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.

Global Warming Alarmist Calls For Eco-Gulags To Re-Educate Climate Deniers

http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-warming-alarmist-calls-for-eco-gulags-to-re-educate-climate-deniers.html

The current White House science czar John P. Holdren also advocates the most obscenely dictatorial, eco-fascist, and inhumane practices in the name of environmentalism. In his 1977 Ecoscience textbook, Holdren calls for a “planetary regime” to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization procedures, as well as drugging the water supply, in an effort to cull the human surplus.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Home Of "Ice Giants" Thaws, Shows Pre-Viking Hunts

Redrant: The Minnesota Vikings football team have Bret Farve so this this season should be very interesting if there are no terrorism attacks. Soon science will admit that the Neanderthal did not become extinct but instead relocated to Wisconsin and became known as "cheeseheads". These ice thaws show previous warm periods before alleged crazed sex poodle Al Gore and the industrial revolution. Greg Lang
Cartridges 4 Planet ArkCarbon Reduction LabelProducts & SolutionsPaperCutz 4 Planet Ark

Planet Ark World Environment News - in partnership with Colonial First StateHome Of "Ice Giants" Thaws, Shows Pre-Viking Hunts

Date: 15-Sep-10
Country: NORWAY
Author: Alister Doyle

Home Of
A 3,400-year-old leather shoe found in the mountains of south Norway after a record melt of ice, apparently linked to climate change is seen in this 2006 handout photo.
Photo: Vegard Vike

Climate change is exposing reindeer hunting gear used by the Vikings' ancestors faster than archaeologists can collect it from ice thawing in northern Europe's highest mountains.

"It's like a time machine...the ice has not been this small for many, many centuries," said Lars Piloe, a Danish scientist heading a team of "snow patch archaeologists" on newly bare ground 1,850 meters (6,070 ft) above sea level in mid-Norway.

Specialized hunting sticks, bows and arrows and even a 3,400-year-old leather shoe have been among finds since 2006 from a melt in the Jotunheimen mountains, the home of the "Ice Giants" of Norse mythology.

As water streams off the Juvfonna ice field, Piloe and two other archaeologists -- working in a science opening up due to climate change -- collect "scare sticks" they reckon were set up 1,500 years ago in rows to drive reindeer toward archers.

But time is short as the Ice Giants' stronghold shrinks.

"Our main focus is the rescue part," Piloe said on newly exposed rocks by the ice. "There are many ice patches. We can only cover a few...We know we are losing artefacts everywhere."

Freed from an ancient freeze, wood rots in a few years. And rarer feathers used on arrows, wool or leather crumble to dust in days unless taken to a laboratory and stored in a freezer.

Jotunheimen is unusual because so many finds are turning up at the same time -- 600 artefacts at Juvfonna alone.

Other finds have been made in glaciers or permafrost from Alaska to Siberia. Italy's iceman "Otzi," killed by an arrow wound 5,000 years ago, was found in an Alpine glacier in 1991. "Ice Mummies" have been discovered in the Andes.

RESCUE

Patrick Hunt, of Stanford University in California who is trying to discover where Carthaginian general Hannibal invaded Italy in 218 BC with an army and elephants, said there was an "alarming rate" of thaw in the Alps.

"This is the first summer since 1994 when we began our Alpine field excavations above 8,000 ft that we have not been inundated by even one day of rain, sleet and snow flurries," he said.

"I expect we will see more 'ice patch archaeology discoveries'," he said. Hannibal found snow on the Alpine pass he crossed in autumn, according to ancient writers.

Glaciers are in retreat from the Andes to the Alps, as a likely side-effect of global warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, the U.N. panel of climate experts says.

The panel's credibility has suffered since its 2007 report exaggerated a thaw by saying Himalayan glaciers might vanish by 2035. It has stuck to its main conclusion that it is "very likely" that human activities are to blame for global warming.

"Over the past 150 years we have had a worldwide trend of glacial retreat," said Michael Zemp, director of the Swiss-based World Glacier Monitoring Service. While many factors were at play, he said "the main driver is global warming."

In Norway, "some ice fields are at their minimum for at least 3,000 years," said Rune Strand Oedegaard, a glacier and permafrost expert from Norway's Gjoevik University College.

The front edge of Jovfunna has retreated about 18 meters (60 ft) over the past year, exposing a band of artefacts probably from the Iron Age 1,500 years ago, according to radiocarbon dating. Others may be from Viking times 1,000 years ago.

Juvfonna, about 1 km across on the flank of Norway's highest peak, Galdhoepiggen, at 2,469 meters, also went through a less drastic shrinking period in the 1930s, Oedegaard said.

REINDEER

Inside the Juvfonna ice, experts have carved a cave to expose layers of ice dating back 6,000 years. Some dark patches turned out to be ancient reindeer droppings -- giving off a pungent smell when thawed out.

