A way to reduce oil usage.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

Windmills are practical now. They're efficient and there are hundreds of thousands of acres with plenty of wind. We could quickly produce 20% of our electricty by wind if we tried. In Europe, Denmark I think, they are doing just that.

The only drawbacks are they kill birds and people don't want them in their back yards.

They are also limited in the number of places geographicly that they can be installed funtionally and practically. Many are far too close to peoples back yards so rises the NIMBY issue.

I agree with vsmith on this. There are actually very few places where the wind blows consistently enough to make large scale wind power generation econimical.

Wind farms require a huge amount of space so that the leading windmills do not "shadow" the ones behind them. There is also a measurable decrease in wind velocity downstream of a working wind farm which may have enviromental effects. Specuation: the wind farms on Altamont Pass might make the Central Valley hotter.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ptt100

Hey leftlimp,

If you think coal mining is so envirnomentally benign, why don't you go to coal country and take a look at all the large mine refuse piles; subsidence damage to steams, surface structures, and public roads; and the wonderful orange acid mine drainage streams which are devoid of life.

Better yet, why don't you donate the estimated $15-20 BILLION dollars needed just to keep the acid mine drainage in check to prevent permanent damage to the public water supply in those areas.

Oh yea, don't count on you buddy's in the coal industry to help out. The just have to post some absurdly low bond (something like $5,000 dollars to mine out thousands of acres), make millions on the coal, then default on the bond and leave the taxpayers stuck with the clean up.

If the coal industry was made to pay for the environmental damage from mining the stuff AND the environmental damage from burning the stuff, it the true price of coal would make middle eastern oil look like a bargan.

first off..... i live in a part of the country where we have all that you are talking about....but let me clue you in on something thier....
the slag piles...orange run off...and eveything else your talking about involved with mineing of coal....was done in the 1800s and early to mid 1900s...befor alot of the envriomental essues with mineing came into being...basicly... your talking about damage that has been done over a 100 years ago..... any mine that is done today...had to follow strict EPA laws regarding mine water drainage...slag pile disposale...and a long list of other restrictions....so your argument about coal mineing damage is based on mineing practaces that where used 100 years ago..not today
csx engineer

[Modelcar]

....CSXengineer.....Quite a coincidence, those wind mills are the very ones I'm talking about. That is, near Somerset, Pa. Some are visible from the turmpike and some are not. Must be near 2 dozen total in the area now...Some are over near Garrett, Pa., just south of the first area. They really aren't installed in "back yards" as such and people seem to accept them very well in the area. Somerset Co. is my home area of many years ago. I suppose the sight is in the eye of the beholder. People that lease the land to set them on are pretty happy with the income but that is another issue. Also, I believe more are planned to be installed in the area. [8D]

[Big_Boy_4005]

Did you ever stop to think that your computer is powered by COAL?

Mine most likely is!! About 5 miles down the road is a power plant, making electricity, some of which I am using now. Three times per week the Union Pacific delivers about 110 carloads of coal to the plant.

Most forms of energy have some kind of drawback. Coal is dirty, and mining it scars the landscape but until we find an alternative, or run out, we're stuck with it. We've come a long way toward making it cleaner, and more efficient.

Hydrogen anyone???

[swg]

[cstaats]

It is going to come down cold hard cash. What is it going to cost to get a ton of freight over the road. When there is a way to move a ton of freight over the road and it save $$ the roads will do it. The cost of the fuel is only one piece of the equation. The infrastructure, labor, and other costs go into the equation. China and India have cheap labor however that is quickly giving way to savings brought by the diesel. I do not believe we will go back to the future with steam other clean fuels can be used to produce electricity and that is to big an advantage.

[DSchmitt]

I wondered when someone would mention Hydrogen.[:)] It has good potential as a fuel for self contained vehicles. Despite its bad rep (the Hindenberg), it is probably not really any more dangerous than gasoline.

One thing holding up its use is there is no infrastructure to "produce" and transport it in the quantities needed.

Its real draw back is the cost. More energy is available from a gallon of oil, a ton of coal, or even a cord of wood than is used to obtain and process them for use. While it is the most common element, Hydrogen is not free. It must be separated from other elements (usually oxygen in the form of water) at a cost in energy that is more than the energy obtained from the Hydrogen. That is you get more usable energy buring processed oil (gasoline) in your car than you will get from the hydrogen "produced" using the same amount of oil.

