okie wrote:Cyclops, you are using tunnel vision, only considering trash as the one issue that matters. Such an approach is obviously wrong. I can cite countless examples, but what if it takes twice as much energy to recycle a product? The impact of more energy consumes another resource that is limited as well, and has far reaching impacts on the atmosphere if you believe even 10% of Al Gore's message. We've had this discussion several times before, but the problem is created by an emotional bond with the idea of "recycling" because it feels good. If it truly saves and conserves, I agree, but when it does not, it makes no sense to blindly sing its praises.
I have used this illustration before, but it is not profitable to reclaim old buildings, each nail, each board, each brick at a time. The labor, energy, and cost expended simply dictates the fact that it is a waste of time and money. It is often much more efficient to use fresh materials to build a building. It is actually less wasteful. There may be exceptions in certain limited cases, but not in general. This principle applies to many things.
I am not against recycling when it is efficient. I simply point out that it needs to be justified in a case by case basis, depending on commodity and location.
This whole point is so basic, so elementary, that a second grader should be able to grasp it, cyclops. You should be embarrassed to continue to argue against it.
Did you read the link?
http://www.startech.net/
They use plasma to break stuff down to its' component materials. ANY stuff. All it takes is time and some energy, and at the other end you get tanks of raw materials ready to use.
Cycloptichorn
I do understand that recycling may not be the cheapest option in all cases.
Okie, that is the only thing you and I agree about.
The benefits of recycling CANNOT and ARE NOT simply brushed off because it is more expensive, and thereby less COST efficient.
As far as taking more energy, and thereby hurting the enviornment more. If you've been following along in this thread there are many here that would like this fixed as well. Let's see, we've talked about carbon-sequestion for coal power plants, building new nuclear power plants, solar, wind, hydro-electric energy, etc. That is the solution to the enviro-damage that generating electricity has, not to stop recycling.
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Did you read the link?
http://www.startech.net/
They use plasma to break stuff down to its' component materials. ANY stuff. All it takes is time and some energy, and at the other end you get tanks of raw materials ready to use.
Cycloptichorn
Yes, I looked at it, but your reference to that really misses the point of the current issue of recycling. If I understand correctly, this technology is unproven to work in a commercial sized way, and compete economically, yet. It is something being developed, so I am always in favor of such technologies that have potential. Conservatives are always in favor of this. It is the tree huggers that historically are dead set against more technological development. But again, the argument of recycling applies to current reality and economics. We cannot base what we do right now, today, upon some pie in the sky idea that somebody might have. If their plasma idea proves to be commercially viable, then yes, we can bring that into the equation at some point in the future.
maporsche wrote:I do understand that recycling may not be the cheapest option in all cases.
Okie, that is the only thing you and I agree about.
The benefits of recycling CANNOT and ARE NOT simply brushed off because it is more expensive, and thereby less COST efficient.
As far as taking more energy, and thereby hurting the enviornment more. If you've been following along in this thread there are many here that would like this fixed as well. Let's see, we've talked about carbon-sequestion for coal power plants, building new nuclear power plants, solar, wind, hydro-electric energy, etc. That is the solution to the enviro-damage that generating electricity has, not to stop recycling.
I'm glad we agree on something.
Lets look at your list. Carbon sequestration is just now being developed to possibly work on a commercial scale, but could be a long time before it makes much of an impact. Tree huggers killed the building of more nuclear in this country 25 years ago or more. Solar and wind have limited potential so far to make a large impact on power needs. Hydro electric has been opposed by tree huggers for a long time, and they are as we speak trying to take more dams out of the river systems. Environmentalists have always been good at obstruction but terrible at any constructive ideas.
And finally, cost is the best indicator I know of that might tell us something about efficiency. If you have a better idea of the best indicator of what is most efficient, let me know.
okie wrote:maporsche wrote:I do understand that recycling may not be the cheapest option in all cases.
Okie, that is the only thing you and I agree about.
The benefits of recycling CANNOT and ARE NOT simply brushed off because it is more expensive, and thereby less COST efficient.
