Honda VTX Forum banner

21 - 40 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,157 Posts
At 68 I have no dog in this fight. I figure there is enough oil to last another 20 or 30 years and if that's the case I'm good and I've got enough cash to spare that I don't really care if the cost of fossil fuels doubles or triples or even goes 10X, unlike those who are mostly dependent on Social Security.

No technology is perfect right out of the gate. Most new technologies take decades to evolve to where they are cost effective, if they never reach cost effectiveness, people simply just get used to it. So technologies take smart educated people with engineering, mathematics, chemistry, physics,......... degrees to figure out to make these technologies. You know all those classes that many of you thought were a waste of time when you were in school.

What disappoints me more than anything else is how short sighted most Americans are. Most know in their hearts that at some point the world is going to run out of cheap easily available oil. Knowing that's coming, and knowing that it may take decades to develop and scale up some alternative technology (which one, I don't know), when do you guys think is a good time to start developing, testing, and pilot scaling technologies. And who do you think should do it, the plumbers, carpenters and auto mechanics of the world?

I can imagine you guys sitting around a bar in the late 1880's talking about cars. Cars are loud, stinky, unreliable, expensive and I can go places on my horse that you can't go in a car. Cars need gas, where's that going to come from, in my car I am limited to how far I can go on half a tank of gas, all I gotta do is feed and water my horse and she can go for years.. For cars to be useful, somebody would have to build a nationwide network of roads and who's gonna pay for that? The tax payer, thats who, and most of them don't even own cars. But you can bet the road builders will get rich. An everyone knows the roads are useless unless there are thousands of reasonably spaced gas stations selling gas for a reasonable cost spread out along the road ways. And again people who build and operate the gas stations are going to get rich while the poor old gas station jockey works his butt off for minimum wage. How are they going to get the gas to these gas stations anyways, big giant cars with tanks on them? Ha Ha Ha All that ain't never gonna happen. Hey, lets order another round of beer and talk about what a waste of time and money this new fangled electricity crap is. Only rich people have electric lights light anyways. Hey, lets order another round of beers. Have you guys heard about this Alexander Graham Bell guy. Some sort of high falutin college guy who thinks he can have people talk to each other through wires. What a wac job. If I want to talk to my brother in the next town, all I gotta do is get on my horse, ride two days, say what I gotta say and come home and hope the crops don't fail while I'm gone. I hear tell we wants to put poles about every 125 feet and stretch wires so the rich people can talk to each other without leaving their house. A few more beers later, hey guys I just had a funny thought, what if they did build the roads and put telephone poles every 125 feet along the side of road and cars crash into them. That'll teach'em to try to change things up unnecessarily. What about the price of these frickin beer anyways. 10 cents each what a rip off. My Dad tells me of time when beer was 5 cents and served by whores. Those were the days my friends.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,626 Posts
Nuclear energy has been around since the 50's. The ultimate energy source.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,173 Posts
Discussion Starter #23
At 68 I have no dog in this fight. I figure there is enough oil to last another 20 or 30 years and if that's the case I'm good and I've got enough cash to spare that I don't really care if the cost of fossil fuels doubles or triples or even goes 10X, unlike those who are mostly dependent on Social Security.

No technology is perfect right out of the gate. Most new technologies take decades to evolve to where they are cost effective, if they never reach cost effectiveness, people simply just get used to it. So technologies take smart educated people with engineering, mathematics, chemistry, physics,......... degrees to figure out to make these technologies. You know all those classes that many of you thought were a waste of time when you were in school.

What disappoints me more than anything else is how short sighted most Americans are. Most know in their hearts that at some point the world is going to run out of cheap easily available oil. Knowing that's coming, and knowing that it may take decades to develop and scale up some alternative technology (which one, I don't know), when do you guys think is a good time to start developing, testing, and pilot scaling technologies. And who do you think should do it, the plumbers, carpenters and auto mechanics of the world?

