Saturday, June 8, 2013

ParaPundit: Obama's Surveillance State And Terrorist Immigrants

ParaPundit: Obama's Surveillance State And Terrorist Immigrants

quote:

My advice to you: stop watching TV news. Unplug from the most powerful propaganda sources. Our elites pump out reality distortion messages. Your challenge: figure out the people who have taken the Red Pill and read them.

comment:

The Matrix! Dang.

Iron oxide cycle for hydrogen production

Found this while researching my own site. When all else fails...

Anyway, the wikipedia article links up to this one, which describes an intriguing idea that may be workable with a Fresnel lens that Rojas has been demonstrating on the Greenpowerscience site.

Now, I can envision a cycling of the lens so that it produces the hydrogen and then cycles back to consume the oxygen. A way to split off the hydrogen from the oxygen must be found. It may be in the article, but it is hidden behind a pay wall.

Perhaps I can think of one. It wouldn't be energy efficient, but that might not matter. Anything would be better than paying $3.50 gallon for gasoline.

A possibility here: at the 1400 centigrade, hydrogen is split off from the water. It will leave a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gas. The gas can be vented off into a cooling apparatus than will use fractional distillation to separate out the hydrogen. You can use liquid hydrogen for this. Rapidly cool it down until the oxygen liquifies, then separate the remaining hydrogen gas.

The cold hydrogen gas comes from the previous batch that has been cooled down to liquification. It can be cooled back down as before and reused again and again.

Perhaps you can recapture some of the lost heat by setting up a Stirling engine with the cold side being the liquid oxygen and the hot side being the hot gas mix. The Stirling engine can power another Stirling engine that does the liquification of the hydrogen.

Now, just take your oxygen and route it back into the reactor vessel. It will do the oxidation part of the reaction at the lower temperature.

You can cycle back and forth between high and low temperatures making hydrogen and recycling the stuff that makes it in the oxidation cycle.

Production of Hydrogen by Solar Thermochemical Water-Splitting Cycles

Florida Solar Energy Center

comment:

Once upon a time, I read about a methane reformer on the web. Now, after googling all sorts of combination of searches, I can't find anything like what I saw before.

How frustrating.

Anyway, I did find this link. Why produce methane when you may be able to produce hydrogen directly from a solar dish? It would not require transportation, you would simply collect it from your own property.

Think of it this way. If you drive 40 miles a day, it means less than 1 kilogram must be produced per day.

How much energy to produce one kg of hydrogen? If it came from thermal, it could be cheaper than using electricity on it, or so I imagine. Lets say 15 kwh would do it. Now, 15 kwh out of a battery may go 60 miles in a Tesla. With 15 kwh needed, and about 6 hours of sunshine per day, that would mean about 2.5 square meters of dish. Or Fresnel lens. That's three or so of Dan Rojas' Fresnel lens gadget thingies.

It would focus heat energy on the device and the device would split the water and collect the hydrogen.

This article doesn't discuss it that way, unfortunately. It seems focused upon producing a system that would require transportation facilities that don't exist.

Simberg: Susan Rice?

transterrestrial musings

quote:

Susan Rice is no more qualified to opine on matters of national security than a character from The Wizard of Oz. Like Obama himself, she is a highly politicized, over-credentialed Scarecrow, with certificates from Stanford, Oxford, and the Brookings Institution in place of a brain.

comment:

Here's what he's comparing Susan Rice to, the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz.

But Rice can lie pretty good. Maybe that's all that matters in this White House.

The political class is a criminal class and they are running the country

comment:

Hard as that lesson is to learn, the even harder lesson is that there's nothing that can be done about it, says this article.

Well, you can try, anyway.

Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)

The 4th Amendment Violations Will Continue Until Morale Improves

By Tyler Durden

Created 06/07/2013 - 16:46

It should be as plain as day at this point. Yet some people still have a hard time understanding that they're living under an oppressive, destructive, unaccountable government. Most other cultures get it. If you go to Argentina, Vietnam, Italy, or China, people there have absolutely no trust or confidence in their governments. It's something that's 'almost' uniquely American - a lifetime of steady, bombastic propaganda that inculcates a deep belief that our system is the 'best'. And, even in the face of such overwhelming evidence, it's still hard for people to break from this programming and acknowledge that their government is just as corrupt as Mexico's... albeit slightly more sophisticated. The politicians running the nation are sociopathic criminals, plain and simple.

Source URL: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-07/4th-amendment-violations-will-continue-until-morale-improves

NSA's Verizon Spying Order Specifically Targeted Americans, Not Foreigners

Forbes, via Ace

quote:

In a top secret order obtained by the Guardian newspaper and published Wednesday evening...Aside from the sheer scope of that surveillance order, reminiscent of the warrantless wiretapping scandal under the Bush administration, the other shocking aspect of the order its target: The order specifically states that only data regarding calls originating in America are to be handed over, not those between foreigners.

comment:

Those who condemned Bush for warrantless wiretapping have managed to make Bush look like an amateur.