As far as taking more energy, and thereby hurting the enviornment more. If you've been following along in this thread there are many here that would like this fixed as well. Let's see, we've talked about carbon-sequestion for coal power plants, building new nuclear power plants, solar, wind, hydro-electric energy, etc. That is the solution to the enviro-damage that generating electricity has, not to stop recycling.
I'm glad we agree on something.
Lets look at your list. Carbon sequestration is just now being developed to possibly work on a commercial scale, but could be a long time before it makes much of an impact. Tree huggers killed the building of more nuclear in this country 25 years ago or more. Solar and wind have limited potential so far to make a large impact on power needs. Hydro electric has been opposed by tree huggers for a long time, and they are as we speak trying to take more dams out of the river systems. Environmentalists have always been good at obstruction but terrible at any constructive ideas.
And finally, cost is the best indicator I know of that might tell us something about efficiency. If you have a better idea of the best indicator of what is most efficient, let me know.
Carbon Seq - let's invest more federal money and become better at doing this.
Nuclear Power - 25 years ago? That's the best you have? Nuke power is back on the table in 2007 Okie.
Hydro electric - doesn't always mean damming up a river. There have been quite a few advancements on ocean wave technology that is worth investing more money in.
Cost is an indicator of COST efficiency. Not resource efficiency.
An electric car is more efficient than a similarly sized ICE powered car, yet apparently costs more since there are no electric cars.
More efficient compact flourescent lights are more expensive than incandesant bulbs yet are more efficient.
okie wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
Did you read the link?
http://www.startech.net/
They use plasma to break stuff down to its' component materials. ANY stuff. All it takes is time and some energy, and at the other end you get tanks of raw materials ready to use.
Cycloptichorn
Yes, I looked at it, but your reference to that really misses the point of the current issue of recycling. If I understand correctly, this technology is unproven to work in a commercial sized way, and compete economically, yet. It is something being developed, so I am always in favor of such technologies that have potential. Conservatives are always in favor of this. It is the tree huggers that historically are dead set against more technological development. But again, the argument of recycling applies to current reality and economics. We cannot base what we do right now, today, upon some pie in the sky idea that somebody might have. If their plasma idea proves to be commercially viable, then yes, we can bring that into the equation at some point in the future.
So, I guess we should cut all funding for further weapons research. And for research into cancer and aids, and into stem cells and manufacturing technologies. Some private company will eventually come out with all those things, so what's the rush or use of talking about future solutions?
We consider trash and recycling to be one of the prime problems we face as a society and as humans on this Earth. We need to find good/better solutions. The current status quo doesn't cut it.
Some of the solutions you derisively refer to as 'pie in the sky' are nothing of the sort, but working models. Here's another link on the same thing:
http://www.greengeek.ca/2007/02/23/plasma-process-converts-garbage-into-clean-energy/
From the link:
Quote:
"New York City is already paying an astronomical $90 a ton to get rid of its trash. According to Startech, a few 2,000-ton-per-day plasma-gasification plants could do it for $36. Sell the syngas and surplus electricity, and you'd actually net $15 a ton. Gasification is not just environmentally friendly, it's a good business decision."
He agrees with you, that economics will drive this. The only question is whether or not we can focus on this as a society, to make technologies like this more of a priority.
You don't seem to understand what happens to
trash that isn't recycled. Do you know what happens to it? Nothing.
Cycloptichorn
Costs are interesting things, okie. Depends on how you calculate them and what you include as costs.
Nuclear power, for example. If cost is the determinant you go by, then consider this: nuclear power has been heavily subsidized by the US government since its inception. Current government information says it is not competitive pricewise with conventional power plants without those subsidies.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/82975.pdf It never has been. And where do those subsidies come from? You, of course. Your taxes pay for them. So you're already paying for something that cost alone says makes no economic sense. It's the sheer cost of building the plants and operating them. Can't blame that one on the tree huggers.
maporsche wrote:
Cost is an indicator of COST efficiency. Not resource efficiency.