I can imagine you guys sitting around a bar in the late 1880's talking about cars. Cars are loud, stinky, unreliable, expensive and I can go places on my horse that you can't go in a car. Cars need gas, where's that going to come from, in my car I am limited to how far I can go on half a tank of gas, all I gotta do is feed and water my horse and she can go for years.. For cars to be useful, somebody would have to build a nationwide network of roads and who's gonna pay for that? The tax payer, thats who, and most of them don't even own cars. But you can bet the road builders will get rich. An everyone knows the roads are useless unless there are thousands of reasonably spaced gas stations selling gas for a reasonable cost spread out along the road ways. And again people who build and operate the gas stations are going to get rich while the poor old gas station jockey works his butt off for minimum wage. How are they going to get the gas to these gas stations anyways, big giant cars with tanks on them? Ha Ha Ha All that ain't never gonna happen. Hey, lets order another round of beer and talk about what a waste of time and money this new fangled electricity crap is. Only rich people have electric lights light anyways. Hey, lets order another round of beers. Have you guys heard about this Alexander Graham Bell guy. Some sort of high falutin college guy who thinks he can have people talk to each other through wires. What a wac job. If I want to talk to my brother in the next town, all I gotta do is get on my horse, ride two days, say what I gotta say and come home and hope the crops don't fail while I'm gone. I hear tell we wants to put poles about every 125 feet and stretch wires so the rich people can talk to each other without leaving their house. A few more beers later, hey guys I just had a funny thought, what if they did build the roads and put telephone poles every 125 feet along the side of road and cars crash into them. That'll teach'em to try to change things up unnecessarily. What about the price of these frickin beer anyways. 10 cents each what a rip off. My Dad tells me of time when beer was 5 cents and served by whores. Those were the days my friends.
LOL, that is funny, thanks for that. I wouldn't argue with a single point there. I have no issue with developing alternate technologies, and yes, I believe that, at some point they will be necessary. I think you are missing the problem with this though. That is what the incubus is for these technologies, and why were are paying for them. Cost effective, really wasn't even part of the discussion, and it is a very small part of anyone's objections. The problem is that someone is lying to someone when they tell stories of "greener" technologies, when they are, arguably not. The problem is that we are paying to, once again, line the pockets of large corporations and those at the top, to provide money for R&D. This isn't done out of the concern for the environment, it's done because there's gold there. Remember the ethanol lies. Still it is detrimental to vehicles, and while just becoming cost effective, ran at an energy, and carbon deficit for a very long time. Again, it had nothing to do with the environment, it was to protect special interest. Now does that mean that the development of ethanol production to a point where a case can be made for the environment is a bad thing? Not at all, what it means, however, is that it was all predicated on a lie. A big one! Green energy is predicated on a lie. Does that mean we'll never appreciate the advances made? Not at all. What it means is there is a lot of money disappearing building the same thing over and over with only slight incremental improvements. A focused research establishement, building prototypes and refining processes without putting up 100 of the same BS wind towers that have no business being called "green" because putting up towers pays well would be a better use of our money. That, then, is the problem. It's all based on a lie, without delivering on the promise. Promise me that these are necessary steps to ensure our and following generations future energy needs once fossil fuels disappear, or become too expensive, then yeah, I'd buy that, but don't promise me it's "green" energy when it's not.

If you have to lie about it, should anyone trust it. Do you trust known liars?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,173 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
Nuclear energy has been around since the 50's. The ultimate energy source.
And actually, believe it or not, getting greener. Put enough money into nuclear power research and it would be even greener than it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,626 Posts
I think the drawback to nuclear is the disposal of the waste. We have a thousand or more satellites shot into space or around our planet. Shoot a couple hundred lbs. or so at a time into the sun. It would be like a weak vitamin pill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,480 Posts
I just seen on TV.. in the gulf of Mexico... they are drilling for oil.. 5 miles down..
1/2 a billion dollars just for the drilling rig. and hoping they find something.

the downward spiral has begun.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,173 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
I just seen on TV.. in the gulf of Mexico... they are drilling for oil.. 5 miles down..
1/2 a billion dollars just for the drilling rig. and hoping they find something.

