Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Why VHEMT? 11 reasons NOT to have children

Expand Messages
  • Linda Lovitt
    http://www.iraresoul.com/uploads/eleven_reasons.pdf ________________________________ From: Alan Thomas To:
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 12, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      http://www.iraresoul.com/uploads/eleven_reasons.pdf



      ________________________________
      From: Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@...>
      To: Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, 27 November 2011 4:59 AM
      Subject: Re: Why VHEMT? Re: The myth of renewable energy | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

      You make some really great points.  I generally align myself with liberal
      Democrats, but I don't believe in just blindly following a path and
      avoiding criticism of sacred cows if the evidence goes another way.  I
      really appreciate this information.

      Seems to me we will ultimately need something like this:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2035496/Laser-fusion-Huge-flash-released-energy-world-using.html

      On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:01 PM, space_coast_brian <bfortunato@...>wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      > Additional renewable energy mythology debunked.
      >
      > Kudos to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists for pointing out the heavy
      > costs associated with mining & refining of rare earth metals. Huge amounts
      > of fossil fuels are burned to gather & then smelt raw ores into carefully
      > proportioned metal alloys. This activity, in turn, generates LOADS of
      > industrial pollution long before any "renewable" energy can begin to be
      > produced.
      >
      > In many cases, the energy consumed while fabricating these "Green
      > Machines" is Greater than the sum-total energy they MIGHT produce, IF they
      > continue to produce power over their normal lifetime.
      >
      > The same cost analysis holds true for Silicon Photovoltaic cells. Silicon
      > must be refined at temperatures around 1400 degrees and some very exacting
      > chemistry in order to produce the ultra-pure silicon for photocells. Even
      > more energy is consumed in smelting aluminum framework for the photocells,
      > and glass or plexiglass to enclose & weather-proof the cells.
      >
      > Even when assuming a 20-year useful lifespan (often unrealistic), the
      > finished & installed solar panels will never produce as many kilowatts of
      > energy as it took to manufacture them. This means that silicon solar cells
      > are actually an ENERGY SINK -- consuming more fossil fuel than they can
      > ever replace!
      >
      > The myth of the rechargeable electric car is by far the worst of energy
      > hogs and energy sinks. For every ton of coal burned at an electric
      > generation plant, 60% of the energy (coal) escapes as waste heat right at
      > the plant. Only 40% of the energy generated ever makes it onto the
      > transmission lines to your home. Another 10% of the original coal input is
      > lost in the transmission lines & transformers required to deliver
      > electricity to your home. The net result is a 70% energy LOSS before any
      > electricity arrives at the outlets in your home.
      >
      > The act of charging a rechargeable battery involves staggering energy
      > losses all by itself. If a lead-acid battery is discharged to 100% of it's
      > useful capacity, then 160% of that same ampere-hour rating must be applied
      > to recharge the battery to it's fully-charged state. Another 60% loss of
      > efficiency.
      >
      > By the time our Green Machine hero finally steps on the accelerator in his
      > electric car, another 60% of the battery capacity is lost as waste heat as
      > the car is propelled down the road.
      >
      > After all losses are calculated & accounted for, the net "efficiency" of
      > an electric car is pretty close to 4.8% of the original fuel burned... OR,
      > no efficiency at all... just another huge waste of time, money & resources.
      >
      > The only thing "Green" about the present crop of high-tech, "renewable"
      > energy schemes is the huge amount of CASH being raked-in by the promoters.
      > In the end, the customers get nothing but expensive junk that never lasts
      > very long and in NO WAY ever lives-up to the "environmentally friendly"
      > claims.
      >
      > Brian
      >
      > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "JG Miller" <jg.millirem@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > I do not view this article (merely) as pimping for nuclear energy. -Jim
      > >
      > >
      > > "The gearbox of a two-megawatt wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of
      > neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium -- rare earth metals
      > > that are rare because they're found in scattered deposits, rather than
      > in concentrated ores, and are difficult to extract."
      > > .....
      > > "Renewable technologies are often less damaging to the climate and
      > create fewer toxic wastes than conventional energy sources. But
      > > meeting the world's total energy demands in 2030 with renewable energy
      > alone would take an estimated 3.8 million wind turbines (each
      > > with twice the capacity of today's largest machines), 720,000 wave
      > devices, 5,350 geothermal plants, 900 hydroelectric plants,
      > > 490,000 tidal turbines, 1.7 billion rooftop photovoltaic systems, 40,000
      > solar photovoltaic plants, and 49,000 concentrated solar
      > > power systems. That's a heckuva lot of neodymium."
      > > .....
      > > "The only genuinely sustainable energy scenario is one in which energy
      > demands do not continue to escalate indefinitely. As a recent
      > > commentary by Jane C. S. Long in Nature pointed out, meeting ambitious
      > targets for reducing greenhouse gases cannot be accomplished
      > > with "piecemeal reductions," such as increased use of wind power and
      > biofuels. Long did the math for California and discovered that
      > > even if the state replaced or retrofitted every building to very high
      > efficiency standards, ran almost all of its cars on
      > > electricity, and doubled its electricity-generation capacity while
      > simultaneously replacing it with emissions-free energy sources,
      > > California could only reduce emissions by perhaps 60 percent below 1990
      > levels -- far less than its 80 percent target. Long says
      > > reaching that target "will take new technology." Maybe so, but it will
      > also take a new honesty about the limitations of technology.
      > > Notably, Long doesn't mention the biggest obstacle to meeting
      > California's emissions-reduction goal: The state's population is
      > > expected to grow from today's 40 million to 60 million by 2050."
      > >
      > >
      > http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/dawn-stover/the-myth-of-renewable-energy
      > >
      >