It is a huge indicator of efficiency as well. When I say "cost," I am not talking simply about buying a car, if you use a car as an example, but also the operating cost, cost of disposal of the salvaged car when it is worn out, , and all of the rest. This all includes the factor of how long the car lasts. The cost of the car incorporates all of the energy and cost associated with the materials included into the car, and all of that has an impact in terms of energy and materials used.
The beauty of all of this is that the free market determines all of this for us, the cost of the car, how long the car lasts, resale value, etc. You all need to read Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics" book, which explains all of the effects in simple terms. The efficiency of any product is best determined from the bottom up, as expressed by cost in a free market, not by top down, as tried by communist systems where bureaucrats simply are unable to understand or even enumerate the thousands of factors that go into producing a product from ground up.
The point of all of this is that some things might appear to be efficient. Take the flourescent light bulb example. I think the jury is still out on this, as manufacturing those bulbs requires different materials, etc., which requires extraction from the earth, requiring more energy expended, and the disposal of these bulbs might have more problems. I need to study up on these bulbs, but my suspicion is that it is more hype than reality in terms of potential savings.
Now, with all of that said, I admit an extra caveat in the equation. If an energy source or product is subsidized by the government, or if some product has disposal or environmental problems that are not fully accounted for or the cost of which is not incorporated into the product, then cost is not a total indicator. It is still an important one, but we then must attempt to evaluate the cost and effects that may not have been included.
People often point to subsidization of things, like nuclear power plants, or oil, or something else as an argument against them. That is a valid argument, however, often such subsidization may be in the form of tax writeoffs, depletion allowances, etc., which also exist in some form for virtually every product or energy source, so the arguments are not as valid as some would like to believe. When we bring this argument into the equation, it is important to balance the argument with facts.
Cycloptichorn wrote: [
So, I guess we should cut all funding for further weapons research. And for research into cancer and aids, and into stem cells and manufacturing technologies. Some private company will eventually come out with all those things, so what's the rush or use of talking about future solutions?
Cycloptichorn
Cyclops, that is a totally different argument. I am in favor of research. That is not the subject here. Research and who should do it, is another subject.
okie wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote: [
So, I guess we should cut all funding for further weapons research. And for research into cancer and aids, and into stem cells and manufacturing technologies. Some private company will eventually come out with all those things, so what's the rush or use of talking about future solutions?
Cycloptichorn
Cyclops, that is a totally different argument. I am in favor of research. That is not the subject here. Research and who should do it, is another subject.
We should be researching into better, cheaper ways to recycle. This, being just as important as any of the other factors listed (if not more so!) should be at least partially subsidized by our government.
Hell of a lot better use of funds then say, throwing them away in the desert for no good reason.
Recycling and the technology to make it work are not 'pie in the sky' ideas. The technology is there. It just needs to be implemented, and one of the ways it will move towards implementation is answering this question, Okie: what happens to trash? How much more trash is a growing population going to produce?
Cycloptichorn
username wrote:Costs are interesting things, okie. Depends on how you calculate them and what you include as costs.
Nuclear power, for example. If cost is the determinant you go by, then consider this: nuclear power has been heavily subsidized by the US government since its inception. Current government information says it is not competitive pricewise with conventional power plants without those subsidies.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/82975.pdf It never has been. And where do those subsidies come from? You, of course. Your taxes pay for them. So you're already paying for something that cost alone says makes no economic sense. It's the sheer cost of building the plants and operating them. Can't blame that one on the tree huggers.
Your point is valid. I still believe in nuclear because I think much of the cost and opposition is more paranoia than actual, but your argument points out one important point. That point is that the same arguments for opposing nuclear 25 years ago are still out there, and some environmentalists or global warmers now coming out in favor of nuclear will find out that opposition from their camp still exists. One important point about this is that many environmentalists are simply obstructionists and are not really interested in pushing any technology that doesn't include going back to the caves.
okie wrote:username wrote:Costs are interesting things, okie. Depends on how you calculate them and what you include as costs.
Nuclear power, for example. If cost is the determinant you go by, then consider this: nuclear power has been heavily subsidized by the US government since its inception. Current government information says it is not competitive pricewise with conventional power plants without those subsidies.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/82975.pdf It never has been. And where do those subsidies come from? You, of course. Your taxes pay for them. So you're already paying for something that cost alone says makes no economic sense. It's the sheer cost of building the plants and operating them. Can't blame that one on the tree huggers.
