Solar tower anyone.....(caution, the following sounds like a paid infomercial)

http://www.enviromission.com.au/index.htm

EnviroMission owns the exclusive licence to German designed Solar Tower technology in Australia. Our first project will focus on developing this revolutionary technology into the world’s first large-scale solar thermal power station capable of generating enough electricity to supply 200,000 typical Australian homes.

Being a world first and the largest engineered structure ever proposed for construction is unimaginable for many people - a short animated video of an artist's impression of this landmark development can be viewed by clicking the below link.

http://www.enviromission.com.au/project/video/video.htm

http://www.solarmissiontechnologies.com/project_technology.htm

Probably be able to see these from the shuttle (if it ever flies again).

Live long and crunch.

---

Paul
(S@H1 8888)
And proud of it!

I want one near where I live. Must have more power. Plus think of the view if they do put an observatory in.

Of course they'll NEVER let us build refineries to convert the product to fuel...

True. In say 79 the US had approximately 300 refineries. Today it's about half that, and demand has soared.

The wishy-washies prevent them from being built while demand soars. Hence the price goes up... And then fools say that making cars more efficient helps us save gas--which is, of course, wrong. The more efficient cars become, the cheaper gas becomes, which increases demand...

Good science combined with erroneous and touchy-feely economics still results in the same thing: junk science.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

As for wind energy, solar energy, and geothermal energy .. they all have moving parts, which need to be greased with... yep, oil. Oh well. :(

which can be made of vegetable and do not contribute to the global warming

---

which can be made of vegetable and do not contribute to the global warming

Ah, there we go. That will save the planet, greasing windmills with corn oil.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

If the gas mankind releases is just a small fluctuation of greenhouse gas as compared to what the planet can and does inflict on itself, then it is far less likely that our emissions are the problem. This planet has warmed and cooled itself in and out of ice ages long before we ever came along. In other words, it doesn't need us to do it, and the volcanoes won’t sign Kyoto.

Agree. But still, the pollution WE stand for ADS to it. Do we need to make it worse or should we try to make it less?
Anyway, I believe that it at least are a potential risk that should be taken serious and not neglect.

---

Agree. But still, the pollution WE stand for ADS to it. Do we need to make it worse or should we try to make it less?

As I said, China is the number 2 producer of so-called greenhouse gasses. They are exempt from Kyoto. So how is that "trying to make it less," when anyone who needs to produce just moves their plant to China?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

As I said, China is the number 2 producer of so-called greenhouse gasses. They are exempt from Kyoto. So how is that "trying to make it less," when anyone who needs to produce just moves their plant to China?

The number I have seen states that China stands for 13% of the CO2 emissions, have 21% of the worlds population & 3.2% of the world economy.
Furthermore it is still in lager parts undeveloped.

USA stands for 24% of the CO2 Emissions, have only 4,6% of the worlds population & 56.2% of the world economy.

Kyoto states that the pact requires industrialized countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 8% of the 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012
The fact that China are exempt from Kyoto because it is still rather undeveloped & have the worlds largest population . Despite that China has cut emissions by 17% since the mid 1990s.

Kyoto is not enough but it is a first step and the vast majority of the world, except the oil lobby, seams to think so.

---

Kyoto is not enough...

Exactly.

Do you understand the implications of that statement? Kyoto creates an incentive for the world's emitters to simply move to exempted nations.

As their emissions and populations expand, they have less and less incentive to cut their emissions, and every incentive to delay further agreements.

Besides, none of the volcanos have signed Kyoto either--one of them could easily emit in a few weeks what an entire country emits in a decade.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Kyoto is not enough...

Exactly.

Do you understand the implications of that statement? Kyoto creates an incentive for the world's emitters to simply move to exempted nations.

As their emissions and populations expand, they have less and less incentive to cut their emissions, and every incentive to delay further agreements.

Besides, none of the volcanos have signed Kyoto either--one of them could easily emit in a few weeks what an entire country emits in a decade.

The fact that a Vulcan "could" emit much more than a country is no reason for us to not reduce our pollution of the world.
A small increase of the greenhouse gases can release a tremendous change. An example of that is a frozen marsh in Russia that recently have started to melt for the first time in 11000 years due to a small increase in the temperature and now have started to release a huge amount of greenhouse gases because of that. Furthermore the weather is a chaotic system where a tiny change can have an enormous impact.

I find it reasonable that China is exempt form the Kyoto agreement because the fact that it still in many places still are very poor and underdeveloped and because of that have problems to raise the standard for the poor regions without increase the green gases.
The burden should, at least to begin with, be taken by the rich countries which also stands for the major part of the pollution. If you compare the pollution in relation to the seize of the population in China i think it's fair.

In EU the CO2 released from power plants stands for 30% of all the emission of CO2. Do you think it's likely that the power plants will be moved to China? Transportation within the countries is also a big contributor to the greenhouse gases and that Could hardly be moved to China.

Should the fact that Kyoto not is enough be taken as a reason to do nothing at all?

Much is speculation but what we know for sure is...