Currently the only way "produce" the quanity needed and to reduce the cost of Hydrogen to an economicly viable level is to use nuclear energy to produce the power (electricty) needed to separate the elements. Solar, wind, oil, coal , hydro all cost too much.

Although centalized power plants are more efficient than large numbers of gasoline and diesel prime movers, neither using electricity directly or burning Hydrogen will have much real impact on pollution and environmental damage if burning oil or coal is used to generate the power.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ptt100

Not true csx engineer.

If the coal is extracted by the room and pillar method, the excess waste is still brought to the surface and dumped--just like it was 100 years ago. After the mining is complete, the underground rooms fill up with ground water. The water then dissolves various heavy metals and sulfur from the rock strata found around coal reserves making the water both toxic and acidic. Eventually the mine water ( we're talking about billion and even trillions of gallons or polluted water) fills the mine and burst into surface streams. Instant enviromnmental destruction!!!! In the future, the supports holding the rooms give way causing sinkholes and subsidence, Suface buildings and roadways are damaged/destroyed at the taxpayers expense. While it MAY be true that the mines are under strick rules while actually mining the stuff, they just walk away after the coal has been extracted. The only thing the government can do is default on the small bond they posted. Again, the taxpayers are left holding the bag.

Longwall method: A large machine the size of a football field cuts miles long panels from the coal seam. The machine is too large to move around surface objects, so anything above the mine (your house, public roads, public utilities, streams, etc) gets instantly destroyed by the immediate 4-8 foot subsidence from removing the coal seam. Longwall mining fractures ALL the rock strata above the coal seam, allowing ground water to enter the previously sealed coal strata, and you guessed it: acid mine drainage!!

Cut and Fill Method: Coal companies use this method in hilly/mountainous terrain. Basically, they just remove the top of the hill/mountain, push it it the adjacent valley-often time covering streams-extract the coal, AND just walk away from the mess in the valley!! Again, you just exposed rock strata the was protected from the elements. The rain and snow will disolve acidic minerals from the exposed strata and pollute the local streams.

Remember, this crap IS STILL BEING ALLOWED TO BE DONE TODAY in the name of "cheap" coal. I'm from coal country too. I have had many relatives work (and die) in the coal mining industry. I see this stuff hapening all the time, destroying some of the most beautiful country in the USA.

Oh yea, then the stuff makes its way to some mid-western power plant, which has "purchased" pollution control "credits" from the Feds basically allowing them to ignore EPA regs. They burn the crap 24/7 releasing a witches brew of toxins and radioactivity (a lot more radioactivity than any nuke plant) into the air, which them turns into ACID RAIN in the eastern states.

Man, you got to love the coal industry. They are just one gaint Weapon of Mass Destruction. We should just unlease the coal industry on Bin Laden, he wouldn't stand a chance.

And you foamers want to bring back the steam locomotive. Unbelievable.

well..if your so for clean power...then unplug your computer.... disconect the power line from the pole.... rip all the wires out of the house..through all your modern day electrical appliances out the window.... get a few bee hives to use the wax to make candles....and cook over an open harth fire place burning wood in your living room.... get ride of your car...buy a horse and buggy....
AND LIVE LIKE THE AMISH
you want to talk about the draw backs to something...well..look at all the good that it dose for you...and in my book..many of the goods out way most of the bads..... you want to say to me that mineing is bad.... then dont suport it... you can live back in the early 18th centery...i myself am going to stay right here in the 21st...even with all the problems you say with mineing coal to make my life convenant....
csx engineer

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

I wondered when someone would mention Hydrogen.[:)] It has good potential as a fuel for self contained vehicles. Despite its bad rep (the Hindenberg), it is probably not really any more dangerous than gasoline.

One thing holding up its use is there is no infrastructure to "produce" and transport it in the quantities needed.

Its real draw back is the cost. More energy is available from a gallon of oil, a ton of coal, or even a cord of wood than is used to obtain and process them for use. While it is the most common element, Hydrogen is not free. It must be separated from other elements (usually oxygen in the form of water) at a cost in energy that is more than the energy obtained from the Hydrogen. That is you get more usable energy buring processed oil (gasoline) in your car than you will get from the hydrogen "produced" using the same amount of oil.

