Do you think Gov. should ban wood stoves?

[Jim Timber]

Your comment about "science is all BS" leads back to evolution. If you believe in evolution, you shouldn't believe in using any of our technological advances in medicine because they're meddling with the natural progression which prevents actual evolving to occur. If you can't see that connection, I'm not sure how to better explain it.

You also seem intent on convincing us of a trend in our weather patterns. You even bolded it and increased it's font size. There is no trend of statistical relevance to be deduced from our current sample size (all of recorded history). None. It's too small to have any meaning, so stop trying to act like it does. That's a "chicken little" response in my opinion.

So to answer your question: I believe in responsible stewardship of the planet. I don't agree with allowing wanton destruction for the sake of industry, but I also think our current administration has gone way too far towards zero emissions, and it's not having the desired effects, and it's not economically viable or responsible. The solutions industry has come up with is to relocate gross polluters (per the EPA's standards) to other countries where they're not subject to the regulations and they pollute even more because they can get away with it there. Is that a responsible solution to you? As long as it's "not in my back yard." This is what oppressive legislation leads to. Look at China: they had to stop factories so the air would clear enough to have the Olympics. We did that. We sent all our dirty work over there - so we didn't really clean up anything; we just moved it out of sight and took all the jobs away. Is that what you want?

 

[Bowsnbucks]

You missed the word " if " at the beginning of the science reference, Jim. You missed my point entirely. I'm not a screaming " greener " either, bottom line. I'm dropping this.

 

[phil@thesidehill]

Your comment about "science is all BS" leads back to evolution. If you believe in evolution, you shouldn't believe in using any of our technological advances in medicine because they're meddling with the natural progression which prevents actual evolving to occur. If you can't see that connection, I'm not sure how to better explain it.

I actually agree with alot of what you just said Jim...except the above quote.

One could argue that the technological advancements of human beings are a part of the species' natrual progression of evolution. Early homonid species were relatively poor hunters until they developed tools (albeit primitive by today's standards but technologically advanced for the day). However, those same species continued to evolve (physiologically, mentally, socially, morphologically). I'm not sure where you are coming up with a definition of evolution that translates to "technology is bad and is unnatural and is somehow "meddling" in the "natural progression" of "actual evolution".

 

[Jim Timber]

I actually agree with alot of what you just said Jim...except the above quote.

One could argue that the technological advancements of human beings are a part of the species' natrual progression of evolution. Early homonid species were relatively poor hunters until they developed tools (albeit primitive by today's standards but technologically advanced for the day). However, those same species continued to evolve (physiologically, mentally, socially, morphologically). I'm not sure where you are coming up with a definition of evolution that translates to "technology is bad and is unnatural and is somehow "meddling" in the "natural progression" of "actual evolution".

How do you know that???? It's a guess. There's no records of homonids diaries lamenting their poor hunting skills.

 

[phil@thesidehill]

How do you know that???? It's a guess. There's no records of homonids diaries lamenting their poor hunting skills.

probably because they didn't know how to write at that time. The archealogical record has pretty solid evidence to suggest the development of tools is paramount in evolution of hominids as hunters. With your thinking nothing can indeed be known ever, and if its a "guess" (in this case a highly educated guess) it can't ever be true. Makes no sense. Why even bother thinking critically if all you are doing is taking a stab at it?

 

[Jim Timber]

The "evolutionary record" is littered with un-fillable holes Phil. Not only does it not work, but it's inherently flawed from the start.

If all life started from a single source (big bang), that condition would've had so much heat as to sterilize everything. No life. Then without impetus, life "willed" itself into existence. We've never seen that happen. For science to acknowledge something, it has to be observable. Flaw number one.

Now lets look at this further - Not only did life have to will itself into existence, but it needed a sexual opposite of the exact same species, at the exact same stage in "evolution" to procreate with. What are the odds of that happening? The chicken or the egg? So miniscule as to be ludicrous. This is the foundation of the theory which you're betting on explaining how we got here. It doesn't work.

I don't have the answer to how we got here. I actually believe we shouldn't waste our efforts on looking for it, because it has no implications on us now.

