Re: Solar and Lunar Gravimagnetic Fields
On Feb 3, 2006, at 9:07 PM, Jones Beene wrote: - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner We may have a dark partner in our part of the galaxy. I would be willing to bet that the partner will probably be our progenitor system - the one that spawned the solar system. We have several such massive object candidates in our arm of the galaxy though not necessarily dark. The closest possible candidate celestial body to us which have been our immediate progenitor system is now believed to be a quark star http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020414.html Previously, this compact object (RJX J185635-375) held claim to being the closest neutron star - 150 light-years away. If the object were 150 light years away it would have to have [(1.551 x 10^-11 i Hz)/(9.526x10^-23 i Hz)]/(150 ly/1.496x10^8 km)^3 = 1.39x10^32 times the gravimagnetic dipole moment of the sun. This would be a black hole for sure. In fact, at a mere 1 ly distance it would have to have 4x10^25 more gravimagnetic moment than the sun. It should thus be (a) massive enough to be a black hole and (b) much closer than seems possible without having observed it. This tends to discount my math. Horace Heffner
Re: Solar and Lunar Gravimagnetic Fields
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/SolarLunarGK.pdf has been updated with the following. Gravimagnetic Moment and Angular Velocity Given angular velocity w and a mass charge: m = mass * i we have gravimagnetic current: i_g = m * w and, rotating at effective radius r_eff, we have moment of inertia: I = m * (r_eff)^2 and angular momentum: L = I w which we can assume is conserved. We have the gravimagnetic moment: mu_g = (i_g) (Pi) (r_eff)^2 mu_g = (Pi) (w) (m * (r_eff)^2) = Pi w I mu_g = Pi * L Both Pi and L are fixed, so, barring relativistic and singularity effects, the magnitude of the gravimagnetic moment remains constant as a star crunches. The only way a body can have a high mu_g and low mass charge m is to have a very high initial angular momentum. Perhaps one way to obtain a high angular momentum is nuclear spin alignment. Nuclear radii are small, but nuclear spin rates are fast. The problem here is that a nuclear spin aligned body would have a highly detectable magnetic signature. Perhaps this magnetic signature could be negated by electron spin compensation. This seems unlikely in view of the relation between the magnetic moments and their angular momenta. See Fig. 2 in: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/ hamsmith/angmomemag.html and in: http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0002048. The intrinsic angular momentum L_e of the electron, proton, or quark, is L_e = 0.52723^-34 kg m^2/s The angular momentum of a nucleus is given by: L_nuc = (spin)(h/(4*pi)) A spin 7/2 nucleus thus has the angular momentum L_nuc: L_nuc = (7/2)(h/(4*pi)) = 1.846x10^-34 kg m^2/s The angular momentum in neutral heavy nucleus bodies that is embodied in spin alignment is thus amazingly all tied up in the sprightly electrons. This greatly limits the amount of angular momentum that can be obtained by spin alignment, and guarantees an associated magnetic signature from such an effect. It seems unlikely such a dark partner could exist undetected, or that the sun could provide the necessary ambient gravimagnetic field. Therefore the proposed theory must have an error or a calculation error is involved.