Currently the only way "produce" the quanity needed and to reduce the cost of Hydrogen to an economicly viable level is to use nuclear energy to produce the power (electricty) needed to separate the elements. Solar, wind, oil, coal , hydro all cost too much.

Although centalized power plants are more efficient than large numbers of gasoline and diesel prime movers, neither using electricity directly or burning Hydrogen will have much real impact on pollution and environmental damage if burning oil or coal is used to generate the power.

What follows is some outside the box thinking that has been rattling around in my head for almost 20 years.

Maybe the secret for hydrogen is not to try and seperate large quantities and then distribute it. Maybe what we really need is a small portable hydrogen generator. Imagine adding water to your car, then plugging it into an electrical source. Then as you drive some of the engines motion would go back into re-generating hydrogen by supplying electricity to the hydrogen generator. The exhaust, which is pure water could also be collected and reused.

This is not a perpetual motion machine, and would require the addition of electricity and water on a regular basis, but if the hydrogen generator was in the vehicle, it could be re-fueled at home or anywhere that has electricity and water.

This entire discussion about alternative forms of energy is really more about storing and transporting energy in different forms, than it is about the source of the energy itself. It becomes applicable to the railroads when we want to break free from diesel.

Electricity is the easiest way transport energy, and should be considered the most basic form. Electricity is not practical for all applications, though in the case of the railroads, it is the most practical, if we would choose to harness it.

What method we choose to create electricity is a different story. The bottom line here is:

ALL of our energy comes from one source!!!

A huge fusion reactor located 93,000,000 miles away,

THE SUN!!!!!!

Fossil fuels are nothing more than stored solar energy. We have discovered that burning this former biological material releases that energy, but there are two problems.

First, contrary to CSX engineer's belief, releasing this energy created by the Sun millions of years ago does cause global warming. Second, contrary to popular scientific belief, this effect will not bring on the end of the world, because one day it will stop, and

WE WILL RUN OUT!!!

We need to learn to live on the sun's energy we recieve today, and not rely on the energy stored in the past!!!

Energy wise speaking, mankind is unemployed, and going through it's savings, fast on its way to bankruptcy and permenant ruin.

Sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

I'll take a coal fired plant over a nuke plant ANY day!

Along with the other pollutants, burning coal put radioactive materials into the atmosphere. Coal piles and slag heaps are also radioactive. According this study radiation from cola is only a small percentade of natural background radiation ann not a threat to humam health.
http://www.elaw.org/assets/pdf/FS%2D163%2D97.pdf


There is however actually less radiation from a operating nuclear plant, than a coal burning plant. Many tests outside nuclear plant containment structures have shown no increase in radiation over the natural background..

Another advantage of nuclear is that "breeder reactors" create more fuel.

Radiation exposue, as much a 10 times the normal background, is apparently healthy
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/31/163126.shtml

For coal slag piles, the only solution there is to dig it all up and rebury it safely, Yeah, I know, who's going to pay for that? I dont know, probably you and me. But thats what needs to be done.

Regarding Nukes, my concern isnt about radiation around the plant, its about what to do with the radioactive waste we already have, The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository is an industry joke, its not ready, wont be for for years, and once there they are already saying that there is still a hazard of contamination, guess which city is closest to it?
Viva Las Vegas!

Nukes are too problematic and no one wants to figure out how to fix those problems, waste, containment, security, transportation, all lead me to feel that nukes are far to big of a headache.

Coal or Gas plants can control pollution far better, coupled with wind where applicable, and solar on every rooftop we could put a big dent in our energy diet. I'm not against exploration in our own country, Alaska, Canada, Mexico all have reserves, but the oil companies tend to ride roughshod over too many issues to get what they want. I'd like to see a more "long term" vision from these guys. They only seem to see the next profit statement (looked at gas prices lately?). So I dont trust them.

And dont trust ANYONE who tells you degregulation of the power companies is a good idea, just look at how bad we here in California got violated by the out of state companies like Enron.

Electrify all the railroads where applicable, it works in Europe, and Japan. and better Diesels for the wide open west.

[DSchmitt]

To Big_Boy_4005

Actually man caused global warming is an assumption that has no basis in fact. Man caused sourses of heat are a very small percentage of the total. The computer models are frauds which predict only what their users want them to. They do not work.