the downward spiral has begun.
Brother, it started some time ago. The tech for finding and extracting oil has come a log way in just the last 20 years. Eventually you simply run out of places to drill. The industry as a whole, although exceedingly profitable, has been circling the drain for a while now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,480 Posts
Brother, it started some time ago. The tech for finding and extracting oil has come a log way in just the last 20 years. Eventually you simply run out of places to drill. The industry as a whole, although exceedingly profitable, has been circling the drain for a while now.
I know.. I just did not know they had exceeded 4 miles under water.

the Clock is ticking... drip, drip, drip.

there is nothing truly green... just some are 'greener' then others.
I have no dog in this fight.. no relatives or children. just a sickly wife.

I have never been a tree hugger.. I just like to keep my stuff working as long as I can.. its cheaper.
2005 VTX1800F.. 15 years and counting
1986 Goldwing SEi. 1987 to 2005
1988 Acura Legend. 1990 to 2004, 255k miles
1992 Honda lawn tractor 1992 to 2018.. still in great shape when sold.
Coleman generator... 1978 to 2016.. still working fine when sold. for a bigger one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
917 Posts
. Remember the ethanol lies. Still it is detrimental to vehicles, and while just becoming cost effective, ran at an energy, and carbon deficit for a very long time. Again, it had nothing to do with the environment, it was to protect special interest.
I'm not fact checking, but I might.:)

I have not followed this in the past.

Bring me up to speed on the ethanol lies?

Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,480 Posts
I'm not fact checking, but I might.:)

I have not followed this in the past.

Bring me up to speed on the ethanol lies?

Thanks.
one of many reports why its bad

 

·
Old Goat
Joined
·
24,815 Posts
That stuff coming out of my dog ain’t green....but By the volume I should be able to power something...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
917 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,173 Posts
Discussion Starter #33
one of many reports why its bad

That covers it pretty well. When first promoted and up until just recently, ethanol was actually an energy deficit. In other words, it took more energy, in fuel, and fertilizer, and production, than it could provide back. It not only ran an energy deficit, it ran a carbon deficit for the same reasons. This aside from the actual environmental impact of growing the raw material and burning it as fuel.

As mentioned, it is harmful to our vehicles ad well. Believe it or not, if your 1800F needed a new engine, you would be doing the environment a huge favor by rebuilding the engine, than discarding it and buying a new one. The energy involved in discarding and recycling our motorcycles, and the energy that goes into manufacturing a new on, far outweighs just continuing to purpose the bike you already have. We know ethanol is bad for our bikes and cars. How many cars are discarded prematurely because ethanol prematurely killed the engine, or fuel system, to a point it wasn't with repairing? Over the millions of cars, even an extra 20,000 miles per car would reduce carbon substantially. It's lies ... all lies!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,773 Posts
Green Electricity Delusions

With global warming the alleged science is so complicated that nobody, including the global warming scientists, can really understand what is going on. Green electricity, mostly solar and wind, is different. It’s relatively clear cut. No supercomputers spewing out terabytes of confusing data are needed.

Green electricity is quite useless. The latest trend in green electricity is wind or solar with battery backup. This green electricity costs about nine times more than the fossil fuel electricity it displaces. The true cost is hidden from the public by hidden subsidies and fake accounting. (My book, Dumb Energy, goes into great analytical detail.)

Green electricity is ineffective for preventing climate change. The climate change alarmists James Hansen and Michael Shellenberger make the case forcefully in this video. Hansen is the most important and most famous scientist warning against climate change. His followers consider him to be the greatest authority on the dangers of climate change. He calls wind and solar energy a “grotesque idea” and a “fantasy.”

It’s true that we won’t run out of wind or sunshine. That doesn’t mean that wind and sunshine are effective tools for making electricity. They aren’t. The exhaustion of fossil fuels has been predicted many times. The current situation is that fossil fuels are in great over supply and the prices have crashed to low levels. Natural gas, currently the most economical fossil fuel for generating electricity, is painfully cheap and is being extensively exported from the United States to other countries. Natural gas from wells, not served by pipelines to take it to market, is burned or flared to get rid of it. Only the more valuable oil is kept. Thanks to fracking, we have plenty of natural gas for the next 100-years.