Re: Solar and Lunar Gravimagnetic Fields
Horace If the object were 150 light years away it would have to have [(1.551 x 10^-11 i Hz)/(9.526x10^-23 i Hz)]/(150 ly/1.496x10^8 km)^3 = 1.39x10^32 times the gravimagnetic dipole moment of the sun. This would be a black hole for sure. In fact, at a mere 1 ly distance it would have to have 4x10^25 more gravimagnetic moment than the sun. It should thus be (a) massive enough to be a black hole and (b) much closer than seems possible without having observed it. This tends to discount my math. Not necessarily... if initial parameters are persevered by inertia over time. The effect we see today might possibly be a lingering *relic* - that is, a remnant of a long-past (much closer) gravimagnetic relationship. IOW let us say you start a specially constructed (imaginary) frictionless gyroscope in a vacuum environment with magnetic bearings and all that ... and build in some precession into your initial starting parameters before turning off the power. It would seem that there will be a lingering effect of your initial input parameters for quite some time - even if you remove the gyroscope many miles away. Solar system ... same thing on a grander scale? Jones
Celluosic Ethanol, Berkley Metamodel
http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/FarrellEthanolScience012706.pdf http://tinyurl.com/9r9n3 Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals To study the potential effects of increased biofuel use, we evaluated six representative analyses of fuel ethanol. Studies that reported negative net energy incorrectly ignored coproducts and used some obsolete data. All studies indicated that current corn ethanol technologies are much less petroleum-intensive than gasoline but have greenhouse gas emissions similar to those of gasoline. However, many important environmental effects of biofuel production are poorly understood. New metrics that measure specific resource inputs are developed, but further research into environmental metrics is needed. Nonetheless, it is already clear that large-scale use of ethanol for fuel will almost certainly require cellulosic technology. more http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/ ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Wind Projects
Map of wind projects: http://www.awea.org/projects/index.html TOTAL INSTALLED U.S. WIND ENERGY CAPACITY: 9,149 MW as of Dec 31, 2005 ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
New Nukes
Southern Company: http://newsinfo.southernco.com/article.asp?mnuType=submnuItem=niid=1964 http://tinyurl.com/75rxx Duke Power: http://www.dukepower.com/news/releases/2005/oct/2005102601.asp http://tinyurl.com/aur7t The reactor design: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/design-cert/ap1000.html http://tinyurl.com/993rn ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
More on the Firefly Battery
http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/firefly_energy.html They have developed a battery using lead acid chemistry that significantly increases the power density while improving cycle life. Lead acid battery chemistry is theoretically capable of delivering 216.8 Whr/Kg while current technology averages 30 Whr/Kg. Wow! ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Celluosic Ethanol, Berkeley Metamodel
Thanks for finding an authoritative, and most of all - currently valid - document on this subject of ethanol, Terry. Ethanol is indeed a necessary and important (but not perfect) resource for the interim time period between peak-oil and the coming age of so-called free-energy... Even if one of the genius inventors on Vo were to perfect a commercially valuable device tomorrow (ZPE/LENR/Wind/Solar/Wave etc) it would take a decade of mass production before much impact at the national level was felt. The archive is well worth downloading. http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/EBAMM_1_0.zip This study-of-studies should once and for all put the inane and dated ravings of Pimentel and Ratzek to rest. ... in the words of our favorite pundits (of the Firesign persuasion) they were in serious need of regrooving anyway. Jones
Re: Celluosic Ethanol, Berkeley Metamodel
-Original Message- From: Jones Beene Thanks for finding an authoritative, and most of all - currently valid - document on this subject of ethanol, Terry. Thanks for correcting my spelling of the institution. I always screw that up. (Jones correcting spelling?!? :-) -Rocky Rococo ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Celluosic Ethanol, Berkeley Metamodel
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for correcting my spelling of the institution. I always screw that up. (Jones correcting spelling?!? :-) -Rocky Rococo I know, I know... but the exception proves the case - no? and having spent what seems like the better part of a century around the place, I finally learned that, unlike some lesser epynominous institutions, this one is surprisingly proud of all of its e's ... even for a laissez-faire-kinda-ville (or is that lazy-fair?) Pastor Rod (meets Rosebud?)
Re: Message for Thomas Clark
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have not slept at all in my life as far as I can tell, and I seem to enter a virtual reality world generated by computer systems on Earth when I become entranced into a state that looks like sleep but it is not, so that I may dream while I am awake. This sounds much like Thomas Hunter's situation in Ted Dekker's book Black. http://teddekker.com/?content=albumalbum=29356 -Baron Munchausen ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Ambient Gravimagnetic Field and the Earth Field