The sun does not burn consistantly. An almost perfect correlation has been found between the temperature of the Earth and activity of the sun which we can not control.

I do agree ,however, that we need to find more efficient, less destructive way of obtaining the energy we need.

Small portable hydrogen generators are an interesting idea, but as you recognize still need input of energy. The further you have to transmit electricity the greater the loses. Of course there are costs to transportation of energy no matter how you do it. This does not solve the problem of pollution and destruction of the environment. Perhaps the use of solar at the point of use (home or work, not on the vehicle) could work . If the solar cells were small enough and efficient enough to use on a vehicle, it would be more efficient to use the electricity to run an electric motor than to produce hydrogen ( this is a goal worth working for).

[Anonymous]

Help me understand how people who aren’t highly paid by oil and coal companies still believe global warming is a hoax? The Pentagon is planning for global warming caused wars, insurance companies are raising rates in areas that will be flooded by global warming. NASA is planning to terraform Mars with greenhouse gasses.

Google on “global warming” with some of these phrases “famine”, “hurricanes”, “gulf stream”, “mass extinction”, “sea level”, “glaciers”. It’s enough to ruin your day.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

To Big_Boy_4005

Actually man caused global warming is an assumption that has no basis in fact. Man caused sourses of heat are a very small percentage of the total. The computer models are frauds which predict only what their users want them to. They do not work.

The sun does not burn consistantly. An almost perfect correlation has been found between the temperature of the Earth and activity of the sun which we can not control.

I do agree ,however, that we need to find more efficient, less destructive way of obtaining the energy we need.

Small portable hydrogen generators are an interesting idea, but as you recognize still need input of energy. The further you have to transmit electricity the greater the loses. Of course there are costs to transportation of energy no matter how you do it. This does not solve the problem of pollution and destruction of the environment. Perhaps the use of solar at the point of use (home or work, not on the vehicle) could work . If the solar cells were small enough and efficient enough to use on a vehicle, it would be more efficient to use the electricity to run an electric motor than to produce hydrogen ( this is a goal worth working for).

With regard to global warming, I would agree, that the use of fossil fuels has created only a tiny blip in temperature when viewed on a geologic time scale. Natural fluctuation due to solar activity is much greater on that scale, causing ice ages and such.

There are really three different problems at work here when it comes to energy.

• Transmission
• Storage
• Source

Transmission is the job of electricity, bringing energy where we need it. While there will be some loss over distance, by generating it closer to the point of use, we can cut much of that loss. It was actually George Westinghouse who employed Nikola Tesla, that gave us the electrical system we have today. That's the same George Westinghouse that gave us air brakes, smart guy![swg] Edison may have invented the light bulb, but he didn't bring us electricity, even though he tried.

Storage may best be done by converting electricity to hydrogen, not by using batteries. By simply taking excess electricity and converting it to hydrogen, it can be stored for use later and burned to turn a generator, turning it back to electricity for distribution. Vehicles with internal combustion engines would need only minor modification to run on hydrogen, as it makes a practical energy source for mobile applications needing power.

Source is the key to the whole deal. How do we make electricity?? As we have discussed there are many ways. Fossil fuels are non-renewable, and will all run out eventually. We need to ween ourselves from dependance on them. Nuclear is OK, though there is the waste issue. As Vsmith said solar and wind are good clean options, and throw hydro in as well. These three sources have a lot of things in common, but maybe the most over looked is

THE SUN

.[:0][;)]Solar is direct. Wind is caused by the weather, which is driven by the sun. Hydro is sneaky, the sun is actually lifting the water, and then we use gravity to spin the generator.

If we were smart, we would set aside the short term economic issues and get busy. The US needs a new business to get into anyway, why not become the world leaders in

ENERGY PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY!

Wouldn't it be nice to tell OPEC where to stick it's oil????[:0][:0][:D][:D][^][^][^]

[vsmith]

FYI this Memorial Day a movie called "The Day After Tommarow" opens with a Global Warming disaster scenario that could actually happen.

the premis is that melting fresh water from the north pole, disrupts, then shuts down the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic, causing weather chaos in the US and Europe, triggering another Ice Age. It will probably be full of Hollywood Schmaltz more than facts, but this is a real scientific possibility that has been discussed as a possible fallout from green house warming. Besides the trailer looks really cool...

www.thedayaftertomorrow.com

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

Help me understand how people who aren’t highly paid by oil and coal companies still believe global warming is a hoax? The Pentagon is planning for global warming caused wars, insurance companies are raising rates in areas that will be flooded by global warming. NASA is planning to terraform Mars with greenhouse gasses.