      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



      ------------------------------------

      VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters may subscribe to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Voluntary_Human_ExtinctionYahoo! Groups Links



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Alan Thomas
      Couldn t get it to load... ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 14, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Couldn't get it to load...

        On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:17 AM, Linda Lovitt <linda.lovitt@...>wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > http://www.iraresoul.com/uploads/eleven_reasons.pdf
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@...>
        > To: Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Sunday, 27 November 2011 4:59 AM
        > Subject: Re: Why VHEMT? Re: The myth of renewable energy | Bulletin of the
        > Atomic Scientists
        >
        > You make some really great points. I generally align myself with liberal
        > Democrats, but I don't believe in just blindly following a path and
        > avoiding criticism of sacred cows if the evidence goes another way. I
        > really appreciate this information.
        >
        > Seems to me we will ultimately need something like this:
        >
        >
        > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2035496/Laser-fusion-Huge-flash-released-energy-world-using.html
        >
        > On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:01 PM, space_coast_brian <bfortunato@...
        > >wrote:
        >
        > > **
        > >
        > >
        > > Additional renewable energy mythology debunked.
        > >
        > > Kudos to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists for pointing out the heavy
        > > costs associated with mining & refining of rare earth metals. Huge
        > amounts
        > > of fossil fuels are burned to gather & then smelt raw ores into carefully
        > > proportioned metal alloys. This activity, in turn, generates LOADS of
        > > industrial pollution long before any "renewable" energy can begin to be
        > > produced.
        > >
        > > In many cases, the energy consumed while fabricating these "Green
        > > Machines" is Greater than the sum-total energy they MIGHT produce, IF
        > they
        > > continue to produce power over their normal lifetime.
        > >
        > > The same cost analysis holds true for Silicon Photovoltaic cells. Silicon
        > > must be refined at temperatures around 1400 degrees and some very
        > exacting
        > > chemistry in order to produce the ultra-pure silicon for photocells. Even
        > > more energy is consumed in smelting aluminum framework for the
        > photocells,
        > > and glass or plexiglass to enclose & weather-proof the cells.
        > >
        > > Even when assuming a 20-year useful lifespan (often unrealistic), the
        > > finished & installed solar panels will never produce as many kilowatts of
        > > energy as it took to manufacture them. This means that silicon solar
        > cells
        > > are actually an ENERGY SINK -- consuming more fossil fuel than they can
        > > ever replace!
        > >
        > > The myth of the rechargeable electric car is by far the worst of energy
        > > hogs and energy sinks. For every ton of coal burned at an electric
        > > generation plant, 60% of the energy (coal) escapes as waste heat right at
        > > the plant. Only 40% of the energy generated ever makes it onto the
        > > transmission lines to your home. Another 10% of the original coal input
        > is
        > > lost in the transmission lines & transformers required to deliver
        > > electricity to your home. The net result is a 70% energy LOSS before any
        > > electricity arrives at the outlets in your home.
        > >
        > > The act of charging a rechargeable battery involves staggering energy
        > > losses all by itself. If a lead-acid battery is discharged to 100% of
