gore's Generation Investment Management LLP pocketed approximately $17.8 million on it's 2.98% share of the exchange when it was sold to the publicly traded Intercontinental Exchange a mere 6 months ago. According to news reports, the brainchild of the exchange, academic Richard Sandor, founded the exchange with a foundation gift of $1.1 million, and pocketed $98.5 million for his 16.5% share of the CCX. This would place the value of Gore's firm's stake at almost $18 million. Note Gore is the founder, chairman, and largest shareholder in Generation Investment Management LLP. Barack Obama was on the Joyce Foundation Board when it provided the funding to establish the CCX. Maurice Strong, founding head of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), precursor to the IPCC, was a CCX board member
(READ MORE AT LINK)http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/11/gore-pocketed-18-million-from-now.html
Gore Pocketed ~$18 Million from Now-Defunct Chicago Climate Exchange
Although the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) collapsed and shut down this week, Al Gore's Generation Investment Management LLP pocketed approximately $17.8 million on it's 2.98% share of the exchange when it was sold to the publicly traded Intercontinental Exchange a mere 6 months ago. According to news reports, the brainchild of the exchange, academic Richard Sandor, founded the exchange with a foundation gift of $1.1 million, and pocketed $98.5 million for his 16.5% share of the CCX. This would place the value of Gore's firm's stake at almost $18 million. Note Gore is the founder, chairman, and largest shareholder in Generation Investment Management LLP. Barack Obama was on the Joyce Foundation Board when it provided the funding to establish the CCX. Maurice Strong, founding head of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), precursor to the IPCC, was a CCX board member
(READ MORE AT LINK)http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/11/gore-pocketed-18-million-from-now.html
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Xcel Can Recover $44.5M In SmartGridCity Costs
http://cbs4denver.com/wireapnewsco/Xcel.Energy.can.2.1991085.html
DENVER (AP) ― An administrative law judge has recommended approving a settlement capping the costs Xcel Energy can recover from customers for its SmartGridCity project.
The project in Boulder is helping the utility see what a modern energy grid that distributes traditional and renewable energy would look like.
The utility's SmartGridCity costs have been rising, but Xcel, staff for the Colorado Public Utilities Commission and the Governor's Energy Office reached a settlement in which Xcel wouldn't try to recover costs above $44.5 million from customers statewide through electricity rates.
A judge last week recommended approving the settlement. If no protests are lodged within 20 days, the PUC will adopt the recommendation.
DENVER (AP) ― An administrative law judge has recommended approving a settlement capping the costs Xcel Energy can recover from customers for its SmartGridCity project.
The project in Boulder is helping the utility see what a modern energy grid that distributes traditional and renewable energy would look like.
The utility's SmartGridCity costs have been rising, but Xcel, staff for the Colorado Public Utilities Commission and the Governor's Energy Office reached a settlement in which Xcel wouldn't try to recover costs above $44.5 million from customers statewide through electricity rates.
A judge last week recommended approving the settlement. If no protests are lodged within 20 days, the PUC will adopt the recommendation.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Gore leaves car idling for one hour during speech; Opts for Swedish government jet over public transportation
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/8595/Gore-leaves-car-idling-for-one-hour-during-speech-Opts-for-Swedish-government-jet-over-public-transportation
Gore leaves car idling for one hour during speech; Opts for Swedish government jet over public transportation
'Local legislation prohibits any car engine running for more than 60 seconds' -- But Gore Not Fined
Thursday, October 28, 2010By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Reprinted from CFACT.EU
Frankly Sir, You Are an Embarrassment
Posted: 27 Oct 2010 10:35 AM PDT
By Einar Du Rietz
Al Gore -- He did it again.
Recently, Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore toured again. Or maybe he does that all the time. This time, he turned up in Gothenburg (Sweden) for the usual alarmist talk. In advance, all distinguished guests were politely advised to – if possible – use any form of public transportation to go to the event, in order to minimize CO2 emissions.
