It would make my day if the Iranian population could rise up against the mullahs and live in freedom and peace. Too bad the secret police and "foreign thugs" menace the populace.
Iran, like Iraq, have been and could be again places of great culture, learning, and commerce. Iraq is on its way, with Saddam out of the way. However, a bellicose Iran, run by the "Assembly of Experts" and the "Supreme Leader."
Face facts, it can't all be the fault of the US or George Bush!
I am going to call you a Waaaambulance. Cry me a river Iran! It was Ayatollah Khomeini who overthrew the Shah! Of course, that idiot Jimmy Carter didn't help one bit.
Regarding their war with Iraq, tough! It takes two to tangle. You know why Arab states don't like Iran, its because Iranian Shi'a Islam is considered heretical and destabilizing. No, I am not a Muslim, but both my Arab and Iranian friends explained this to me.
Nukes in India and Pakistan are of no consequence to Iran. Iran is too busy threatening Israel and the US. The US is there to remind the little man that we can whip his ass in a heart beat. We just don't want to bomb the 35% of the population that is under 30.
Iran gets no pity party from me, but its people who are yearning to be free do!
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner. All of the goofball's talk about the 13th or 12th Imam in hiding and how his actions will bring him out is a little scary.
Fortunately, we have a very large military presence on Iran's flanks, as well as fleet of ships in the gulf.
Go ahead punk, make my day.
Take off your tin-foil hat. Call a spade a spade, the Iranian govt. is run by a bunch of criminals, namely the mullahs, and the face of Iranian govt. is the whack job Ahmedinijad (sp).
Iran has a serious case of "little man" syndrome.
Amen to that! Besides, how much is this costing the US taxpayer in subsidies?
I read a great article about nuclear and subsidies called "Nuclear, Silver Bullet or Money Pit" at http://economicefficiency.blogspot.com/2008/07/nuclear-silver-bullet-or-money-pit.html
It laid out the costs and what companies are building new plants, and which aren't.
Too bad people forget just how combustible hydrogen is. Instead of hydrogen, why not just make more efficient hybrids, like hydraulic hybrids? The technology is already there, without the need to worry about recycling the Li batteries in existing hybrids, and they are more efficient.
I read a great article about this called "Hybrid Hummer Hums" at
http://economicefficiency.blogspot.com/2008/07/hybrid-hummer-hums.html
It is good to read this isn't an HHO article.
China could make a lot of air quality improvements by putting green roofs on new buildings and retrofitting old ones.
They aren't in any hurry to close their coal-fired power plants or their polluting toy factories, but green roofs can help reduce both the carbon pollution as well as the fine particulate matter air pollution.
I read a great article called "Beijing is Trying to Control Pollution with Green Buildings" found at http://cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com/2008/08/beijing-is-trying-to-control-pollution.html
Hopefully, as they improve their cities, they can use green building techniques such as those used in their Dongtan development (http://cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-green-city-for-china.html)
I guess the CWA is forgetting that they are installing FiOS to how many houses in the US?
The CWA just signed their labor agreement with Verizon on Sunday, what are they complaining about now?
You comments are dead on. However, in some cases, like the NYC subway, the govt. subsidy makes riding the subway win-win. It is cheaper for the city to pay a little to keep the subway fare down than to pay a whole lot to maintain the roads. Either way, its tax payer money.
I read a great story about electric cars in London called, "Electric Car Finds its Niche" at http://economicefficiency.blogspot.com/2008/08/electric-car-finds-its-niche.html
No kidding! I was in Shanghai in January for 5 days. I felt like I had smoked 5 cigars by the time I woke up, and no I don't smoke.
What they really need to do is put green roofs on as many buildings as they can. I read a great article about how they are trying to do that called, "Green Roofs in China, Helping Beijing Breathe" found here: http://cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com/2008/06/green-roofs-in-china-helping-beijing.html
All production requires energy. The better question is whether there is a short enough pay-off period to make it a worthwhile purchase.
It is nice to see that the manufacturing is improving and hopefully becoming cheaper.
However, I still think nuclear is the way to go in the US. I read a great article about what the costs are titled "Nuclear, America Style" found at http://economicefficiency.blogspot.com/2008/07/nuclear-american-style.html
It is a pretty balanced article explaining that in some cases, it is just too expensive.