Promoters of quack medicine sell various pills guaranteed to improve your memory or your sex life. Green energy is quackery too. It is promoted by green organizations like the Sierra Club. At one time the Sierra Club was a harmless club of backpackers and bird watchers. But it was taken over by ideologues driven by the delusion that modern society is a destructive fraud that must be rescued by the adoption of green principles. These armchair green commandos are math handicapped. They regularly propose policies that make no sense. The green commandos pontificate confidently without real understanding.

Coal is an excellent fuel for generating electricity. Unlike natural gas or oil, coal has limited uses other than generating electricity. The Sierra Club hates coal because it competes successfully against their beloved green wind and solar. No lie is too outrageous as long as it is useful for discrediting coal. The Sierra Club uses trick photography to make it look like coal plants emit clouds of black smoke. The trick is to photograph clean white clouds of “steam” with the sun behind the plant. That makes the harmless white clouds look black. The exhaust products are composed of water vapor and carbon dioxide with very little pollution. As the exhaust mixes with the cool air, it condenses into a white cloud of clean water droplets commonly called steam.
In modern coal plants, almost all pollution is scrubbed away before the exhaust goes into the smokestack.

Residential rooftop solar energy is an uneconomic method for generating electricity but it sounds convincing to the naïve. Rooftop solar panels lack economy of scale. These small installations generate electricity for about three times more per kilowatt hour than the large-scale utility installations. The homeowner reduces his consumption of grid electricity, reducing his electric bill. Excess solar electricity is sold back to the utility, often at a price far higher than the cost of wholesale electricity. The beauty of this scheme is that if the rules are sufficiently rigged in favor of the homeowner, it is possible for the homeowner to save money. No one could complain if the homeowner disconnected from the electric utility. But no one is disconnecting unless they live off grid. The utility is expected to maintain a power line to the home and maintain excess generating capacity to take over supplying electricity if it is cloudy or it is nighttime. The true cost of maintaining this backup service, exclusive of any electricity sales, is around $100 per month, but utilities commonly charge only around $10 or $15 a month for a connection before the first kilowatt hour is sold.

Every kilowatt hour of utility electricity displaced by solar costs the utility gross profit. If the utility is forced to buy the homeowner’s electricity at retail rates the utility may end up paying much more than the reasonable wholesale cost of the electricity. In some places the homeowner is even allowed to bank excess solar electricity and draw it at a later time. The utility doesn’t have a bank where it can store electricity. In short, rooftop solar is a scheme of making everyone else subsidize the homeowner. The homeowner is under the delusion that he has discovered cheaper electricity. It is cheaper only because everyone else bears the cost.

The crippling weakness of wind or solar electricity is their intermittent and erratic nature. A fossil-fuel generating plant can be fired up as needed and throttled up and down as the consumption of electricity changes. Wind or solar generates electricity according to the vagaries of the weather. The grid operators, except in extreme circumstances, are required to accept all the green electricity presented. In order to do this, fossil-fuel plants have to seesaw their output to compensate for the erratic wind or solar. Wind and solar plants can’t replace fossil-fuel plants for the simple reason that at times the wind and solar plants are not generating electricity. You must have enough fossil fuel along with hydro and nuclear to carry the full load. The consequence is that the system has to continue to maintain and pay for its traditional plants regardless of how much wind and solar is added to the grid. The only economic contribution of wind or solar is to reduce fuel consumption in the fossil-fuel plants during times when wind or solar electricity is being generated.

The proper cost comparison is to compare the cost of green electricity versus the marginal cost (fuel) of operating the fossil-fuel plants. Natural-gas plants have a fuel cost of about $15 per megawatt hour. Wind or solar with battery backup costs about $130 per megawatt hour. For grid stability reasons new wind and solar plants are being equipped with battery storage, greatly increasing the cost. Without the battery backup wind or solar electricity costs around $75 per megawatt hour. To be clear, the electricity supplied by wind or solar at $75 to $130 per megawatt hour (not counting subsidies) could be generated in existing fossil fuel plants for $15 per megawatt hour.