Intriguingly, the Master of World Climate himself arrived in a rental car (with or without driver is unclear), from the airport, and subsequently left the engine running for the entire lecture. That is to say, about one hour. Incidentally, local legislation prohibits – for very good environmental reasons, i e pollution – any car engine running on empty for more than 60 seconds. Fines are severe. As far as I know, he was not fined.
It starts to form a pattern.
After the ceremony in the Norwegian capital Oslo, it is customary that the laureate is invited to the Swedish capital Stockholm, for a cordial visit. The train ride, supposedly the environmental choice according to Mr. Gore, is approximately four hours. However, he opted for the cosier ride with one of the Swedish government aircrafts. As these can, according to the rules, only be used when a cabinet member is on board – and as the Swedish government after a short ceremonial visit – offered to fly him to Frankfurt (Germany) for his flight to the US, you can calculate both the manpower and the fuel used for this grand tour against man's destruction of the planet.
Stupidity and hypocracy – as well as vanity – are, like it or not common human traits. I admit to some of them occasionally, but I don't demand taxpayers to finance my stupid talks at dinner (yes, I love doing that). Here's the deal Mr Gore: get out of my way, and I will keep out of yours.
[About the Author: Einar Du Rietz is a journalist and communications consultant based in Europe. He has authored several environmental reports for the Electrolux Group and loads of blogs for the Center for the New Europe at CNE Environment.]
Related Links:
Gore leaves car idling for one hour during speech; Opts for Swedish government jet over public transportation
'Local legislation prohibits any car engine running for more than 60 seconds' -- But Gore Not Fined
Thursday, October 28, 2010By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Reprinted from CFACT.EU
Frankly Sir, You Are an Embarrassment
Posted: 27 Oct 2010 10:35 AM PDT
By Einar Du Rietz
Al Gore -- He did it again.
Recently, Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore toured again. Or maybe he does that all the time. This time, he turned up in Gothenburg (Sweden) for the usual alarmist talk. In advance, all distinguished guests were politely advised to – if possible – use any form of public transportation to go to the event, in order to minimize CO2 emissions.
Intriguingly, the Master of World Climate himself arrived in a rental car (with or without driver is unclear), from the airport, and subsequently left the engine running for the entire lecture. That is to say, about one hour. Incidentally, local legislation prohibits – for very good environmental reasons, i e pollution – any car engine running on empty for more than 60 seconds. Fines are severe. As far as I know, he was not fined.
It starts to form a pattern.
After the ceremony in the Norwegian capital Oslo, it is customary that the laureate is invited to the Swedish capital Stockholm, for a cordial visit. The train ride, supposedly the environmental choice according to Mr. Gore, is approximately four hours. However, he opted for the cosier ride with one of the Swedish government aircrafts. As these can, according to the rules, only be used when a cabinet member is on board – and as the Swedish government after a short ceremonial visit – offered to fly him to Frankfurt (Germany) for his flight to the US, you can calculate both the manpower and the fuel used for this grand tour against man's destruction of the planet.
Stupidity and hypocracy – as well as vanity – are, like it or not common human traits. I admit to some of them occasionally, but I don't demand taxpayers to finance my stupid talks at dinner (yes, I love doing that). Here's the deal Mr Gore: get out of my way, and I will keep out of yours.
[About the Author: Einar Du Rietz is a journalist and communications consultant based in Europe. He has authored several environmental reports for the Electrolux Group and loads of blogs for the Center for the New Europe at CNE Environment.]
Related Links:
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Avoiding Climate Message May Be Working in Kansas.
SustainableBusiness.com News
The non-profit Climate and Energy Projectbelieves it may have found the recipe to motivate conservative Americans in the heartland of the country to take beneficial steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to a New York Times story.
The key is to avoid talking about climate change and don't mention Al Gore. "People out here just hate him," Project chairwoman Nancy Jackson said.
Instead the Project has experimented with shifting the message to focus on thrift, patriotism, spiritual conviction and economic prosperity.
So far, the experiment seems to be a success. Energy use has declined by as much as 5% in the towns involved.
Read the full story at the link below.