Ice fields like Juvfonna differ from glaciers in that they do not slide much downhill. That means artefacts may be where they were left, giving an insight into hunting techniques.

On Juvfonna, most finds are "scare sticks" about a meter long. Each has a separate, flapping piece of wood some 30 cm long that was originally tied at the top. The connecting thread is rarely found since it disintegrates within days of exposure.

"It's a strange feeling to be tying a string around this stick just as someone else did maybe 1,500 years ago," said Elling Utvik Wammer, a archaeologist on Piloe's team knotting a tag to a stick before storing it in a box for later study.

All the finds are also logged with a GPS satellite marker before being taken to the lab for examination.

The archaeologists reckon they were set up about two meters apart to drive reindeer toward hunters. In summer, reindeer often go onto snow patches to escape parasitic flies.

Such a hunt would require 15 to 20 people, Piloe said, indicating that Norway had an organized society around the start of the Dark Ages, 1,500 years ago. Hunters probably needed to get within 20 meters of a reindeer to use an iron-tipped arrow.

"You can nearly feel the hunter here," Piloe said, standing by a makeshift wall of rocks exposed in recent weeks and probably built by an ancient archer as a hideaway.

(Editing by Philippa Fletcher)




Saturday, September 11, 2010

Clean Diesel Consequences – My Experience- Sounds Great But It Sucks

REDRANT:
I saw a cable TV show that had a cutaway of the "soot burner" for "clean" diesel engines. It had a spark plug and did inject diesel fuel directly to create a super-hot flame to burn the soot. I wondered about the fuel this would use.

You mentioned Europe where 50% of new cars are diesel. Vehicle fuel costs at least twice as much in Europe and diesel tends to be at least a dollar a gallon cheaper. Compared to the US Europe has a great passenger rail system but a poor rail freight system. This is due to passenger rail priority, shorter distances and more rugged terrain than the US. The lesser diesel tax in Europe reflects the truck dependence. Diesel cars "piggyback" this.

In the last decade or so diesel has cost more than gasoline in the US. For starters almost all motor fuel is paid for with plastic nowadays with credit or debit cards and except in Oregon is self-serve. This greatly reduces the "volume discount" diesel used to have. The article I will link below mentions the 15 PPM sulfur for US diesel. This is hard to do and there is strong international demand for low sulfur diesel. Finally, the more sophisticated the refinery "cracking" the less diesel/fuel oil is left. A couple of years back I read of asphalt tar going way up in price because refineries were "cracking" more. The old "teakettle" refineries couldn't deal with the low sulfur mandates.

This article makes sense but it should say ALL LIGHT TRUCKS WITH DIESELS. Obviously, you can still buy gasoline light trucks. Natural gas might be good for URBAN commercial trucks, especially if they are stored outdoors.-----Greg Lang