No kidding. They are fugly.
There is a great picture of one of these fugly cars in a great article about electric cars in London, called "Electric Car Finds its Niche" at http://economicefficiency.blogspot.com/2008/08/electric-car-finds-its-niche.html [blogspot.com] They make sense if you are only going a short distance and not carrying cargo.
But they are still ugly.
Super heated water makes good steam, like any nuclear plant. I agree with the theme of your post, which is to harness that superheated water for energy.
Of course, the "how" is the hard part.
On a bit of a tangent, I read an editorial in the Wall Street Journal by William Tucker calling nuclear "terrestrial power." The editorial is called "Let's Have Some Love for Nuclear Power."
However, I read a better follow up piece called "Nuclear, America Style" found here: http://economicefficiency.blogspot.com/2008/07/nuclear-american-style.html
In a round about way, this superheated water they found is really cool, even with the possibility of sea monsters.
Actually, if you read about how the French do it, the total amount of waste from 30+years of nuclear power fits in one room.
In the US, there is no effective nuclear waste recycling plan, thank you Jimmy Carter. If there were, Yucca mountain would provide enough capacity for the entire planet!
I read a great series of articles at http://www.economicefficiency.blogspot.com/ that spell a lot of this stuff out.
I couldn't agree more. There is too much money in cheap manufacturing. They get the power to run those plants through dirty coal plants as well as fuel oil plants.
In the short term, they could start putting green roofs on their buildings. They have done a few, but nowhere near enough. I read an article on http://www.cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com/ about the ones they are building in Beijing.
Ted,
Thank your for your thoughtful reply. While I disagree about carbon credits and climate change, I do appreciate the consideration you put into your reply.
You may enjoy my blog on green roofs, yes green roofs at http://www.cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com/ and also my management blog at http://www.managerqanda.blogspot.com/
Thank you for your time and reasoned reply.
No.
It is in no one's economic best interest to purchase anything that doesn't return benefits that can be achieved for a lower cost. This statement obviously doesn't account for taste or other irrational desires.
Regarding Al Gore, his credibility comes into question whenever his lifestyle is viewed.
As far as renewable energy is concerned, when the market makes it affordable "to the masses," it will be adopted. Until that time, fossil fuels offer the less expensive alternative.
I discuss these general topics at http://www.economicefficiency.blogspot.com/
Ted,
Thanks for your note. The problem with Al Gore is that his dire predictions don't match his behavior, and that makes him look the hypocrite, rightly or wrongly.
Regarding new technologies, I support them and believe they generally will be more expensive until they can be fully commercialized. However, when one looks at solar in particular, photovalic cells have been on the market for well over 20 years and still aren't as efficient as fossil fuels when measured by cost per KwHour.
For alternative energy to be generally accepted, it has to be at least as good as, if not better than the next best alternative, namely fossil fuel, or better yet,(for electricity generation) nuclear.
Just don't piss on my leg and tell that its raining, like Gore does with claiming the superiority of alternative energy.
A friend of mine was studying using solar to heat salts, as the salts were very poor thermal conductors.
I am reminded of the principle that when changing energy from one form to another, there is always loss. It is in this loss where we find costs.
There is a blog http://www.economicefficiency.blogspot.com/ that talks about the cost of "green" technologies.
I would like to see more discussion on those topics.
This is very typical of Al Gore and many of his ilk. While he is busy flying around in private jets and having his Lincoln idle for 20 minutes, he doesn't seem to have a clue about economics.
I read a great series of pieces on how much many of these "green" technologies really cost. The site was http://www.economicefficiency.blogspot.com/
This was the same site that had "Hybrid Hummer Hums."
Slashdot Mirror
It would make my day if the Iranian population could rise up against the mullahs and live in freedom and peace. Too bad the secret police and "foreign thugs" menace the populace. Iran, like Iraq, have been and could be again places of great culture, learning, and commerce. Iraq is on its way, with Saddam out of the way. However, a bellicose Iran, run by the "Assembly of Experts" and the "Supreme Leader." Face facts, it can't all be the fault of the US or George Bush!