Website: www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/science/earth/19fossil.html?_r=3&hpw
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
GM has also faced criticism over the Volt's claimed battery range and fuel economy figures. GM originally claimed the Volt would have an electric-onl
Redrant: The ludicrous 230 MPG claim for the Volt is a way for GM to get more low MPG vehicles under the CAFE. I suspect that someone will challenge the 230 MPG Volt claim in court. They should win. If you want a true electric primary with engine backup get a Ford Ranger electric conversion with deep cycle lead acid batteries and add a generator in the cargo box. The generator is, well, a generator/arc welder if you want and it can recharge the batteries and get you home (or cross country).
The basic economics of the battery only part of the volt is highly questionable. I did the math a while back on the 40/20 range figuring a once a day (night) recharge. It was around 14,000/7,000 miles per year driving on electricity. That is tapping it out 365 days per year. If you compare that to the gas engine Volt equivalent that is not a lot of gasoline used even if we calculate at $3 per gallon.
A big question is why this hybrid and electric technology is introduced using the "idiot light" consumer public market? Why not commercial first? Greg Lang
GM originally claimed the Volt would have an electric-only range of 40 miles (65 kilometres) which has now been revised to "between 25 and 50 miles". Several real world tests by industry website Popular Mechanics have resulted in an average of just 33 miles.
Further testing by Popular Mechanics has also seen GM's claim of "230 miles per gallon" (1 litre per 100 kilometres) quashed, with both city and highway testing of the Volt seeing an average consumption six times higher than GM's claim - 6.2 litres per 100km. (SMH)
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
'One Nation' (Rally last Saturday) ... Under Socialism
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/549346/201010041903/One-Nation-Under-Socialism.htm
'One Nation' ... Under Socialism
Election '10: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but in the case of the "One Nation" rally it was also the sincerest form of futility. Despite the usual media puffery, this cycle's enthusiasm gap was clearly visible.
Saturday's gathering in Washington was so sparse, according to Gateway Pundit, that C-SPAN's Web site felt it necessary to use a crowd shot from Glenn Beck's Oct. 28 "Restoring Honor" rally. The Gadsden "Don't Tread on Me" flags in the picture were a dead giveaway.
The "astroturf" slur used by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2009 to disparage the rise of the Tea Party movement clearly applied to "One Nation." Organizers included groups such as Code Pink, La Raza, the Communist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America and the International Socialist Organization.
The main drivers were the NAACP and labor unions from the Communication Workers of America to the American Federation of Teachers to the SEIU. They provided buses for members to get to the event, as well as free lunches, free T-shirts and free Metro fare cards. It was an offer many decided to refuse.
The AFL-CIO Now blog noted: "One month before the elections, thousands of union members are joining with community activists, students, entertainers, civil and human rights leaders and progressive politicians to march for jobs, justice and education for all Americans. Unions are sponsoring some 1,400 buses from around the country to come to the march."
Even in this case there was no such a thing as a free lunch. It was all paid for by dues from unions hoping to save a Democratic Congress that would pass card check and end a worker's right to a secret ballot in union elections. A rally for democracy this was not.
"We're here to show the rest of the country that there are people who support the progressive agenda," said Ken Bork, who came from Camas, Wash. "There may be an enthusiasm gap, but we're not going to know until we have an election." Hope and change spring eternal.
While the Beck rally stretched well down the National Mall, Saturday's event shaped up to be far smaller, with sparse groups lingering around the reflecting pool and other monuments. Judging from the trash left behind, the janitors' union didn't show up. The problem is that what One Nation was selling, America isn't buying.
Self-proclaimed communist and former Obama green jobs czar Van Jones was there to inspire the crowd with tales of income redistribution and environmental justice. He apologized for the crowd size, saying more people would have attended but times are tough even after a trillion-dollar stimulus. "The earth is overheating, the earth is heating up," he eloquently proclaimed.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, who, like other union bosses, has taken no vow of poverty, was there to rail against "the voices of fear and hatred that have risen to dominate our national conversation and the forces of greed, the moneyed powers that put us in the economic mess we're in today."