        > it's
        > > useful capacity, then 160% of that same ampere-hour rating must be
        > applied
        > > to recharge the battery to it's fully-charged state. Another 60% loss of
        > > efficiency.
        > >
        > > By the time our Green Machine hero finally steps on the accelerator in
        > his
        > > electric car, another 60% of the battery capacity is lost as waste heat
        > as
        > > the car is propelled down the road.
        > >
        > > After all losses are calculated & accounted for, the net "efficiency" of
        > > an electric car is pretty close to 4.8% of the original fuel burned...
        > OR,
        > > no efficiency at all... just another huge waste of time, money &
        > resources.
        > >
        > > The only thing "Green" about the present crop of high-tech, "renewable"
        > > energy schemes is the huge amount of CASH being raked-in by the
        > promoters.
        > > In the end, the customers get nothing but expensive junk that never lasts
        > > very long and in NO WAY ever lives-up to the "environmentally friendly"
        > > claims.
        > >
        > > Brian
        > >
        > > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "JG Miller" <jg.millirem@...> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > I do not view this article (merely) as pimping for nuclear energy. -Jim
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > "The gearbox of a two-megawatt wind turbine contains about 800 pounds
        > of
        > > neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium -- rare earth metals
        > > > that are rare because they're found in scattered deposits, rather than
        > > in concentrated ores, and are difficult to extract."
        > > > .....
        > > > "Renewable technologies are often less damaging to the climate and
        > > create fewer toxic wastes than conventional energy sources. But
        > > > meeting the world's total energy demands in 2030 with renewable energy
        > > alone would take an estimated 3.8 million wind turbines (each
        > > > with twice the capacity of today's largest machines), 720,000 wave
        > > devices, 5,350 geothermal plants, 900 hydroelectric plants,
        > > > 490,000 tidal turbines, 1.7 billion rooftop photovoltaic systems,
        > 40,000
        > > solar photovoltaic plants, and 49,000 concentrated solar
        > > > power systems. That's a heckuva lot of neodymium."
        > > > .....
        > > > "The only genuinely sustainable energy scenario is one in which energy
        > > demands do not continue to escalate indefinitely. As a recent
        > > > commentary by Jane C. S. Long in Nature pointed out, meeting ambitious
        > > targets for reducing greenhouse gases cannot be accomplished
        > > > with "piecemeal reductions," such as increased use of wind power and
        > > biofuels. Long did the math for California and discovered that
        > > > even if the state replaced or retrofitted every building to very high
        > > efficiency standards, ran almost all of its cars on
        > > > electricity, and doubled its electricity-generation capacity while
        > > simultaneously replacing it with emissions-free energy sources,
        > > > California could only reduce emissions by perhaps 60 percent below 1990
        > > levels -- far less than its 80 percent target. Long says
        > > > reaching that target "will take new technology." Maybe so, but it will
        > > also take a new honesty about the limitations of technology.
        > > > Notably, Long doesn't mention the biggest obstacle to meeting
        > > California's emissions-reduction goal: The state's population is
        > > > expected to grow from today's 40 million to 60 million by 2050."
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/dawn-stover/the-myth-of-renewable-energy
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters may subscribe to
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Voluntary_Human_ExtinctionYahoo! Groups
        > Links
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.