1. The temperature has raised and continue to do so which among other things
contribute to make stronger hurricanes.

2. Greenhouse gases contribute to the global warming.

---

The fact that a Vulcan "could" emit much more than a country is no reason for us to not reduce our pollution of the world.

Not "could," does and do. Nevertheless, the point was Kyoto is NOT a reduction in pollution. It is a huge incentive for producers to move their production to exempt countries.

I find it reasonable that China is exempt form the Kyoto agreement because the fact that it still in many places still are very poor and underdeveloped and because of that have problems to raise the standard for the poor regions without increase the green gases.

Hence the dilemma. You see, the countries that consume the products of production will not decrease their consumption. In other words, US companies, for example, simply move their production to exempt countries. Net result: they still produce the same amount of greenhouse gas to make products to meet ever-increasing demand. This is NOT a reduction in greenhouse gas. It is an incentive to shift the location of production. Nothing more.

The burden should, at least to begin with, be taken by the rich countries which also stands for the major part of the pollution. If you compare the pollution in relation to the seize of the population in China i think it's fair.

I see. What do you think happens to total emissions of greenhouse gas as the rest of the worlds population (85% or so of them) begin to consume on the same level as European countries? Think total emissions will go up? Or go down? If they see themselves not being able to live like rich Western countries because of Kyoto, will they try to raise emissions or lower them?

In EU the CO2 released from power plants stands for 30% of all the emission of CO2. Do you think it's likely that the power plants will be moved to China? Transportation within the countries is also a big contributor to the greenhouse gases and that Could hardly be moved to China.

Of course not. But rest assured, as the standard of living of nearly 5 billion people starts to rise to the level of the other billion or so, THEIR OWN power generation and transportation needs will produce many orders of magnitude larger amounts of greenhouse gas, than whatever negligible cuts Kyoto may have.

Should the fact that Kyoto not is enough be taken as a reason to do nothing at all?

No, however, the fact that Kyoto is not enough and exempts major producers should be taken as a reason to be done with Kyoto. Which, in effect, is what will happen without the US signing on to pay for it...

Besides, how much would Kyoto-mandated emissions cutbacks benefit the global environment? Some scientists estimate that Kyoto might avoid, by 2100, less than 0.15 degrees C of temperature rise. So, projected man-made warming that might have been 3 degrees C by 2100 would instead be 2.85 degrees C. For the costs involved, that ain’t an effective treaty.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Noting stopping us from going further in the future except pure prestige, grid and stupidity.
The sad thing is that some of us don't even want to start in the first place.

---

To answer Chris Schweizer's initial post; yes, I think Eileen Collins is right when she says that we need to protect what we have. I'm worried about the climate changes, as most people. The Kyoto (fiasco) agreement shows we cannot agree on proper measures. I'm afraid it's too little and too late. We probably must expect much worse weather conditions in the years to come.

But climate changes is one thing, energy consumption another. These two things happens to be linked in various ways, but IMO you can't say energy consumption leads to climate changes. The side effects of energy consumption are a problem, though. As for earth; pollution. As for humanity; resources. IMO, we have to solve these problems to survive in the long run. If we ignore pollution we might destroy the living conditions of humans and most other species. If we ignore the fact that we have limited resources, we will use them up too fast and energy will then be a rare commodity for the few. All others will be those who have little from before; the poor and the poorer.

I agree with those who say alternative energy, like for instance wind mills, is worth considering. The principle idea of using renewable energy is what we must consentrate on. Other energy resources will be emptied. And we'll have to invest in science and research. Technology advancement is a big factor, IMO. While we should invest in and use more renewable energy, we should also consentrate on making more out of what we already have. There are huge efficiency benefits to harvest. By replacing old water turbines, we can boost the output by 20-30% alone. If we could somehow store electricity in big loops - sometime in the future, we would not have to waste so much potential energy. In the future we might also solve the transport problem, so that no or little electricity is lost by heat during long distance transport.

Noting stopping us from going further in the future except pure prestige, grid and stupidity.
The sad thing is that some of us don't even want to start in the first place.

Pfffft. The sad thing to YOU, maybe.

As I said, Kyoto isn't a start. It's just feel-good politics that is ultimately harmful. A) Because it does nothing, yet is extremely expensive, B) because it convinces simps that have done nothing that they have done something, hence anything productive they might have done doesn't happen.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Pfffft. The sad thing to YOU, maybe.

As I said, Kyoto isn't a start. It's just feel-good politics that is ultimately harmful. A) Because it does nothing, yet is extremely expensive, B) because it convinces simps that have done nothing that they have done something, hence anything productive they might have done doesn't happen.

Kyoto IS a start and the timeline for it, stretches to 2012, sets the focus on the currently worst polluter per population exactly where it should be in that timeline.
Your major argument against Kyoto does NOT apply to the timeline for this agreement. Re-locate industries and get the production
up to full sped does not fit in the timeline for Kyoto.

---

Pfffft. The sad thing to YOU, maybe.

As I said, Kyoto isn't a start. It's just feel-good politics that is ultimately harmful. A) Because it does nothing, yet is extremely expensive, B) because it convinces simps that have done nothing that they have done something, hence anything productive they might have done doesn't happen.