Horace Heffner wrote: On Feb 2, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: On Feb 1, 2006, at 10:20 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: Could Gravimagnetism be involved in the precession of the perihelion of planet mercury? http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html [snip] Presumably then gravimagnetism is not required to explain _any_ of the orbital precession since it can all be explained by classical and relativistic physics. Harry This is true. Gravimagnetism is consistent with the above with regard to the retardation effects, and adds no changes to the retardation results calculated by conventional means. It adds nothing to the final results. Its primary value in this case is the fact it circumvents the incomprehensible math behind things like the Thirring- Lense effect and brings some important gravitational concepts down to a high school math level. It makes some intuitive sense of the Thirring-Lense effect at a mundane level. The Thirring-Lense effect is becoming more important to astronomy. For example, see: http://www.physics.uiuc.edu/Research/CTA/news/sidebands/. Simple mental models are vitally important to sorting out the nature of various gravitational effects, and to approaching a quantum theory of gravity. They are also of important to basic engineering of gravity effects, and to distinguishing real from retardation relativistic effects. The gravimagnetic model, with corrections for real effects, both in the EM and gK realms, may lead to alternate explanations for observed effects. If I had the concepts roughly right and did the calculations correctly in http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GraviCalcs.pdf then the ambient gravimagnetic field overwhelms the Earth's local gravimagnetic field. The ambient gravimagnetic field has little effect on orbital precession however, only on average orbital height. The GRACE mission: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/earth_drag.html did actually see the effects of the Earth's gravimagnetic field on orbital precession, because it is an *incremental* effect due to incremental changes in distance from the Earth. The Gravity Probe B satellite, however, is measuring the effect of the *absolute* gravimagnetic field by looking at precession of a small silicon ball, so gravimagnetism predicts a 50-100 fold difference in results. If I did things right (still much in doubt!) then NASA is in for some surprising results! We should hear in early 2007. If that actually happens then the value of the concept will be permanently cast in cement. There is a far more significant value to the concept, however, at least when it is developed and applied under the isomorphism proposed in: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GR-and-QM.pdf. This isomorphism, in addition to immediately bringing to bear every EM equation on gravitational problems, points to underlying symmetries and opens up a large number of difficult questions and implications, some of which are discussed in the referenced document. It demonstrates the power of the imaginary number i in gravitational computations. Then again, this could all be bunk! 8^) Horace Heffner In EM theory a body with some charge and with motion which is initially uniform and in a straight line will be deflected by the appearance of a magnetic field. If the isomorphism between Gravity and EM holds, then a body with some mass with the same initial motion should be deflected by the appearance of gravimagnetic field (not a gravity field) , but it appears to be only true if the body is initially rotating too. Have I misunderstood the meaning of isomorphism or something about the theory of gravimagnetism? Harry
Re: Solar and Lunar Gravimagnetic Fields
On Feb 4, 2006, at 6:20 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace If the object were 150 light years away it would have to have [(1.551 x 10^-11 i Hz)/(9.526x10^-23 i Hz)]/(150 ly/1.496x10^8 km) ^3 = 1.39x10^32 times the gravimagnetic dipole moment of the sun. This would be a black hole for sure. In fact, at a mere 1 ly distance it would have to have 4x10^25 more gravimagnetic moment than the sun. It should thus be (a) massive enough to be a black hole and (b) much closer than seems possible without having observed it. This tends to discount my math. Not necessarily... if initial parameters are persevered by inertia over time. The effect we see today might possibly be a lingering *relic* - that is, a remnant of a long-past (much closer) gravimagnetic relationship. IOW let us say you start a specially constructed (imaginary) frictionless gyroscope in a vacuum environment with magnetic bearings and all that ... and build in some precession into your initial starting parameters before turning off the power. It would seem that there will be a lingering effect of your initial input parameters for quite some time - even if you remove the gyroscope many miles away. Solar system ... same thing on a grander scale? Gravitons move at the speed of light http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2639043.stm so a gravimagnetic field is not likely to stick around once the source is gone. An associated magnetic field would depart at the same speed. The field may be ambient to the entire locality, our arm of the Milky Way, or possibly even the Milky Way as a whole. Magnetic fields flip from time to time, so if the effect were from lots of bodies the magnetic fields would tend to cancel, while the angular momentum and thus the gravimagnetic field would be conserved. This concept leads to the problem as to why the solar system lies, or can lie, in a plane inclined to the Milky Way, to the plane of the Galactic Lens. Some possibilites have been noted. See: http://webspinners.com/dlblanc/climate/astromod.php The Milky Way gravimagnetic field may perturb the ecliptic. Horace Heffner
Re: Wind Projects