I am going to call you a Waaaambulance. Cry me a river Iran! It was Ayatollah Khomeini who overthrew the Shah! Of course, that idiot Jimmy Carter didn't help one bit. Regarding their war with Iraq, tough! It takes two to tangle. You know why Arab states don't like Iran, its because Iranian Shi'a Islam is considered heretical and destabilizing. No, I am not a Muslim, but both my Arab and Iranian friends explained this to me. Nukes in India and Pakistan are of no consequence to Iran. Iran is too busy threatening Israel and the US. The US is there to remind the little man that we can whip his ass in a heart beat. We just don't want to bomb the 35% of the population that is under 30. Iran gets no pity party from me, but its people who are yearning to be free do!
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner. All of the goofball's talk about the 13th or 12th Imam in hiding and how his actions will bring him out is a little scary. Fortunately, we have a very large military presence on Iran's flanks, as well as fleet of ships in the gulf. Go ahead punk, make my day.
Take off your tin-foil hat. Call a spade a spade, the Iranian govt. is run by a bunch of criminals, namely the mullahs, and the face of Iranian govt. is the whack job Ahmedinijad (sp). Iran has a serious case of "little man" syndrome.
There are two new articles related to this one. One is an interview with Arup, and the other is three videos. Here are the links: http://cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-green-city-for-china-interview-part.html http://cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-green-city-for-china-dongtan-videos.html
Amen to that! Besides, how much is this costing the US taxpayer in subsidies? I read a great article about nuclear and subsidies called "Nuclear, Silver Bullet or Money Pit" at http://economicefficiency.blogspot.com/2008/07/nuclear-silver-bullet-or-money-pit.html It laid out the costs and what companies are building new plants, and which aren't.
Too bad people forget just how combustible hydrogen is. Instead of hydrogen, why not just make more efficient hybrids, like hydraulic hybrids? The technology is already there, without the need to worry about recycling the Li batteries in existing hybrids, and they are more efficient. I read a great article about this called "Hybrid Hummer Hums" at http://economicefficiency.blogspot.com/2008/07/hybrid-hummer-hums.html It is good to read this isn't an HHO article.
China could make a lot of air quality improvements by putting green roofs on new buildings and retrofitting old ones. They aren't in any hurry to close their coal-fired power plants or their polluting toy factories, but green roofs can help reduce both the carbon pollution as well as the fine particulate matter air pollution. I read a great article called "Beijing is Trying to Control Pollution with Green Buildings" found at http://cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com/2008/08/beijing-is-trying-to-control-pollution.html Hopefully, as they improve their cities, they can use green building techniques such as those used in their Dongtan development (http://cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-green-city-for-china.html)
There is an update to this with videos from the developer. The link is http://cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-green-city-for-china-dongtan-videos.html
I guess the CWA is forgetting that they are installing FiOS to how many houses in the US? The CWA just signed their labor agreement with Verizon on Sunday, what are they complaining about now?
You comments are dead on. However, in some cases, like the NYC subway, the govt. subsidy makes riding the subway win-win. It is cheaper for the city to pay a little to keep the subway fare down than to pay a whole lot to maintain the roads. Either way, its tax payer money. I read a great story about electric cars in London called, "Electric Car Finds its Niche" at http://economicefficiency.blogspot.com/2008/08/electric-car-finds-its-niche.html
No kidding! I was in Shanghai in January for 5 days. I felt like I had smoked 5 cigars by the time I woke up, and no I don't smoke. What they really need to do is put green roofs on as many buildings as they can. I read a great article about how they are trying to do that called, "Green Roofs in China, Helping Beijing Breathe" found here: http://cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com/2008/06/green-roofs-in-china-helping-beijing.html
All production requires energy. The better question is whether there is a short enough pay-off period to make it a worthwhile purchase. It is nice to see that the manufacturing is improving and hopefully becoming cheaper. However, I still think nuclear is the way to go in the US. I read a great article about what the costs are titled "Nuclear, America Style" found at http://economicefficiency.blogspot.com/2008/07/nuclear-american-style.html It is a pretty balanced article explaining that in some cases, it is just too expensive.
No kidding. They are fugly. There is a great picture of one of these fugly cars in a great article about electric cars in London, called "Electric Car Finds its Niche" at http://economicefficiency.blogspot.com/2008/08/electric-car-finds-its-niche.html [blogspot.com] They make sense if you are only going a short distance and not carrying cargo. But they are still ugly.