Google on “global warming” with some of these phrases “famine”, “hurricanes”, “gulf stream”, “mass extinction”, “sea level”, “glaciers”. It’s enough to ruin your day.

Gary, let's face it, our government is so entrenched in old thinking, and set in it's ways, that it wouldn't know a good idea if it came up and bit them in the you-know-where.
They run around spewing this nonsense to the public to keep the people afraid and keep them in office. This is not a political argument, because both sides do the exact same thing, just slightly different tactics.

After a while away from the stink, your nose will recover, and you will be able to smell BULLS__T before you step in it.[swg] And stop reading and worrying about that garbage!

They like to scare you , it's good for their business!!!!!! This information age is a dangerous time!

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

FYI this Memorial Day a movie called "The Day After Tommarow" opens with a Global Warming disaster scenario that could actually happen.

the premis is that melting fresh water from the north pole, disrupts, then shuts down the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic, causing weather chaos in the US and Europe, triggering another Ice Age. It will probably be full of Hollywood Schmaltz more than facts, but this is a real scientific possibility that has been discussed as a possible fallout from green house warming. Besides the trailer looks really cool...

www.thedayaftertomorrow.com

I've seen a documentry on this theory. Is it a real possibility? I don't know. I do know the Earth has been both warmer and colder as has been shown by geological, Archeological and historical evidence. I do not believe that in the big picture mankind's activities have much effect on the tempature of the Earth.

I am more worried about pollution and the devastation of the land and their effects on us, our quality of life and on other creatures and plants than I am about global warming. However, too much of the Environmental Movement bases its agenda on feelings not on fact. Too many of our decisions are made based on what sounds like it is good or bad. Bad decisions hurt us and do not protect the Environment.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

FYI this Memorial Day a movie called "The Day After Tommarow" opens with a Global Warming disaster scenario that could actually happen.

the premis is that melting fresh water from the north pole, disrupts, then shuts down the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic, causing weather chaos in the US and Europe, triggering another Ice Age. It will probably be full of Hollywood Schmaltz more than facts, but this is a real scientific possibility that has been discussed as a possible fallout from green house warming. Besides the trailer looks really cool...

www.thedayaftertomorrow.com

Hey Vic, I really liked the movie "Volcano" with Tommy Lee Jones. That could happen too!!! So stay away from the Tar Pits.[:O][banghead][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][swg]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

FYI this Memorial Day a movie called "The Day After Tommarow" opens with a Global Warming disaster scenario that could actually happen.

the premis is that melting fresh water from the north pole, disrupts, then shuts down the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic, causing weather chaos in the US and Europe, triggering another Ice Age. It will probably be full of Hollywood Schmaltz more than facts, but this is a real scientific possibility that has been discussed as a possible fallout from green house warming. Besides the trailer looks really cool...

www.thedayaftertomorrow.com

All I can say to those who use a second-rate Hollywood disaster flick or take a Pentagon "just in case" briefing (which by the way they also have for alien space attacks, giant asteroids, et al) as the basis for instituting radical environmental policy, take stock in two things: Re-read Chicken Little from your grade school days and ask yourselves if such an analogy is applicable today. Secondly, take a look at the historic temperatures of the MIddle Ages, which were much higher than they are today, and ask yourself what man did to cause THAT period of global warming?! If wine grapes were being cultivated in Britian in those days, why can't we grow grapes in Britain now? It's simple: THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IS STILL TOO COLD! Why is Greenland called Greenland? Because when it was discovered in the MIddle Ages it was verdant, i.e. GREEN! Now it is one giant ice cap.

If man-caused CO2 is the major cause of Global Warming, where did the CO2 in the MIddle Ages come from? How many coal fired power plants were operating at that time? How many SUVs were clogging the byways of the time? Hmmmm. Maybe, just maybe, the warming of that period WASNT caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. If it was something else such as solar activity or slight deviations of the earth's orbit, isn't it logical to ascribe todays warming to those more likely phenomena?