I just ran the numbers. Installed wind power in the U.S. increased by 36% last year. That's the biggest increase ever as far as I can tell. 2,420 MW in 2005 up to 9,145 MW. It just goes to show that wind is now competitive. To put things in perspective, Europe has about 41,000 MW of installed wind capacity, or 4 times the U.S. Just goes to show how much more we could expand our wind installations. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 10:35 AM Subject: Wind Projects Map of wind projects: http://www.awea.org/projects/index.html TOTAL INSTALLED U.S. WIND ENERGY CAPACITY: 9,149 MW as of Dec 31, 2005 ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Message for Thomas Clark
Thomas, I've said my piece. If you are content with the dramas unfolding before your eyes, who am I to pass judgment on the destinies you are preparing yourself for. Enjoy your trip. There is always planet Earth that you can come back to should you feel so inclined. Just try not to lose your way. Leave a few breadcrumbs for yourself. We're not all bad guys. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: Ambient Gravimagnetic Field and the Earth Field
On Feb 4, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: In EM theory a body with some charge and with motion which is initially uniform and in a straight line will be deflected by the appearance of a magnetic field. Yes, assuming of course you do not mean the charge's own field. This deflection is caused by the analog to the Lorentz force. I would replace by the appearance of with in the presence of, since fields do not just appear from nothing and without effect. If the isomorphism between Gravity and EM holds, then a body with some mass with the same initial motion should be deflected by the appearance of gravimagnetic field (not a gravity field) , Yes, again with the same caveats. but it appears to be only true if the body is initially rotating too. No. The deflection can be due solely to the Lorentz force. However, if the gravimagnetic field is not uniform, then a spinning body can also be deflected by the gravimagnetic force. In a uniform gravimagnetic field a spinning body, in motion or not with respect to the gravimagnetic field, is only made to precess due to its spinning. A spinning body is deflected by the Lorentz force just like a non-spinning body. Have I misunderstood the meaning of isomorphism or something about the theory of gravimagnetism? Your understanding of EM may be a bit off, if I understand your questions. Horace Heffner
Re: 0T: Income Tax
Harry Veeder wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Remember the Laffer curve debates, years back? At 0% income tax the government's net tax revenue is zero. At 100% income tax nobody works for taxable dollars and again the government's tax take is zero. So, the _maximum_ tax take is achieved at some tax rate L, with 0 L 100. The curve which relates government tax revenue to tax rate is called the Laffer curve, and its peak is the optimal tax rate for maximum government income. A 100% income tax would make for a simple flat tax system, A flat tax system taxes everyone the same number of dollars. The poll tax that brought down Margaret Thatcher in England was an example of that. A 100% income tax takes everything you earn and gives it to the government; you don't get to keep any of it. I don't see the connection. In any case please be aware that a 100% tax is a strawman, used only to illustrate the point that raising taxes indefinitely won't increase the government's revenue indefinitely. And if it won't, then someplace in the middle there must be an optimal tax rate. and as long as a significant fraction of EARNED income is returned by law If the government must give you back your own tax dollars then it's not a 100% tax. With a 100% tax rate on EARNED income you don't keep it and you don't get it back. If you get supported by the government regardless of whether you earn anything, but the government takes every cent you earn on your own (if any), that's a 100% tax plus complete social welfare and the name for it is pure communism. people would continue to work for taxable dollars. Very few, not enough to make the economy run at all well. What actually happens is the economy switches to some kind of barter system, or people find some other way around the confiscatory tax. There's no point in working for money which you never see, so people don't do it, and the reported taxable income drops to zero. If that's not possible, people leave -- right now there are many economic refugees from France living elsewhere in Europe, because their tax system hits some wealthy people so hard (much, much worse than anything we have in the United States). In pure communism nobody gets paid to work, everybody is provided for, and some incentive other than financial rewards must be found to induce people to work; otherwise they just sit around and send email all day :-) In Russia under communism 5% of the land produced more than 50% of the gross farm output. The 5% of the land that produced so well was the 5% that was reserved for individual plots, where the farmers could actually keep what they produced, and sell it if they wanted to, and keep the money they earned. Most people work harder if they get tangible rewards for what they do. Many people would have left Communist Russia if they had had the chance. I remember my father observing that he'd start believing the Communist claims of a worker's paradise the day they started building walls to keep people _out_, rather than keep people _in_. (On the other hand, from what I've heard a lot of people actually liked the system, too; some who successfully emigrated found it difficult and unpleasant to get along in capitalist countries.) Harry
Re: Solar and Lunar Gravimagnetic Fields