Clean Diesel Consequences – My Experience- Sounds Great But It Sucks

There’s an editorial/commentary in the Strib about Clean Diesel. Its yet another example of people wanting something “green” to happen and avoiding all reality around their mandates. As in, the consequences.
In today’s politically charged climate in Washington, it’s rare to find a program that has near-universal support among Democrats and Republicans. It’s also unusual for a policy to bring together environmentalists, industry and government officials for a common cause, much less one that actually provides a $13-to-$1 positive return on investment to taxpayers and the federal government.
Some background on “Clean Diesel”: I own a clean diesel. My 2007 GMC Sierra has a clean diesel engine in it. Congress dictated that all new light trucks must have a clean diesel engine starting in 2007. Larger semi trucks and equipment were phased in over the next years.
I have to burn special diesel with just 15PPM of sulfur in it. The old stuff was 500PPM. Now I like the fact that my truck doesn’t leave a soot cloud, don’t get me wrong. But the choice forced upon me by Congress has cost me money, convenience, and makes me do things differently.
The upfront cost of the equipment on my truck added at least $1000 to the purchase price I was told. General Motors was required to redesign the entire concept of the diesel in order to make it meet the standards.Plus my truck looks like I drove over a light pole with the giant exhaust system that it is required to have.
The large silver pipe that sticks out the back of the truck has been a problem for me during the fall and winter. You see, when you are trying to back out of parking spaces in the winter when there are the giant piles of solid icy snow, and you accidentally bump into the snow with the exhaust pipe that protrudes out past the bumper (not curved to the side be hind the wheel like other trucks due to the hot exhaust temps) it ends up bending the pipe and exhaust system.
This is just one of the drawbacks of people in ivory office buildings in Washington pretending to have good ideas. The results or consequences of what looks or feels good on paper isn’t realized for the real world applications.
You see, in order to meet the emmissions requirements, my exhaust system has a filter in it. This filter requires cleaning, in order to do that, my truck will dump raw fuel into the over sized pipes and ignite it to flash burn the nasty soots and particles. Hence the need for the giant tube and cooling tip that sticks out like a sore thumb.
I am lucky enough to do a lot of highway driving. If I was someone who spent most of my time in stop and go traffic or city driving, I would not get up to speed in order to safely have the truck’s exhaust system clean itself. It will only clean itself when moving at highway speeds.
I’d get a warning light telling me to get it out on the open roads and drive it for 30 minutes. If you are unable to do so, the truck would go into “limp” mode and you’d have to take it to a dealer, they’d have to cut into the exhaust system, pull out the filter, and put it into a fancy expensive machine that would clean the filter. Then they’d` have reinstall it and repair my exhaust system. And since it is a federal emissions requirement, they have to do it free of charge, or out of their pocket.
So there is a chance that people with clean diesel trucks like mine could end up stranded and needed a tow truck due to the “green” policies and mandates. But that’s not the total problem. There’s other applications that this clean diesel technology is impractical, unusable, or dangerous.
There’s a serious danger of fire if you have leaves or other flammable things under the vehicle. A pile of leaves or dry long grass in a field could start on fire due to the extra hot exhaust pipes under my truck. And I can tell you the first few times the truck “cleans itself” you wonder what the heck kind of roadkill you somehow ran over to create that stench of death you smell. The phrase, “I think your truck just sh!t itself” makes us giggle, but also provides a little frustration when you think about how it all came to be by environutters and bureaucrats in Washington.
I’ve talked to a local fuel delivery company about my truck. They are a fuel tanker and delivery company. They go and pick up fuel in 8000 gallon trailer from the fuel depots (those big giant white circles like you see West of 35W as you drive on 35W in Roseville) The restrictions to even drive a vehicle onto the premises are onerous, for good reason. And, I’m told, a truck like mine, with an overly hot running exhausts system is not allowed onto the grounds.
The system in my truck is similar to that on newer semi tractors pulling those fuel tanker trailers, meaning new big trucks that meet the federal emissions are not able to be used to deliver fuel due to the danger of causing a fire or explosion. He said he bought a new truck before the mandate kicked in so he didn’t have to worry about how the details get worked out.
That’s just some of the pains caused by do gooder bureaucrats and politicians appeasing the green lobby. There’s also the true cost of operating a vehicle with clean diesel. My MPG blows or better put, my truck sucks fuel. I chose a diesel because I do a lot of driving and towing. A diesel gives you, or should, better mileage and has a much lower drop when towing or hauling heavy loads.
As I said, it should. In pre-clean diesel trucks like mine, people easily get 22 MPG and see very small drops when hauling. In my truck, I get 14-15 MPG around town. On a tank of fuel with mixed city and highway driving, I average around 16-18 MPG. On road trips keeping my speed at 65MPH and below is the only time I see anything close to or over 20 MPGs. When I toss a trailer behind her, I’m see MPG drop to 9 to 12. Considering I spent thousands and thousands of extra dollars on a diesel to avoid such wild MPG performance typical in a gas engine, I’m kinda POed.
Why? Because lower MPGs due to the clean diesel requires me to burn more fuel. Its the entire non-sense part of green laws that makes me insane. Its impossible to have an engine that can perform well that is both clean bruning and gets good mileage. You can easily do one of the other, but not both.
Enter the ridiculous CAFE requirements. Vehicles have to meet high requirements for low emissions, but now also have to meet over the top CAFE levels. Now my truck was a Gen 1 version, so I have great power still. Something that people behind me when I try to merge onto a highway pulling my boat or a bobcat appreciate. I can get up and get moving, the purpose of a diesel for towing.
Newer versions will very likely be forced to scale back power in order to meet the CAFE MPG standards.
So let’s sum this up.
I have a clean truck that came factory equipped with the crap the people in the Strib story are praising. Praising spending untold billions to retro fit onto older trucks and machines. So I have some experience with the real world consequences of their goals and agenda.
The equipment is very expensive up front. Its high maintenance and can lead to down time which, for construction companies, costs them twice. Once for the repairs, once for lost productivity.
The longterm costs of running a clean diesel machine, in my own experience, is much higher due to lower MPG performance. I’m paying more at the pump and visiting them more frequently due to the green mandates. That means I’m using more fuel in order to be green to other people’s standards.
So when people talk about reducing our need for foreign fuel, or domestic for that matter, I get a little upset. These green policies are making us more addicted to oil. I’m using more oil and burning more of it because of a law that Congress passed.
The same law these morons are praising for wasting millions to retrofit old machines and trucks so they can feel good the at the next cocktail party with the other tree huggers.
I call these people Lunacrats. They push lunacy as public policy.

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Discovery Channel bomber "'Awakened' by Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'...".


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38957020/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Lee said at the time that he experienced an ‘‘awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.”
While his main domain, savetheplanetprotest.com, is now a single page presenting his complaints, archives show that in the past he has used it to promote a contest to give away money and property in Hawaii “for the best TV show idea to save the planet.”