 

[phil@thesidehill]

How do you know that???? It's a guess. There's no records of homonids diaries lamenting their poor hunting skills.

you should also understand the word theory as it pertains to science. A scientific theory is not merely a guess (speculative and unsubstantiated) or a hypothesis. A scientific theory is often regarded as scientific fact and they are arrived at through the scientific method by the formation and testing of hypotheses. A theory is supported by observational and experimental evidence. You seem to operate under the assumption that scientific theory is rudimentary, speculative, and unsubstantiated conjecture. Scientific theories can be and often are referred to as scientific fact. A scientific theory can however be disputed and possibly even be disproven with sufficient evidence. Currently there is a scientific consensus that evolution (decent with modification) is one of the most reliably established facts and theories in science.

 

[phil@thesidehill]

The "evolutionary record" is littered with un-fillable holes Phil. Not only does it not work, but it's inherently flawed from the start.

If all life started from a single source (big bang), that condition would've had so much heat as to sterilize everything. No life. Then without impetus, life "willed" itself into existence. We've never seen that happen. For science to acknowledge something, it has to be observable. Flaw number one.

Now lets look at this further - Not only did life have to will itself into existence, but it needed a sexual opposite of the exact same species, at the exact same stage in "evolution" to procreate with. What are the odds of that happening? The chicken or the egg? So miniscule as to be ludicrous. This is the foundation of the theory which you're betting on explaining how we got here. It doesn't work.

I don't have the answer to how we got here. I actually believe we shouldn't waste our efforts on looking for it, because it has no implications on us now.

Biological Evolution is not tied to the "big bang theory". Big Bang Theory attempts to describe how the universe came into existence. Evolution (decent with modification as its generally referred to) has to do with the events that happened quite some time after whatever genesis event occurred. you are basing your belief/disbelief on things you have heard from some source somewhere not on the empirical evidence that is widely available and has been heavily scrutinized. "unfillable holes" such as? or is that from some such baseless argument you have heard made?

[QUOTE="that condition would've had so much heat as to sterilize everything. No life. Then without impetus, life "willed" itself into existence.[/QUOTE]

as you told me earlier...you dont know that. its a guess.

[QUOTE="Now lets look at this further - Not only did life have to will itself into existence, but it needed a sexual opposite of the exact same species, at the exact same stage in "evolution" to procreate with. What are the odds of that happening? The chicken or the egg?[/QUOTE]

A clear example of your lack of knowledge on the evolutionary time line and how cellular biology works. Again where are you getting your information from? And are you actually critically thinking it through?

[QUOTE="I actually believe we shouldn't waste our efforts on looking for it, because it has no implications on us now.[/QUOTE]
Because history has never been worth studying? The study of evolution may quite possibly have implications on understanding and combating things like cancer....yeah probably not worth looking into huh?

 

[Jim Timber]

What you cite as an evolutionary timeline, I cite as a wild assumption with a probability of nil. Then you state I'm uneducated on your assumptions. Rather circular. ;)

We can agree to disagree, your being right or completely wrong will have zero implications on yours or my existence in this life or the next. It's nice when you can argue a theory with no chance of being upset when it's invalidated by lack of observable truth.

Macro evolution is also not witnessed. At some point mutations would've had to be beneficial more often than not. Mutations we've observed have all been un-beneficial and often cause a weaker specimen than the parents. Don't think you know what I know based on how little I'm willing to type out here. I don't care to convince you otherwise, you should accept that it's highly improbable that you'll convince me - because I'm done discussing this. I'd rather worry about problems that have real-world tangible solutions.

 

[Native Hunter]

I've worked in the power industry for 39 years, and I can tell you that our nation has been mislead when it comes to solar and wind. Why? Because of the intermittency of the sources and the lack of reasonable technology to store it for later use. A rooftop grid-tied solar customer may indeed offset his bill by feeding into the grid at times, but the power company still has to have the same infrastructure in place to serve him when the sun isn't shining. Many important costs to serve that customer are still there - keeping the right of ways clear, having capacity in place for peaks, working outages, billing, etc, etc, etc.

Several years ago I predicted that when solar got to be significant that the poop would hit the fan, and its now starting to happen. Read the 3 links below from 3 different states where people are starting to realize what many saw years ago. But, the government stuck its head in the sand and still has it there. Think of the trillions of tax dollars that has been spent to promote something that won't even work, because it doesn't address the real problem.