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:11:57 -0900: Hi Horace, [snip] galactic core is involved. The axis of precession is aligned with the poles of the ecliptic, thus the ambient gravimagnetic field must be also, on average. We may have a dark partner in our part of the galaxy. [snip] Have you considered the possibility that it may be much closer to home, i.e. in the core of the Earth? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: Wind Projects
On Feb 4, 2006, at 6:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Map of wind projects: http://www.awea.org/projects/index.html TOTAL INSTALLED U.S. WIND ENERGY CAPACITY: 9,149 MW as of Dec 31, 2005 I see Alaska is shown with only 1 installed wind project. I assume they don't count windmills below some capacity. Alaska has a colossal wind potential, but it is very hard to get to and tap. It is located at the top of mountain ridges. Horace Heffner
Re: Solar and Lunar Gravimagnetic Fields
On Feb 4, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:11:57 -0900: Hi Horace, [snip] galactic core is involved. The axis of precession is aligned with the poles of the ecliptic, thus the ambient gravimagnetic field must be also, on average. We may have a dark partner in our part of the galaxy. [snip] Have you considered the possibility that it may be much closer to home, i.e. in the core of the Earth? Yes. The Earth's gravimagnetic field is comparatively small. See http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GraviCalcs.pdf and the GRACE mission: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/earth_drag.html which did actually see and measure in detail the effects of the Earth's gravimagnetic field (and/or relativistic effects) on orbital precession, because it is an *incremental* effect due to incremental changes in distance from the Earth. The Gravity Probe B satellite, however, is measuring the effect of the *absolute* gravimagnetic field by looking at precession of a small silicon ball, so gravimagnetism predicts a 50-100 fold difference in results. This all seems to me to rule out a source of gravimagnetism within the Earth which can make its surface actually or even appear to precess. Some combination of magnetism and gravimagnetism might work except for the fact the magnetic field reverses and the precession keeps right on ticking during the reversal. We are right now in the process of a magnetic reversal. Horace Heffner
Re: 0T: Income Tax
Title: Re: 0T: Income Tax OrionWorks wrote: From Harry Veeder Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Remember the Laffer curve debates, years back? At 0% income tax the government's net tax revenue is zero. At 100% income tax nobody works for taxable dollars and again the government's tax take is zero. So, the _maximum_ tax take is achieved at some tax rate L, with 0 L 100. The curve which relates government tax revenue to tax rate is called the Laffer curve, and its peak is the optimal tax rate for maximum government income. A 100% income tax would make for a simple flat tax system, and as long as a significant fraction of EARNED income is returned by law people would continue to work for taxable dollars. Harry This reminds me of a cartoon that is just as timely today as it was when I first saw it. It was posted on a bulletin board of a place I used to work at - The Wisconsin Department of Revenue. This was many decades ago when I was a mere pup in my 20s. It was the new simplified tax return form. Only two lines to fill in: * * (1) How much money did you make? [ ] * * * (2) Send it in. [ ] * * Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com I saw that joke recently. A market economy with private property rights and flexible prices can be rationally defended on the grounds that it is the best way to produce _real_ wealth. However, if I remember correctly, even the great market economist F. Hayek conceded that the workings of a market economy do not provide a rational basis for judging whether a particular person's _monetary_ income is _deserved_. Harry
RE:
if we want to live like third-world peasants. We are headed in that direction. More sad hysteria horrendous and totally uncontrolled pollution caused by ethanol production You are not even aware it exists. Amazing - and now you're a mind reader Jobs in rural areas that also reduce oil dependence are important If your purpose is to steal money from taxpayers and give it to unemployed rural people, why not be honest and simply put them on welfare? They will do far less damage to the land and the economy if we simply pay them off, rather than paying them off to waste a few hundred million barrels of oil. More hysteria Giving people real work does give them dignity and purpose in life, but I do not think it helps to give people pretend make-work in a government boondoggle like ethanol. In any case, they might as well admit that all they are doing is stealing from the rest of us. Frankly, those people should be ashamed to accept the money. They should be forced to jump through rings and surrender their assets and self-respect, the way urban welfare cases are. Both they and their representatives in Congress seem quite happy
Shell Oil says NO Peak
www.worldnetdaily.com/biznetdaily/
Re: More on the Firefly Battery
On Feb 4, 2006, at 7:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/firefly_energy.html They have developed a battery using lead acid chemistry that significantly increases the power density while improving cycle life. Lead acid battery chemistry is theoretically capable of delivering 216.8 Whr/Kg while current technology averages 30 Whr/Kg. Wow! Here is something also interesting along the lines of lead-acid batteries. http://www.canadus.com/home/hfbe/index.htm A pulsed method to de-sulfate the plates and rejuvenate the battery.