Your point is valid. I still believe in nuclear because I think much of the cost and opposition is more paranoia than actual, but your argument points out one important point. That point is that the same arguments for opposing nuclear 25 years ago are still out there, and some environmentalists or global warmers now coming out in favor of nuclear will find out that opposition from their camp still exists. One important point about this is that many environmentalists are simply obstructionists and are not really interested in pushing any technology that doesn't include going back to the caves.
Your last line is a petty insult and nothing more. But overall this is correct.
The issue to me isn't the fact that it is subsidized, it is that nuke plants (naturally, when operating correctly) don't emit waste as part of their natural operations. That's the benefit.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Recycling and the technology to make it work are not 'pie in the sky' ideas. The technology is there. It just needs to be implemented, and one of the ways it will move towards implementation is answering this question, Okie: what happens to trash? How much more trash is a growing population going to produce?
Cycloptichorn
What happens to trash? It goes into landfills, cyclops, unless somebody figures out it is cost effective to recycle. Your point is.....???
Thats what this argument is about. Most of the time, trash is worthless, but if your research figures out a way to eliminate trash, great, I'm all for it, unless it costs the taxpayer some unearthly amount of money for no good reason.
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Your last line is a petty insult and nothing more. But overall this is correct.
The issue to me isn't the fact that it is subsidized, it is that nuke plants (naturally, when operating correctly) don't emit waste as part of their natural operations. That's the benefit.
Cycloptichorn
Its not petty. It cuts to the chase, cyclops. That is what some environmentalist whacko extremists think. I put it in simple terms, but many of those people simply do not like progress. They yearn for yesterday, or what they visualize yesterday was. And therefore they are philosophically against any technological advancement. And they hate capitalism, which is responsible for much of the advancement. Admit it.
okie wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
Recycling and the technology to make it work are not 'pie in the sky' ideas. The technology is there. It just needs to be implemented, and one of the ways it will move towards implementation is answering this question, Okie: what happens to trash? How much more trash is a growing population going to produce?
Cycloptichorn
What happens to trash? It goes into landfills, cyclops, unless somebody figures out it is cost effective to recycle. Your point is.....???
Thats what this argument is about. Most of the time, trash is worthless, but if your research figures out a way to eliminate trash, great, I'm all for it, unless it costs the taxpayer some unearthly amount of money for no good reason.
That's the rub; over time, we get more, more, more and bigger landfills, while having less and less natural resources. We are basically stuffing trash into the crust of the Earth so that we don't have to look at it. It isn't a good long-term solution.
Trash is
never worthless. The materials it is made of are always either worth something, or have an actively
negative value; they harm the environment around them, at least from life's point of view.
It is undeniable that the population of the Earth will continue to rise, and the amount of trash that is produced will go up as well as the amount of resources needed to sustain life. The only sensible solution is to pursue strategies that reduce the amount of trash produced AND reduce the amount of resources taken from the environment simultaneously.
This takes two things: research, and an attitude that supports the idea that sticking stuff in a hole in the ground isn't the same thing as 'getting rid of it.' There is no 'rid of it,' unless you are talking about breaking items down into their components.
Here's a different technology - this one uses tornado-like vortexes in a can, to super-dry trash and turn it into burnable pellets for fuel -
Quote:The story of vortex technology begins with Kansas farmer and entrepreneur Frank Polifka, who observed the frightening ability of tornadoes in his state to turn large objects into dust. He spent 20 years tinkering with various configurations, and at one point had a vortex device that he and his wife used to get rid of kitchen trash the way you'd use a garbage disposal.
The rights to use the technology to process MSW were bought by Gene Martin, an inventor and successful Pennsylvania businessman. He started a company, Tornado Recycling Technology, or TRT, to produce and market vortex systems to turn MSW into fuel pellets, a renewable source of energy.