So what if 200 or so "scientists" have leapt on to the whole man-caused global warming bandwagon. There are well over 15,000 scientists worldwide who have resisted that urge, due to the inarguable fact that there is no hard physical evidence to support the whole man-caused global warming models. Look at the global warming computer models today and you will find a lot of "assumed" variables being plugged into these models used to support these radical theories. Hardly an excuse for instituting economically disasterous environmental policies.

If we refer to our basic laws of physics, we will find that it is more likely that global warming is the cause of increased atmospheric levels of CO2, not the other way around. It's all part of the global carbon cycle, as temperatures increase, plant growth also increases, and these plants will need to take up more CO2 from the atmosphere for sustainability, thus more natural sources of CO2 are triggered.

Back to the original subject at hand: If oil prices are projected to stay above $40 a barrel for the long term, look for market forces to allow for new coal powered locomotion in the transportation market, whether it be new steam or the stringing of new cantenary over the nation's rail grid.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

Help me understand how people who aren’t highly paid by oil and coal companies still believe global warming is a hoax? The Pentagon is planning for global warming caused wars, insurance companies are raising rates in areas that will be flooded by global warming. NASA is planning to terraform Mars with greenhouse gasses.

Google on “global warming” with some of these phrases “famine”, “hurricanes”, “gulf stream”, “mass extinction”, “sea level”, “glaciers”. It’s enough to ruin your day.

In the 1970's many of the people now predicting global warming including a couple of its leading advocates were predicting an ice age because temperature measurements showed the Earth was cooling. When temperatures starting increasing the change to global warming. These "reasearchers" generate grant money for themselves by predicting diaster so they can study the problem. Their latest may be the theory that global warming will cause an ice age although I assume it is possible if global warming is real, which is the premise they started from, and since it is based on more solid science (the study of ocean currents) than the global warming speculation is.

I am not convinced that 1) global warming is real, 2) that if it is real, man is the cause, 3) that if it is real, it is bad.

Warmer periods in the Earth's past have been good times for mankind, times of abundence, in which there was advancement in Civilization. For instanse England has a flourishing wine industry (it's now too cold) and the Vikings had a settlement in Greenland for several hundred years. The Greenland settlement failed because of the "Little Ice Age", but the Earth is still cooler now than when it was founded.

One of the major components of the global warming disaster is rising sea level due to melting of the ice pacts. The majority of the north polar ice is floating on the sea. Its melting would have minimal impact on the sea level. The south polar pact melting would
have an affect because it is mostly on land. Some laymen do calculations including both. The possible increase in sea level is often exagerated in the popular press, popular books, and in children's textbooks. One elementry school text book I heard about was off by hundreds of feet (I don't remember the details) because of some confusion between metric units and english units.

[Anonymous]

New Scientist is one of the 2 most respected peer reviewed science journals. They put together a portal www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/ with a FAQ www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climatefaq.jsp it’s brief, here’s a sample:

"So does this mean there are some scientists who don't believe in the greenhouse effect or global warming?
No, this is a myth. All scientists believe in the greenhouse effect. Without it the planet would be largely frozen. And all scientists accept that if humans put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere it will tend to warm the planet. The only disagreement is over precisely how much warming will be amplified by feedbacks. And there is a growing consensus that the average global warming of 0.6 °C seen in the past century - and particularly the pronounced warming of the past two decades - is largely a consequence of the greenhouse effect. "

www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/img/spread-2-2.jpg is a graph showing 8 centuries of steady CO2 levels then a hyperbolic increase starting with the industrial revolution.

www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/img/spread-2-8.jpg is a graph showing a 5 degree rise in earth’s average temperature since 1860

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

New Scientist is one of the 2 most respected peer reviewed science journals. They put together a portal www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/ with a FAQ www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climatefaq.jsp it’s brief, here’s a sample:

"So does this mean there are some scientists who don't believe in the greenhouse effect or global warming?
No, this is a myth. All scientists believe in the greenhouse effect. Without it the planet would be largely frozen. And all scientists accept that if humans put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere it will tend to warm the planet. The only disagreement is over precisely how much warming will be amplified by feedbacks. And there is a growing consensus that the average global warming of 0.6 °C seen in the past century - and particularly the pronounced warming of the past two decades - is largely a consequence of the greenhouse effect. "

www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/img/spread-2-2.jpg is a graph showing 8 centuries of steady CO2 levels then a hyperbolic increase starting with the industrial revolution.

www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/img/spread-2-8.jpg is a graph showing a 5 degree rise in earth’s average temperature since 1860

1860 to the present is too short of a time to predict a trend on a global time scale. Their dramatic projection beyond the present is pure speculation.