Why the various states and the federal government continue to pursue, mandate, and subsidize green electricity is a mystery best explained by psychiatrists and students of propaganda.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,480 Posts
so,, my being cheap, taking care of my equipment.. making everything I have last as long as I can...

IS being GREEN :)

my engines are always in proper "Tune".
my tire air pressure is adjusted correctly. before every Ride / Drive.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,173 Posts
Discussion Starter #36
so,, my being cheap, taking care of my equipment.. making everything I have last as long as I can...

IS being GREEN :)

my engines are always in proper "Tune".
my tire air pressure is adjusted correctly. before every Ride / Drive.
This is what I'm saying Chuck.

Now that you're an environmentalist, don't go turning into a dirt eating, bark munching druid. ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,507 Posts
I have been saying all along, since 3MI, nuclear power is the best way to go. There was always, and still is, the need to greatly improve it's safety as an energy source and disposal of it's waste materials. Progress has been made but more money resources have been spent in trying to stop it's use than has been spent making it safer. I've seen a few friends over the years spend a lot of money when building themselves a new house, going green all the way. Most wound up with houses that yielded pretty small pay backs considering the amount invested. Plus a hell of lot of extra hours spent on startup getting everything just right, and in maintenance keeping it all working properly. Then after a few years pass, many of the parts are no longer made and they have to start improvising. Once the fun has wore off, it just becomes headache and work for the owner. So if this were being played out in the old-west 1800's, in a bar or saloon, sitting at a card game, these green guys kept coming back day after day to win their good deals on futuristic solar power gadgets for their houses, even though a "win" still cost them a weeks wages or more. They often wondered why nobody else was playing when the payoff was obviously a great deal, but everybody else walked away from the table on the first game the minute they figured out the dealer was playing with a stacked deck.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,173 Posts
Discussion Starter #39
I have been saying all along, since 3MI, nuclear power is the best way to go. There was always, and still is, the need to greatly improve it's safety as an energy source and disposal of it's waste materials. Progress has been made but more money resources have been spent in trying to stop it's use than has been spent making it safer. I've seen a few friends over the years spend a lot of money when building themselves a new house, going green all the way. Most wound up with houses that yielded pretty small pay backs considering the amount invested. Plus a hell of lot of extra hours spent on startup getting everything just right, and in maintenance keeping it all working properly. Then after a few years pass, many of the parts are no longer made and they have to start improvising. Once the fun has wore off, it just becomes headache and work for the owner. So if it were in the old-west 1800's in a bar sitting at a card game, these green guys kept coming back day after day to win their good deals on futuristic solar power gadgets for their houses, even though a "win" still cost them a weeks wages. Everybody else walked away from the table on the first game when they figured out the dealer was playing with a stacked deck.
Great analogy. A neighbor, invested substantially in geothermal heating, and solar energy for their house. They have found themselves in the unfortunate position of having to sell their home. Their house is worth about what every other house on the block is. Maybe a bit more, but certainly not enough to recover cost, even remotely. Form a cost standpoint, it's a bust. Up here we have natural gas aplenty, and it's reasonably cheap. So from a cost recovery vs. Cost standpoint payback isn't anywhere close to what they were promised. Being this far north, winter has very short days, so winter is a power bust, and in the summer, solar can't run the air and everything else for the entire 24 hours, never mind cloudy days, so they still rely on the grid. Their big benefit they can watch TV when the power goes out ... at least for a while (depends on the power reserve they've been able to hold back). Frankly, they'd have been better off getting a natural gas standby generator.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,626 Posts
Geothermal isn't the sure answer either. From my HVAC days, and having attended geothermal heat pump schools, THEY told us that it wasn't really energy efficient, annually, unless you lived below the Mason-Dixon line, or mainly southern states. Yet many do it. The technology has gotten better in the past 20 years since my schools.
 
21 - 40 of 40 Posts
Top