In all of these links below you will see where grid-tied rooftop solar customers are going to be charged an extra fee because of this. It was obvious that this day had to come. But, you never heard about that - only that GREEN was the world's salvation. In fact, now that the day has come, the message still isn't changing in the government, but some customers sure see the light now. The third link has a simple little video embedded that explains in simple terms what I'm talking about.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/14/3567244/utility-fees-end-wisconsin-solar/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/16/3427392/oklahoma-fee-solar-wind/

http://www.srpnet.com/prices/priceprocess/customergenerated.aspx

 

[Jim Timber]

They just need to throttle the excess solar so it doesn't feed back into the grid. No generation = no proof of solar on property = no excess fee other than the new higher minimum usage fee. Sure, they don't get paid for their excess produced, but they also aren't paying for the wattage they generate either.

Our minimum is $15/mo at the cabin.

 

[tooln]

I can think of a lot more things that should be banned before wood stoves are.

 

[Jim Timber]

Lets not ban anything and let the world sort itself out. :D

 

[bryant]

Well at least the folks in Utah can have a fire through spring summer and fall.

What we need is a national ban on stupid people. Send all of them to France.

 

[Native Hunter]

They just need to throttle the excess solar so it doesn't feed back into the grid. No generation = no proof of solar on property = no excess fee other than the new higher minimum usage fee. Sure, they don't get paid for their excess produced, but they also aren't paying for the wattage they generate either.

Our minimum is $15/mo at the cabin.

You are lucky to still have a minimum that low. The trend in recent years is for that number to be increased. I haven't checked for a while but I think ours is already a little higher than that, and I seem to recall two utilities south of me that recently went to $30+. They did cost of service studies and that was the recommendation.

As for the solar generation, first let me say that I don't do any work for any of those three utilities I posted the links for, so I have no involvement with what is going on at those places. But, I do understand their perspective. They would take the approach that even if it didn't feed back into the grid, it is taking away from their revenue, and they still have the same fixed costs to provide service to the customer. Some of the variable costs would be decreased, but the fixed costs would remain.

It would be hard to hide solar panels from a utility because solar panels have to be exposed to the sun in order to work. When they are exposed to the sun, they are also usually exposed to the world for everyone to see - especially if they are on a roof. Also, if a customer can't sell back to the grid, then he must ask himself if the cost associated with the solar is worth it to him to begin with. Historically, the answer has been "no" but neither I nor anyone else knows for sure what that would be in the long term future.

My only point in all this is that the nation has an energy problem and all of the fashionable, trendy things that the government pushes as solutions aren't real solutions to the primary problems. If someone can find a way to produce and maintain their own energy needs at a cheaper cost and not depend on the power company for anything, then they are on to something. But really i's even more complex than that, because in order to help the nation as a whole, it needs to be available to everyone. Why? Because if half the population drops off the grid, then the other half that remains on it are going to be paying for all of the fixed costs themselves, and it isn't going to be a pretty sight.

So what are the solutions? No one knows, but two things are for sure: First, if there has to be a grid, do things to make grid power more cost effective instead of increasing costs. Or, second, come up with something to eliminate the grid completely that is cost effective and sustainable. Invent something significant to impact either of those options and you are a rich man.

Actually, there is one more thing - invent storage technology that is cost effective, reliable and sustainable. That would be a biggie for sure. Then the green movement would become compatible with the grid and it might even lead to the second option above. Billions are being poured into that right now, so who knows.... Best wishes.

 

[wiscwhip]

What I'm not understanding is how, if you were totally self sustaining and weren't hooked up to the grid in any way, is that any business of the utility companies. Taking away from "their revenue", too damn bad, like every other business they need to become more efficient. What about "my revenue" that they take away from me every month? If I found a cost effective way to save myself that "revenue", it is none of their damn business. That is free trade and you aren't using any of the items they provide, so now they think they can charge you for services not rendered? If I am not hooked up, I should not have to pay a dime. Are they going to start sending the Amish communities a bill to support the grid? Are they going to be sending a bill to all the cabin owners that run their power strictly from a gas generator? Greed and laziness toward not wanting to make changes or spend money to fix a broken, run down system is what drives all of this.

 

[Native Hunter]

What I'm not understanding is how, if you were totally self sustaining and weren't hooked up to the grid in any way, is that any business of the utility companies. Taking away from "their revenue", too damn bad, like every other business they need to become more efficient. What about "my revenue" that they take away from me every month? If I found a cost effective way to save myself that "revenue", it is none of their damn business. That is free trade and you aren't using any of the items they provide, so now they think they can charge you for services not rendered? If I am not hooked up, I should not have to pay a dime. Are they going to start sending the Amish communities a bill to support the grid? Are they going to be sending a bill to all the cabin owners that run their power strictly from a gas generator? Greed and laziness toward not wanting to make changes or spend money to fix a broken, run down system is what drives all of this.