In the long term, there is a stronger correlation between global temperature and the activity of the sun than between global temperature and the activities of man. If the sun cools slightly the whole global warming game is off.

I do agree that we should control pollution, including greenhouse gases. I do not believe that we need to destroy the enonomy of the "developed nations" and in particular the United States, as has been proposed, (the Kyoto Treaty) to do so. The Treaty wound require that the US reduce emmisions to allow "developing countries" to continue using "dirty" older technology. This would give them some competative advantage by reducing their costs, but in the long run would hurt the people who would have to live with the pollution.

[Big_Boy_4005]

All scientists believed a lot of things througout history, until they were proven wrong by another scientist. Once upon a time it was common knowledge that the Earth was flat, or that there were only six planets in our solar system. Nobody could figure out realtivity until Einstein came along.

All of this global warming stuff is pure theory, anyone can make the data say what they want. In the meantime get on with life, because the Earth's temperature is well within normal limits.

Personally, I'm beginning to think that our government is constantly on the look out for new ideas to tell people to worry about. This gives them something to talk about in the campaign. Environmental issues are the domain of the democrats, and the republicans like forign policy.

So what if there is global warming.

What are YOU going to do about it??

Please don't tell me about NASA's plan to drop ICE CUBES in the sun.[swg]

[Anonymous]

one way rrs can save on fuel is make rr cars out of aluminum or plastic ect. also the most fuel efficient way to hual truck trailers is ROAD RAILER. ns does it great. right?double track more = less delays faster safer make the wheels on locomotives larger.does sf or up still own lots of oil wells? diesel fuel is going down 50 cents gal at election pres. Bush said. 20 years out of oil some say.

[TH&B]

jesus; large heavily loaded conventional box cars close coupled with reduced slack would be more efficient than the roadrailers wich have little capacity by weight and cary around lots of spare tires, what a drag.

general;
Global warning or not, do you like smog? What would you prefer, smog or windmill farms? Where do you think smog comes from??

But I do beleive newer coal plants can be built to opperate cleaner than old ones, that is a start. Add some wind power here and there.

What about garbage incineration, is that not soon possible to do clean and efficient and generate electricty from that?

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin
[What about garbage incineration, is that not soon possible to do clean and efficient and generate electricty from that?

Probably worth doing. Would sightly reduce the need for coal and oil and also reduce the need for landfills.

I don't like the idea of windmill farms or solar farms. They both are expensive, inefficent, work in at all well only in a few areas, and take a lot of land. I said earlier that small scale individual use of windmills can be worthwhile as a supplement to the grid and vsmith pointed out that we should be placing solar panels on our buildings.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin



What about garbage incineration, is that not soon possible to do clean and efficient and generate electricty from that?

They already are in places like Florida where the ground water is too high for landfills. Its a good idea, but not a cure-all, but just another piece in the Big Picture.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by leftlimp

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

FYI this Memorial Day a movie called "The Day After Tommarow" opens with a Global Warming disaster scenario that could actually happen.

the premis is that melting fresh water from the north pole, disrupts, then shuts down the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic, causing weather chaos in the US and Europe, triggering another Ice Age. It will probably be full of Hollywood Schmaltz more than facts, but this is a real scientific possibility that has been discussed as a possible fallout from green house warming. Besides the trailer looks really cool...

www.thedayaftertomorrow.com

All I can say to those who use a second-rate Hollywood disaster flick or take a Pentagon "just in case" briefing (which by the way they also have for alien space attacks, giant asteroids, et al) as the basis for instituting radical environmental policy, take stock in two things: Re-read Chicken Little from your grade school days and ask yourselves if such an analogy is applicable today.