Re: Shell Oil says NO Peak
We hear peak oil and anti-peak oil stories all of the time. However, there's really only one true indicator regarding the scarcity of oil, price. Sure, short term supply distruptions have caused the price of oil to spike from time to time, but those spikes were always followed by quick retreats. So far, the recent runup in oil prices over the past two years has been sustained and generally demonstrates a trend higher. Seems to be telling us something more is going on than short term supply distruptions are responsible. If it's just a short term supply problem, oil should recede to $30 a barrel or so. I think we might reach peak oil production, just due to overwhelming demand in coming years. In other words perhaps the actual amount of oil production possible has not reached a true peak, but demand will grow so rapidly that it simply outstrips the capacity to supply the growing demand and therefore the price of oil spirals higher. I just wonder where all the additional supply capacity is going to come from to satisfy the increasing demand for oil? The world consumes around 84 Million Barrels per day, where is all the extra supply going to actually come from when the world needs 120 Million Barrels per day in twenty years? Tar sands in Alberta are suppossed to triple their capacity to 3 Million Barrels per day in a few years, it's not coming from there. I don't see it happening. I think a more likely scenario would be that the price of oil products gets so expensive that it triggers efficiency gains such as hydrogen boosters for diesel engines (being sold in Canada now) and massive rampups of hybrids, including plug-in hybrids, as consumers look for relief, thus cutting demand. Something has to give. One thing about peak oil, Shell was one of the countries that overstated their oil reserves by 20% and had to restate them, so don't take their word too seriously. Also, many OPEC countries have overstated their oil reserves because it boosts their quotas. Kuwaitt has been reported in two news stories in recent months to have overstated their oil reserves by a whopping 50% and it is generally acknowledged that their main field has peaked out. Mexico is also approaching peak. The jury is out, but the evidence is starting to build up that a real oil peak is coming soon. - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 7:08 PM Subject: Shell Oil says NO Peak www.worldnetdaily.com/biznetdaily/
Re: Wind Projects
I think it's pretty obvious that the U.S. could provide all of its electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar. It's really just a matter of economics and will. The scales are tipping in favor of renewables nowadays with grid-power going up in price fairly rapidly and renewables becoming more competitve each year. A utility in my home state just announced a whopping 50% increase in their rates to cover the surge in natural gas generating costs. How much longer can these sorts of price increases continue before people just start looking at alternatives more seriously? - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 5:13 PM Subject: Re: Wind Projects On Feb 4, 2006, at 6:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Map of wind projects: http://www.awea.org/projects/index.html TOTAL INSTALLED U.S. WIND ENERGY CAPACITY: 9,149 MW as of Dec 31, 2005 I see Alaska is shown with only 1 installed wind project. I assume they don't count windmills below some capacity. Alaska has a colossal wind potential, but it is very hard to get to and tap. It is located at the top of mountain ridges. Horace Heffner
Re: Shell Oil says NO Peak
It does look like Shell's replacement capacity has peaked... There was also some disappointment over Shell's weak performance upstream where it only managed to replace 60% to 70% of the oil it pumped with new additions to reserves. This is well below the 100% rate needed to stop an oil firm's asset base from shrinking. Peter Hitchens, oil analyst at Teather Greenwood, said: Shell has had another poor performance with the drill bit. And the analyst didn't fancy the group's chances of turning this situation round any time soon, adding: (The target) would require the group becoming one of the best explorers among the integrated oil companies, rather than one of the worst. - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 7:08 PM Subject: Shell Oil says NO Peak www.worldnetdaily.com/biznetdaily/
Re: 0T: Income Tax
Harry Veeder wrote: A market economy with private property rights and flexible prices can be rationally defended on the grounds that it is the best way to produce _real_ wealth. However, if I remember correctly, even the great market economist F. Hayek conceded that the workings of a market economy do not provide a rational basis for judging whether a particular person's _monetary_ income is _deserved_. Boy you sure wouldn't get an argument from _me_ on that. Unless you're a follower of Ayn Rand it's hard to see how capitalism can be defended on _moral_ grounds. The trouble is, no other system seems to work nearly as well, and what's worse, the effectiveness with which capitalism works appears to be directly related to the size of the gap between rich and poor, because that gap is a direct measure of the incentive everyone has to work harder in an effort to become rich. (In addition, of course, there also must be adequate social mobility; inherited wealth does _nothing_ to stimulate people to work harder, and the landed gentry are just a drag on the wheels of progress.) _But_ the market economy can be hideously unfair, it makes implicit value judgements of everyone based on arbitrary criteria, and if it's unbridled it tends to leave people at grave risk if anything bad should happen. Capitalism provides wealth; it does not naturally provide security. As Jed might point out, all of these problems go strongly against our instincts as pack hunters who take care of their own and share the food. So most people, regardless of their religion, would probably agree that completely unbridled capitalism is just plain wrong. So, we strive to de-tune the system a bit to make it fairer without breaking it entirely. Almost everybody is in favor of a progressive income tax, for example, even though it reduces the incentive to work harder in order to make more money. Unemployment insurance seems like a Good Thing even though it reduces the incentive to find another job when you're laid off. The Swedish model looks pretty good; the Norwegians do pretty well; the Russians, who tried to throw capitalism overboard entirely under the Communists, went too far and didn't manage to make it work (operating your empire at a loss and trying to make up for it by anexxing more countries, which are also operated at a loss, can't work indefinitely). Harry
Re: Do we have peak uranium, too?