Of course, the cars would have to be electric! I read a great article about electric cars in London, called "Electric Car Finds its Niche" at http://economicefficiency.blogspot.com/2008/08/electric-car-finds-its-niche.html They make sense if you are only going a short distance and not carrying cargo.
Super heated water makes good steam, like any nuclear plant. I agree with the theme of your post, which is to harness that superheated water for energy. Of course, the "how" is the hard part. On a bit of a tangent, I read an editorial in the Wall Street Journal by William Tucker calling nuclear "terrestrial power." The editorial is called "Let's Have Some Love for Nuclear Power." However, I read a better follow up piece called "Nuclear, America Style" found here: http://economicefficiency.blogspot.com/2008/07/nuclear-american-style.html In a round about way, this superheated water they found is really cool, even with the possibility of sea monsters.
What a great article! I have been reading a lot about electric cars lately, and a really good article titled, "Electric Car Finds its Niche" at http://economicefficiency.blogspot.com/2008/08/electric-car-finds-its-niche.html Great read!
Actually, if you read about how the French do it, the total amount of waste from 30+years of nuclear power fits in one room. In the US, there is no effective nuclear waste recycling plan, thank you Jimmy Carter. If there were, Yucca mountain would provide enough capacity for the entire planet! I read a great series of articles at http://www.economicefficiency.blogspot.com/ that spell a lot of this stuff out.
I couldn't agree more. There is too much money in cheap manufacturing. They get the power to run those plants through dirty coal plants as well as fuel oil plants. In the short term, they could start putting green roofs on their buildings. They have done a few, but nowhere near enough. I read an article on http://www.cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com/ about the ones they are building in Beijing.
Ted, Thank your for your thoughtful reply. While I disagree about carbon credits and climate change, I do appreciate the consideration you put into your reply. You may enjoy my blog on green roofs, yes green roofs at http://www.cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com/ and also my management blog at http://www.managerqanda.blogspot.com/ Thank you for your time and reasoned reply.
No. It is in no one's economic best interest to purchase anything that doesn't return benefits that can be achieved for a lower cost. This statement obviously doesn't account for taste or other irrational desires. Regarding Al Gore, his credibility comes into question whenever his lifestyle is viewed. As far as renewable energy is concerned, when the market makes it affordable "to the masses," it will be adopted. Until that time, fossil fuels offer the less expensive alternative. I discuss these general topics at http://www.economicefficiency.blogspot.com/
Ted, Thanks for your note. The problem with Al Gore is that his dire predictions don't match his behavior, and that makes him look the hypocrite, rightly or wrongly. Regarding new technologies, I support them and believe they generally will be more expensive until they can be fully commercialized. However, when one looks at solar in particular, photovalic cells have been on the market for well over 20 years and still aren't as efficient as fossil fuels when measured by cost per KwHour. For alternative energy to be generally accepted, it has to be at least as good as, if not better than the next best alternative, namely fossil fuel, or better yet,(for electricity generation) nuclear. Just don't piss on my leg and tell that its raining, like Gore does with claiming the superiority of alternative energy.
Here here! I can't say enough about nuclear, except that its expensive to get started. While there are some tax incentives and the regulations have been streamlined, getting the facility online is expensive. Here are two good article about that: http://economicefficiency.blogspot.com/2008/07/nuclear-american-style.html http://economicefficiency.blogspot.com/2008/07/nuclear-silver-bullet-or-money-pit.html
A friend of mine was studying using solar to heat salts, as the salts were very poor thermal conductors. I am reminded of the principle that when changing energy from one form to another, there is always loss. It is in this loss where we find costs. There is a blog http://www.economicefficiency.blogspot.com/ that talks about the cost of "green" technologies. I would like to see more discussion on those topics.
This is very typical of Al Gore and many of his ilk. While he is busy flying around in private jets and having his Lincoln idle for 20 minutes, he doesn't seem to have a clue about economics. I read a great series of pieces on how much many of these "green" technologies really cost. The site was http://www.economicefficiency.blogspot.com/ This was the same site that had "Hybrid Hummer Hums."