OHHH BOOOY![sigh]

Ah, my point was only that there is a movie about to be released that is relevant to this topic and i thought it would be something others might find the trailer amuzing.....[:-^]

I did not use it in any way to pu***he argument one way or another, just "have a look, this is cool"... [:p]

The reference to the premis is just that, a reference. The movie takes a real theory and uses it for the FX extraviganza, I even pointed out that it would be more schmaltz and less science, I guess you missed that point[D)]

So everyone relax,

take a deep breath,

go for a walk,

watch TV,

then come back here....



...and FLAME the heck out of everyone else.

[(-D][(-D][:D][;)][%-)][censored][X-)][D)][alien][banghead]

[DSchmitt]

I just remembered New York City used generate power from virtually all the burnable garbage collected in the City. I think it was used in steam plants, not for electricty. They may have operated as late as the 1960's. They fell victim to air pollution regulations. also up to tha time almost everything that was not burned was recycled. Now I think the garbage is hauled out to sea.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by leftlimp

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

FYI this Memorial Day a movie called "The Day After Tommarow" opens with a Global Warming disaster scenario that could actually happen.

the premis is that melting fresh water from the north pole, disrupts, then shuts down the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic, causing weather chaos in the US and Europe, triggering another Ice Age. It will probably be full of Hollywood Schmaltz more than facts, but this is a real scientific possibility that has been discussed as a possible fallout from green house warming. Besides the trailer looks really cool...

www.thedayaftertomorrow.com

All I can say to those who use a second-rate Hollywood disaster flick or take a Pentagon "just in case" briefing (which by the way they also have for alien space attacks, giant asteroids, et al) as the basis for instituting radical environmental policy, take stock in two things: Re-read Chicken Little from your grade school days and ask yourselves if such an analogy is applicable today. Secondly, take a look at the historic temperatures of the MIddle Ages, which were much higher than they are today, and ask yourself what man did to cause THAT period of global warming?! If wine grapes were being cultivated in Britian in those days, why can't we grow grapes in Britain now? It's simple: THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IS STILL TOO COLD! Why is Greenland called Greenland? Because when it was discovered in the MIddle Ages it was verdant, i.e. GREEN! Now it is one giant ice cap.

If man-caused CO2 is the major cause of Global Warming, where did the CO2 in the MIddle Ages come from? How many coal fired power plants were operating at that time? How many SUVs were clogging the byways of the time? Hmmmm. Maybe, just maybe, the warming of that period WASNT caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. If it was something else such as solar activity or slight deviations of the earth's orbit, isn't it logical to ascribe todays warming to those more likely phenomena?

So what if 200 or so "scientists" have leapt on to the whole man-caused global warming bandwagon. There are well over 15,000 scientists worldwide who have resisted that urge, due to the inarguable fact that there is no hard physical evidence to support the whole man-caused global warming models. Look at the global warming computer models today and you will find a lot of "assumed" variables being plugged into these models used to support these radical theories. Hardly an excuse for instituting economically disasterous environmental policies.

If we refer to our basic laws of physics, we will find that it is more likely that global warming is the cause of increased atmospheric levels of CO2, not the other way around. It's all part of the global carbon cycle, as temperatures increase, plant growth also increases, and these plants will need to take up more CO2 from the atmosphere for sustainability, thus more natural sources of CO2 are triggered.

Back to the original subject at hand: If oil prices are projected to stay above $40 a barrel for the long term, look for market forces to allow for new coal powered locomotion in the transportation market, whether it be new steam or the stringing of new cantenary over the nation's rail grid.

very well put..i tried to say just that..but my articulation isnt as good as yours....you got the points i wanted to make..and worded them much better...thanks
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

chicago is so congested with rails it takes a day for some trains to get through . the city state and federal govt. are reducing the gridlock by installing overpasses underpassesand other means in which to move freight passengers faster through the windy city. = fuel savings. also better dispatching of trains can help save petro.

[Anonymous]

As far as hydrogen goes (at least in the auto industry) Toyo has 'sidelined' this and put more of Its efforts into hybrids. The amount of energy required to produce the hydrogen needed to effectivelly produce power for an automobile negates the benefit gained- at this time. What I mean is dollar for dollar its much cheaper to burn fossil fuel (let alone the infrastructure cost of hydrogen refueling). It takes great amounts of energy to produce the hydrogen required which comes from coal or nuclear energy plants.