Steven Krivit wrote: My sources...atomic energy researchers in France and Canada say we have 80 years of uranium left. I don't know where the peak is. That agrees with what I believe I've read elsewhere. HOWEVER... ... That's just U235, and unless I miss my guess, it's without reprocessing to recover usable fuel from the spent fuel rods. The fact that it glosses over is that, with sensible handling, the available fuel would last centuries, which should certainly be enough time to figure out something better! First of all, simple reprocessing can extend that 80 year number greatly, but it's politically unacceptable due, IIRC, to the ease with which the process can be subverted to make bomb-grade enriched uranium. The United States, in particular, does _not_ reprocess its spent fuel (someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this). I'm not sure where Eurupe stands on this issue. Far more to the point, breeder reactors could extend that number by perhaps a factor of 100 by allowing us to burn the U238 rather than just burning the U235 and hence throwing away 99% of the fuel, completely unused, as we do today. But safe and effective breeder reactors have not been developed, AFAIK, and most likely never will be, because they are scary and politically completely unacceptable: the fuel they produce when they convert the U238, unless I am mistaken, is plutonium. And _that_ is the fuel of choice for bombs. So, the upshot is that we have enough uranium in the ground to last us centuries, but the technologies which would enable us to use it efficiently are currently untouchable and are likely to remain that way. In consequence we'll never actually be able to use more than perhaps 1% of the available uranium, and we'll just throw away the rest, sealing it up in caves as a problem rather than burning it as a solution. And this situation seems unlikely to change. Anyway, I will be happy to stand corrected on any of this. At 06:44 AM 2/3/2006, you wrote: We haven't had any new nuclear power plants built in many years. Since any notion of NIMBYism is to be rejected ( despite overwhelming political evidence that it is real), the clear answer is THAT URANIUM HAS PEAKED! The same goes for the rich Cape Cod elitists who don't want wind turbines off their coast. Clearly, saving birds is paramount. Why build nuclear power plants when we know that uranium is running out? Surely, the situation is no different than the fact that the US hasn't built a new refinery since 1976 - Obviously, everyone knew - 30 YEARS AGO - that we were running out of oil and refineries were a waste of time. Obvious too, is the fact that everyone knows that coal/ shale/ thermal pyrolysis treated garbage will never give us significant sources of oil. What are Pennsylvania and Montana thinking, when they to spend billions for this? Those estimates of centuries worth of coal aren't to be taken seriously. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs a reality check..
Time is...
http://www.stanford.edu/~afmayer/ ...time is not a single dimension of spacetime but rather a local geometric distinction in spacetime. While this may seem esoteric, it is actually quite simple, according to the author of a new book due out soon ... rght! Imagine that 'the arrow of time' in the Universe, like gravity on Earth, is ostensibly the same everywhere, yet at the same 'time' it is different everywhere relative to everywhere else. That means that the 'arrow of time' points in different directions in spacetime depending on where you are, so time has a geometry just like space has a geometry. The idea is that there are an infinite number of time dimensions in the Universe - which revolutionizes gravitational theory and much of modern science with it. A number of outstanding scientific mysteries are definitively solved, including observations...