What do Trumka and the rally attendees offer but unbridled socialism of which ObamaCare and government takeovers of the auto and banking industries are but a first step?
"We need to fundamentally restructure our economy and re-establish popular control over the private corporations which have distorted our economy and hijacked our government," Trumka said recently.
Judging from the crowds on the National Mall as well as poll results to date, socialism is not and will not be America's cup of tea..
Saturday, October 2, 2010
America on the brink of a Second Revolution
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/america-on-the-brink-of-a-second-revolution-2010-09-28
America on the brink of a Second Revolution
Commentary: 2010 elections guarantee gridlock, anti-capitalist class war
By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch
ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- “What’s distinctive about the Tea Party is its anarchist streak -- its antagonism toward any authority, its belligerent self-expression, and its lack of any coherent program or alternative to the policies it condemns,” warns Jacob Weisberg in Newsweek. But why not three cheers for the Tea Party Express?
Admit it, something historic is brewing. And yes, it’s good for America, even the anarchy. Revolution is renewal. Tea-baggers want to take on both parties, “restore honor” and “take back the country.” Bring it on, the feeling’s mutual.
Obama: GOP pledge a disastrous plan
President Barack Obama used his weekly radio address Saturday to accuse Republicans of overlooking the middle class by creating policies that would benefit only the rich while making a pledge of his own to continue supporting the national economy.
OK, maybe most Americans just silently mimic the words, “we’re mad as hell, won’t take it any more.” But watch out: After November the campaign’s shrill rhetoric explodes into action.
Tea-baggers are kicking the revolution into high gear. Debt is sinking America. Both parties are to blame. So vote out incumbents. Spare no one. We need new leadership, another Reagan or Truman. Congress better get the message: Cut that budget, or they’ll dump the rest of you in the coming Great Purge of 2012.
Unfortunately they’re tone deaf. Congress cannot see past the election. All that changes in November.
So thanks Tea Party, Vegas odds must favor a Second American Revolution. Actually, the revolution is already roaring, hot, it’s about time. The GOP and the Dems had more than a decade. But America’s worse off. We need a real revolution to restore sanity … or we can kiss democracy and capitalism good-bye, permanently.
Warning: Another revolution will cost investors 20% more losses
Yes, big warning, the Second American Revolution will extract painful austerity, not the “happy days are here again” future touted by tea-baggers. For years it’ll be impossible for most of America’s 95 million investors to develop a successful investment or logical retirement strategy.
Why? Political chaos will translate into extreme volatility and a highly unpredictable stock market. Result: Wall Street will lose another 20% of the value of your retirement portfolio in the next decade, just as Wall Street did the last decade. So if you think you’re “mad as hell” now, “you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet!”
Here’s the timeline:
Stage 1: The Dems just put the nail in their coffin by confirming they are wimps, refusing to force the GOP to filibuster the Bush tax cuts for America’s richest.
Stage 2: The GOP takes over the House, expanding its war to destroy Obama with its new policy of “complete gridlock,” even “shutting down government.”
Stage 3: Obama goes lame-duck.
Stage 4: The GOP wins back the White House and Senate in 2012. Health care returns to insurers. Free market financial deregulation returns.
Stage 5: Under the new president, Wall Street’s insatiable greed triggers the catastrophic third meltdown of the 21st century Shiller predicted, with defaults on dollar-denominated debt.
Stage 6: The Second American Revolution explodes into a brutal full-scale class war rebelling against the out-of-touch, out-of-control greedy conspiracy-of-the-rich now running America.
Stage 7: Domestic class warfare is compounded by Pentagon’s prediction that by 2020 “an ancient pattern of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies would emerge” worldwide and “warfare is defining human life.”
What’s behind our 2010-2020 countdown? It became obvious after reading the brilliant but bleak “Decadence of Election 2010” report by Prof. Peter Morici, former chief economist at the International Trade Commission. He sees no hope from America’s political parties, just a dark scenario ahead.