With vortex technology, raw waste from which all non-carbon-based and hazardous material has been removed (technically, "de-segregated MSW") is fed into a cone-shaped structure called a vornado (pictured at left). Using only the wind energy of high-horsepower compressors, this device in essence "explodes" the molecular structure of the waste. The process dries the material and turns it into fluff, not unlike the residue you'd find in a vacuum cleaner bag.
The fluff is then extruded into dense pellets, which are a sustainable and renewable energy source. The pellets can be used by waste processors to power other machinery used to process waste, with the excess sold to electric companies to ultimately power things like your air conditioner and television.
http://www.northampton.edu/news/topstories/Vornado.htm
How much is spent on shipping trash, when our neighborhoods could have these machines in them? How much is spent on landfills, how many chemicals and waste products seep into our groundwater from them? My guess would be that the cost of implementing new technologies can be reclaimed in other areas.
Cycloptichorn
Great, when they come up with the magic answer for the number one problem confronting the world, "trash," then I suppose all of our environmental problems will be solved? How many billion do you propose to spend of taxpayer's money on this monumental problem, or do you propose to let private enterprise continue to work on it? By the way, I am in favor of continuing research, but I don't think throwing a ton of taxpayer's money at it is the way to go.
okie wrote:Great, when they come up with the magic answer for the number one problem confronting the world, "trash," then I suppose all of our environmental problems will be solved? How many billion do you propose to spend of taxpayer's money on this monumental problem, or do you propose to let private enterprise continue to work on it? By the way, I am in favor of continuing research, but I don't think throwing a ton of taxpayer's money at it is the way to go.
Taxpayer monies have been shown to actively help speed the process of private enterprise along. For example, weapons research such as new fighter jets; we pay a
ton of money to help find new ways to make destructive devices, as taxpayers. I don't see you complaining too much about that.
There's no need to resort to Appealing to Extremes; nobody said that trash was the 'number one problem' confronting the world today. But, how many billion would I spend on it?
How about 3 days worth of what we spend in Iraq? Do you think that much money is worth working on problems that could benefit the whole world, in a reasonable timeframe? I don't understand why you and other Conservatives are willing to spend
unlimited amounts of money on what basically amount to short-term problems, but you aren't willing to spend any on long-term problems.
Cycloptichorn
Cyclops, defense spending is one expenditure clearly mandated constitutionally. Trash processing is not an area of research that is mandated by the government to do. I am not particularly optimistic about the government coming up with something here that private enterprise won't do. I realize we throw money into lots of areas of interest, and I am not diametrically opposed to any money spent on these types of things by government, especially public health, but again, I am not at all in favor of making trash research higher on the ladder than national defense.
Trash is something that private enterprise can potentially make money on, so where private enterprise can do something, I am in favor of them taking the lead on this. There is nothing wrong with government agencies, such as DOE to look into these types of things, and help facilitate ideas and research, in coordination with other private efforts. I think that is already happening, probably, but I admit it has not been at the top of my list to find out about.
I don't think we are really disagreeing that much, and I don't see how this applies to the debate of whether the the relative cost of energy processes or products may reflect their relative efficiency.
JULY 6, 2007 by Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, and Matt Corley
ENVIRONMENT
Climate S.O.S.
This summer's concert season is about more than just impressive displays of live music. It will also push individuals, corporations, and governments to address global warming. This Saturday, Al Gore's Live Earth, the biggest concert in history, will last twenty-four hours on all seven continents and feature more than 100 music artists such as Madonna, Snoop Dogg, and Kanye West. Gore will kick off the event Saturday morning with a 10 a.m. concert in Washington, D.C. at the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian. "The Live Earth concerts represent an unprecedented opportunity to ask for the world's attention long enough to deliver an S.O.S. and then to begin delivering information about the solutions to every single person," said Gore. This year "is on track to be the second warmest since records began in the 1860s," and unless global carbon dioxide emissions fall at least 60 to 80 percent by 2050, the planet will heat up more than two degrees Celsius. Increasingly, people worldwide view climate change as the greatest threat facing the earth. Yet just like it did before the Iraq war, the Bush administration is waging an assault on reason, manipulating the facts and "staying the course" on a policy of environmental destruction. Sign the Live Earth Pledge and demand that your country cut global warming pollution by 90 percent by 2050.