I've never heard of anyone that is totally self sustainable from the grid being charged anything. That could exist somewhere, but I'm not aware of it.

The issue those links I posted are raising are cases where the people are still hooked up to the grid and using it part of the time.

 

[wiscwhip]

That is what I was thinking as well Native. And if your plugged in, of course there should be a fee, but it almost sounded in some ways that in the back of their minds they think they should be allowed to charge a fee just for having solar panels or a wind turbine whether you're plugged in or not, and that is BS.

 

[Native Hunter]

That is what I was thinking as well Native. And if your plugged in, of course there should be a fee, but it almost sounded in some ways that in the back of their minds they think they should be allowed to charge a fee just for having solar panels or a wind turbine whether you're plugged in or not, and that is BS.

Yep, if they ever started doing that, it would get a lot of attention quickly. Of course, if it did happen, it would have to be a law of some type that did it, because the power company would have no way to charge someone who wasn't even one of their customers.

Start listening for the next big wave in green energy - "storage technology." It's amazing on what has been accomplished on this already, but it is still far from being anything that will solve the nation's energy woes. Some examples: advanced batteries, pumped hydro, thermal, underground air compression, and the list goes on.

And, it's almost time again for another hydrogen fuel cell revival mode to start. Big hopes were going strong about 15 years ago, but what has anyone heard lately.... I knew a slick tongued guy who convinced a utility board (in another state not associated with me in any way) to put a fortune into one of those companies. He convinced them that in a short time people would be going to Wal Mart and buying fuel cells instead of hooking to the grid. LOL, that was back about 2000. So some things were worse than Y2K....

But, at least with the better batteries that will eventually come from all this, our trail cams should outdistance the Energizer Bunny.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

Native - I just came back to this thread today. When you said " pumped hydro " I assume you meant pumping water uphill and letting gravity flow run the turbines ? Niagara - Mohawk in N.Y. has been doing that for some time. I worked on a power house for Ni-Mo in the 80's and there was insightful discussion on that hydro operation then. ( I was on a nuke - not the hydro. ) Any drive for that ( pumped hydro ) where you are ??

To anyone -
At various points in time, the national discussion on fossil fuel - sourced electricity production was about reducing air pollution AND national security. In the case of all - out war, our planes, tanks, personnel carriers, etc. don't run on electricity - they require some form of oil to fuel them. Technology exists to produce diesel fuel from coal thru a relatively new science too. Just in terms of logic, wouldn't it make more sense to have multiple sources of energy to generate electricity and preserve the fossil - based fuels AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE ?? Like it or not, we live on a finite planet with finite resources. Coal & oil WILL run out - sooner or later. Methane and propane can be produced by organic methods if provided the correct environment (s). Some things are renewable. Wouldn't it be prudent to take advantage of multiple avenues of energy production and at the same time, reduce environmental pollution ??

We obviously can't go to all windmills or all solar - they are too intermittent. We NEED constant power supplied in today's world. But does that need for consistency have to rule out other sources of energy ?? A local utility in my area has 2 natural gas units on-line. I worked on them as they were being built. They have now built a BIG solar array next to the 2 gas units ( Pa. not known as a sunny, solar-top-choice state ) to take advantage of the sun ( free source ) whenever possible. How do actions such as these NOT make sense ?? The cost to put the array in is pretty much a 1-time expense ( and a tax write-off ) compared to daily buying of gas, coal or oil to turn the turbines. Savings = money, pollution, and natural gas not used. They tie in the array output at the same place so no big transmission line build. The government didn't force them to put the array in, someone had some long-range foresight into savings of $$$ and fuel - and maybe some CO-2 emissions. Terrible, huh ??

The quickest, longest-term, least polluting form of power generation is nuclear. A very small amount of fuel goes for decades, and even the spent fuel rods can be tapped for continued use. ( courtesy of French scientists who have come up with a way to use the spent fuel to a much lower level of radioactivity ). The steam coming from the cooling towers at a nuke plant is just that - steam. It's not radioactive like so many think. A Three - Mile - Island won't happen again because of redundant control systems in ALL nuke plants in the U.S. They were mandated by the Feds after TMI. If all the automatic control systems don't work, the control rods can be manually " cranked " back in to stop the reaction. All these back-up, back-up systems were not in place at the time of the TMI problem. So for a clean, ready-to-use, long-lasting power source, nuclear is available now.