Here are the 10 points we see in his message:
1. Expect nothing positive from Dems, the GOP or Tea Party
Yes, we’re all “justifiably ticked off.” But “Democrats, Republicans, and yes the Tea Party offer little that is encouraging.” Earlier Morici warned: “Democratic capitalism is in eclipse. … Politicians have deceived voters,” and are “suffering from delusions of grandeur, self deception and good old-fashioned abuse.”
2. Democracy has become too-big-to-govern … by anyone
“The current economic quagmire is a bipartisan creation.” Bush failures led to a “Great Recession … reckless Wall Street pay and fraud, a breakdown in sound lending standards by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac … Countrywide, and a huge trade deficit with China and on oil” leaving “Beijing and Middle East royals with trillions of U.S. dollars that they invested foolishly” in bonds “financing the housing and commercial real estate bubbles.”
3. Clinton, Bush, Obama policies all feeding revolutionary flames
Even before Bush, “all was set in motion by bank deregulation engineered by Clinton … Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers … Clinton’s deal to admit China into the World Trade Organization” handed “China free access to U.S. markets” while blocking exports. Earlier Dems blocked “domestic oil and gas development” and froze “auto mileage standards.” Obama “finally imposed higher mileage requirements,” but after pushing offshore drilling, he “punished the entire petroleum industry” for the BP disaster.
Will Pelosi allow tax vote?
Indiana Republican Congressman Mike Pence and Stephen Moore discuss taxes.
4. Bush’s biggest mistake: Goldman CEO Hank Paulson
Morici admits: If Bush is “culpable for anything, it was to not see the gathering storm on Wall Street.” Worse, his Treasury picks were disasters: [John] Snow was clueless, Paulson devious. He conned a clueless Congress into bailout trillions, “believing banks could borrow at 3% and lend at 5 and pay MBAs three years out of school five-million-dollar bonuses to create mortgage backed securities.” Greed drove the Bush Treasury.
5. All partisan political leaders are destined to sabotage America
One thing is clear to Morici: Not only were America’s leaders a “bunch of second-rate incompetents” on both the Clinton and Bush teams, “Obama’s ratcheting up government spending and taxes won’t fix what’s broke, and neither will the GOP prescription of tax cuts and deregulation.” Get it? Democracy is in a classic double-bind, no-win scenario.
6. America’s democratic capitalism trapped in systemic failure
Morici simply dismisses “Obama’s two signature initiatives -- health-care reform and financial services reregulation.” They “simply don’t work.” Why? Politicians “failed to address the root problem, Americans pay 50% more for doctors, hospitals and drugs, than subscribers to national health plans in Germany, France and other decadent socialist European countries.” Yet, insurers hate reform, will self-destruct America first.
7. Wall Street’s insatiable greed is a virus that never sleeps
Wall Street banks are “back to their old tricks,” warns Morici, “hustling municipal governments into the kind of quick-fix budget schemes, like selling parking meters and airport fees.” Why? Wall Street’s “hustling shoddy corporate bonds that lack adequate collateral and may never be repaid” to justify their absurd mega-bonuses. And they’ll keep doing it till the revolution creates a new non-capitalist banking system.
8. New political leaders offer no hope -- Wall Street rules America
GOP’s next leaders will fail: “Cutting taxes and mindless deregulation are not the answer.” We need the revenue. They have no real plan to trim “$1 trillion from federal spending … few believe deregulation will fix health care or Wall Street.” The GOP has no “effective government solutions to health care, Wall Street, fixing trade with China, and dependence on foreign oil.” And the Tea Party “only offers a purer form of failed Republicanism. Tax and spend less, and turn the country over to the robber barons.”
9. Praying for a messiah, we’re sleepwalking till the revolution
Morici’s solution: America “needs a prophet, another Harry Truman or Ronald Reagan.” But we’ll never get one, until a catastrophe hits. Wall Street’s so greedy, so corrupt, so untouchable, so much in control, they will bankroll and control all future “prophets.”