Kyoto IS a start and the timeline for it, stretches to 2012, sets the focus on the currently worst polluter per population exactly where it should be in that timeline.
Your major argument against Kyoto does NOT apply to the timeline for this agreement. Re-locate industries and get the production
up to full sped does not fit in the timeline for Kyoto.

The problem is that Kyoto doesn't focus on the worst polluter per population. It focuses on politics. According to the International Energy Agency, 85 percent of the projected increase in CO2 emissions during next 20 years will be produced in exempt countries such as China and India as well as countries like Japan and Austrailia that signed Kyoto but had a deal that they can exceed the CO2 limits without any punishment.

Try reading this: The Toothless Kyoto Dragon. It is a rather fair article that goes into what Kyoto is about and it's not about the environment, it's all about politics.

---

To truly explore, one must keep an open mind...

According to the International Energy Agency, 85 percent of the projected increase in CO2 emissions during next 20 years

Which is a time frame that not apply at all to Kyoto. Again. Kyoto should be considered to be a small step regarding a small timeline that ALL the world could gathering around. additional steps must be taken but a 1000 mile journey starts whit 1 step.

This is like the following episode in the Monty Python film "Life of Brian" :)

JUDITH:
They've arrested Brian!
REG:
What?
COMMANDOS:
What?
JUDITH:
They've dragged him off! They're going to crucify him!
REG:
Right! This calls for immediate discussion!
COMMANDO #1:
Yeah.
JUDITH:
What?!
COMMANDO #2:
Immediate.
COMMANDO #1:
Right.
LORETTA:
New motion?
REG:
Completely new motion, eh, that, ah-- that there be, ah, immediate action--

FRANCIS:
Ah, once the vote has been taken.
REG:
Well, obviously once the vote's been taken. You can't act another resolution till you've voted on it...
JUDITH:
Reg, for God's sake, let's go now!
REG:
Yeah. Yeah.
JUDITH:
Please!
REG:
Right. Right.
FRANCIS:
Fine.
REG:
In the-- in the light of fresh information from, ahh, sibling Judith--
LORETTA:
Ah, not so fast, Reg.
JUDITH:
Reg, for God's sake, it's perfectly simple. All you've got to do is to go out of that door now, and try to stop the Romans' nailing him up! It's happening, Reg! Something's actually happening, Reg! Can't you understand?! Ohhh!
[slam]
REG:
Hm. Hm.
FRANCIS:
Oh, dear.
REG:
Hello. Another little ego trip for the feminists.
LORETTA:
What?
FRANCIS:
[whistling]
REG:
Oh, sorry, Loretta. Ahh, oh, read that back, would you?

---

Kyoto IS a start and the timeline for it, stretches to 2012, sets the focus on the currently worst polluter per population exactly where it should be in that timeline.
Your major argument against Kyoto does NOT apply to the timeline for this agreement. Re-locate industries and get the production
up to full sped does not fit in the timeline for Kyoto.

My argument against Kyoto is ALL of the points made above, not just the 2012 timeline.

And if the US (among others) doesn't sign up, Kyoto ain't a start. Like I said, as the standard of living of nearly 5 billion people starts to rise to the level of the other billion or so, THEIR OWN power generation and transportation needs will produce many orders of magnitude larger amounts of greenhouse gas, than whatever negligible cuts Kyoto may have. Why then is Kyoto of any consequence? It isn't because it the net result is a loss.

Why would anyone in their right mind bankrupt themselves for some political BS? Geebus, the Russians only signed on because of some political hooey--their forests will be counted as CO2 sinks. In other words, they can profit from Kyoto, at the expense of others. They aren't concerned with greenhouse gas reduction, they are concerned with profiting from the Chicken Littles.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

And if the US (among others) doesn't sign up, Kyoto ain't a start.

According to this you belong to a tiny minority. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories

---

Which is a time frame that not apply at all to Kyoto. Again. Kyoto should be considered to be a small step regarding a small timeline that ALL the world could gathering around. additional steps must be taken but a 1000 mile journey starts whit 1 step.

The time frame is irrelevant in this. My point is how can you reduce CO2 when you exempt nations and grant deals that make the agreement completely useless? You can't.

Kyoto does nothing, regardless if the US was part of it or not, besides:

1. Add more bureaucracy to already bloated governments
2. Punish business through fines, increased regulations, increased restrictions
3. Punish the general public through higher taxes and higher prices
4. Give environmentalist groups something global to rally around

I could support Kyoto if it actually had any positive benefit to the environment but it doesn't. All it does is keep career bureaucrats in their jobs. By the simple fact that Kyoto automatically exempted some countries that are ramping up CO2 emissions, made deals with other countries so that they couldn't be punished for breaking the agreement as well as allowing countries that don't produce much CO2 to sell credits to those countries that do produce a lot of CO2 (so that no reduction in CO2 is accomplished) shows how completely useless Kyoto is.

I keep hearing the "it takes 1 step" argument in many places regarding Kyoto but nobody who uses that argument with me has yet to convince me that Kyoto is a step forward and their attempts usually show it's several steps backward.

---

To truly explore, one must keep an open mind...