HEADING TOWARD CATASTROPHE: In Aug. 2001, President Bush ignored the dire warning, "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the US." Four days after Hurricane Katrina, Bush claimed, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" in New Orleans. But evidence shows that he and his administration were warned repeatedly about that possibility. The same thing is currently happening with climate change. As Gore writes in Assault on Reason (pp. 208-9), "Now, the scientific community is warning us of the worst catastrophe in the history of human civilization. ... The president says he is not sure humans are responsible for the threat of global warming. ... He tells us that he believes the science of global warming is in dispute. This is the same president who said after the devastation of New Orleans, 'Nobody could have predicted that the levees would break.'" Just as his administration relied on Ahmed Chalabi for flawed intelligence about the Iraq invasion, Bush has now turned to ExxonMobil for policies on global warming that will benefit no one but the oil industry. Most recently at the G-8 summit in May, the United States rejected German Chancellor Angela Merkel's global pact on carbon emissions, which would have reduced global emissions "50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050." But instead of mandatory emission reductions, Bush pushed for "aspirational goals." "Countries would work independently for the next 'ten to twenty years' to develop strategies to 'improve energy security, reduce air pollution and also reduce greenhouse gases.'"
CHENEY'S MANIPULATION: On global warming, as on the war in Iraq, the Bush administration's policy outcomes have been "predetermined, in spite of the voluminous evidence that it would lead to catastrophe." New reports show that Vice President Cheney took "full advantage of the president's cluelessness" on climate change and dominated the policies. On Sept. 29, 2000, Bush pledged, "We will require all power plants to meet clean-air standards in order to reduce emissions of...carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time." In February and March 2001, then Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Todd Whitman urged the White House to take steps to combat global warming, but she was overruled. Instead, Cheney armed the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) with industry heavyweights. Thereafter, "a CEQ memo concluded Bush's promise to regulate CO2 'did not fully reflect the president's position' and that 'it would be premature at this time to propose any specific policy or approach aimed at addressing global warming.'" The authors of the memo stated that "the current state of scientific knowledge about causes of and solutions to global warming is inconclusive." CEQ chief of staff Philip Cooney, who worked for the oil industry before joining the White House and then joined Exxon in 2005, repeatedly censored government reports to play down the links between global warming and human activities. In March, Cooney admitted to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, "My objective was to align these communications with the administration's stated policy" of climate skepticism. Evidence also shows that the Vice President's office was in regular contact with CEQ. Kevin O'Donovan, an aide in Cheney's office, wrote a memo to Cooney suggesting they try to "reinvigorate debate on the actual climate history of the past thousand years."
LIVE EARTH: The ten Live Earth concerts will be broadcast to 2 billion people in more than 100 countries. Even Antarctica will have a performance by the indie rock band Nunatak, which is "made up of five scientists aged 22 to 28 who are stationed on the generally unpopulated continent." Recognizing that large concerts often have damaging environmental footprints, the organizers of Live Earth are striving to make the events as ecofriendly as possible. Each artist has been given "a 'Green Handbook' of touring tips, such as where to get biodiesel for their trucks and how to offset carbon emissions." Electricity to power the concerts will come from renewable energy sources, and greenhouse gases from the "stars' jets or by the audience's travel will be offset by investments in renewable energy and by safeguarding forests. Concert props may live on long after stars such as Madonna, Shakira and Bon Jovi have left the stage -- old tires and oil drums used in the New York set will be re-used while some concert signs in Johannesburg will be used as roofing." The seven-point Live Earth Pledge asks individuals to demand that their countries "join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide." It also "asks people to cut their own pollution, to make their homes, business, schools and transport more energy efficient, and to plant new trees and preserve forests." "We have to get all nations involved, but in order to accomplish that we have to bring about a sea change in public opinion," said Gore. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) both signed the pledge in June.
--AmericanProgressAction
If man has the power to cause global warming,then man also has the power to cause global cooling.
It should be easy to cool the planet,if man is that all powerful.