10. The Second American Revolution coming
Yes, extreme austerity: “Americans must accept fewer government-paid benefits -- for the rich, the poor and those in between -- and must acknowledge the market works best most of the time, but it is not working in health care, banking, China, and oil.” Huh? Sounds like classic economist’s double-speak: “The market works most of the time” … except the market doesn’t work at all in the four biggest economic sectors? Fuzzy thinking?
Morici warns, we need “new approaches to regulating, yes regulating, what the medical industry charges, bankers pay themselves, what Americans tolerate and buy” and “guiding big oil and car companies to sustainable solutions.”
Holy cow, he suddenly sounds more like a liberal politician than conservative economist. Yes, he’s reflecting the total chaos coming on the short road to the Second American Revolution.
In the end, however, you have to admit the good professor does make a lot of sense: “Sounds radical but running the world has never been a choice between statism and anarchy,” says Morici.
Choice? Unfortunately, he offers a false choice: Running America effectively means accepting “that the private sector is not the enemy and government is not evil, but neither can serve the other, and us, if value is not seen in each.”
Laudable, but impossible because once the GOP Tea Party of No-No is back in power, compromising is not on their agenda, “gridlock” is. So anarchy is the only choice -- they will never, never work with Democrats … until forced by the Second America Revolution when the middle class finally rises up and overthrows the greedy wealth conspiracy of Wall Street, Washington, CEOs and the Forbes 400.
Till then, anarchy rules as the conspiracy keeps looting Treasury, stealing from taxpayers, conning us all.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
A 132-Year Payback On The All-Electric Car
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2010/09/18/commentary/op-eds/doc4c956e4beb142263151752.txt
Recoup Your Investment In Only 132 Years!
One does not need to be a Brookings Institute scholar like Mr. Sandalow, specializing in “oil dependence, electric vehicles, and climate change,” to see why no one will willingly purchase an all-electric car, much less the one million that President Obama wants on the nation’s highways in five years. (Call me cynical, but this number does not sound as if it were the result of a scientific analysis either.) First of all, the cost of anything is that which is foregone by the purchase. In other words, when we buy something, we cannot spend this money on other things. That is what our cost is. In the case of Mr. Sandalow, his $9,000 investment cost him 3,000 gallons of gasoline at the current price of roughly $3 per gallon. Assuming Mr. Sandalow’s Toyota Prius gets only 20 miles per gallon, he could have driven his car for 60,000 miles. Since his commute is 10 miles per day, Mr. Sandalow’s conversion cost is the amount of gasoline he could have purchased to drive to work for 22.7 years. But that is not the only cost; the cost of electricity, which Mr. Sandalow estimates to be the equivalence of $.75 per gallon gasoline, has yet to be considered. This expense adds an additional $2,250 to his commute. (60,000 miles divided by 20 miles per gallon times $.75 = $2,250) Stated another way, he could have purchased another 750 gallons of gasoline and commuted to work for another 5.7 years, or 28.4 years total.
One does not need to be a Brookings Institute scholar like Mr. Sandalow, specializing in “oil dependence, electric vehicles, and climate change,” to see why no one will willingly purchase an all-electric car, much less the one million that President Obama wants on the nation’s highways in five years. (Call me cynical, but this number does not sound as if it were the result of a scientific analysis either.) First of all, the cost of anything is that which is foregone by the purchase. In other words, when we buy something, we cannot spend this money on other things. That is what our cost is. In the case of Mr. Sandalow, his $9,000 investment cost him 3,000 gallons of gasoline at the current price of roughly $3 per gallon. Assuming Mr. Sandalow’s Toyota Prius gets only 20 miles per gallon, he could have driven his car for 60,000 miles. Since his commute is 10 miles per day, Mr. Sandalow’s conversion cost is the amount of gasoline he could have purchased to drive to work for 22.7 years. But that is not the only cost; the cost of electricity, which Mr. Sandalow estimates to be the equivalence of $.75 per gallon gasoline, has yet to be considered. This expense adds an additional $2,250 to his commute. (60,000 miles divided by 20 miles per gallon times $.75 = $2,250) Stated another way, he could have purchased another 750 gallons of gasoline and commuted to work for another 5.7 years, or 28.4 years total.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)