Nice job. /snark

RUSH: There's A Coup D'etat Taking Place In The US

via Ace, Foxnews

comment:

I know.

Green Trucker post

This may be complex and need plenty of explanation. Also, it is a thought experiment and a speculation alert is in order.

With that, I begin.

First of all, it has occurred to me that you could possibly make your own hydrogen for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle conversion. It would require a conventional gasoline powered vehicle to be converted to a hydrogen fuel cell set up. First, the vehicle would have to be converted to a battery electric, then add the fuel cells for range extension.

Now, having done that, it would require the construction of the Sabatier reactors for the production of methane from waste carbon dioxide gas and water. It would require the construction of the reactors and the solar dishes. In addition to this, the devices would need a lot of unobstructed land with clear access to the the sun. As far as the solar dishes are concerned, use the Fresnel lens set up that was demonstrated on Greenpowerscience youtube channel. This will provide the power for the Sabatier reactors to convert the waste carbon dioxide to methane.

Leaving out the details of how to construct the Sabatier reactors, and since this is but a thought experiment at present, let's just see if the whole idea is economically feasible.

So, I constructed some spreadsheets which analyzes the costs of such a device. It is then compared with current prices for methane, and a speculated nuclear produced methane price.

The results show that from an economic point of view, it makes little sense to make Fresnel lenses to make methane. The market price of methane will be cheaper. However, nuclear produced methane would be cheaper than the current market price of methane. However, from a green point of view, a slight penalty for green methane might be considered "worth it". It may not be considered "worth it" to use nuclear power, but in doing so, one incurs a massive penalty, as we shall see.

From my own point of view, I could be interested, as a trucker, to obtain methane that would allow me to get the cheapest price for fuel. The cost of gasoline is way too high. If an electric vehicle could be built, it could make sense to do a conversion to electric and run on a fuel cell. You'd need a source of methane and a reformer and storage system for the hydrogen. Not to mention, an affordable fuel cell. Assuming I could get that accomplished, my options would be to make the green methane or just buy the methane and reform it myself from equipment that would have to be purchased. Since I'm not the type to build such devices, a speculation alert was certainly necessary.

All of this would be a huge commitment, so that's why it is a thought experiment for now. In spite of all, I could consider further thoughts on this and make a more small scale experiment if the spirit moves me.

Anyway, without any further adieu, here's the spreadsheets. There are three. One for the likely price for a solar dish arrangement, one for a breakeven price point for a solar dish arrangement, and one for a nuclear thermal arrangement at production cost. The nuclear thermal is not something I would be doing myself of course. In that arrangement, only the cost to produce is considered. For a entrepreneur to consider this, the costs here indicated that nuclear methane could be produced at a very competitive rate. An opportunity beckons for the right kind of individual.

Likely price of solar dish electric is about 30 cent per kilowatt hour

Note the market price of 7.82 for methane. Cell I12. Dish electric price is 30 cents kwh. Cell A16. Cost to produce solar methane: cell H27. Cost per mile to operate a Ford E150 van at 16 mpg with a fuel cell: Cell K32.

Breakeven for solar dish electric is a bit lower than the likely price. The set up would have to outperform the expected. That's why it isn't likely.

Note the dish price falls to 23 cents per kwh. The methane price falls to market. The price per mile drops accordingly. Note that I calculated the number of days to recover the cost of building a solar fresnel lens set up that Dan Rojas says costs in terms of materials. Cost of labor not included. It would take 132 days at 6 hours per day to make enough methane from one dish to pay for its own materials. See cell C23.

Nuclear thermal blows them both away. At 4 cent's per kwh, the cost to produce methane would be about 1/5 of the current market price.

Note at cell A12 that the cost of nuclear electric at 4 cents per kilowatt hour can be further reduced if electricity is not produced. That drops the price to ridiculously low levels. See cell B12. At cell H25, see that the cost of methane is approximately 1/5 the cost of the current price for methane. To operate a delivery van for 200 miles would require only $2.11 fuel. Is it worth it? Somebody ought to be doing this.

These costs are accounting for some inefficiencies. The reaction efficiency rate is assumed to be 90%. It may be higher or lower, I don't know. The cost of producing and storing hydrogen is considered to be 1/2 of its production cost. The cost per mile for fuel cells are considered to be twice that for gasoline powered vehicle of the same class. It may be higher or lower.

An apology for the charts. I tried to include as much self explanation as possible here. The charts are quite busy. There are a lot of details here. For example, I calculated that it would take 24 dishes to produce the required solar methane.

Bottom line: Too much of a commitment necessary for so many dishes. Other considerations: safety of the dishes---they can be dangerous. Weather is not considered. Rainy days and storms make for complications. Consider the thought experiment as an existence proof for solar methane, but hardly a strong endorsement for it. Nuclear methane? Hell yeah.

Friday, June 7, 2013

Green trucker post this weekend

Calculation show that I could set up a system for 1200 dollars plus my labor.

Channel your inner Homer Simpson

National Doughnut Day 2013: Where to Get Free Doughnuts - ABC News

Umm. Donuts.

Government cheese

When should I apply for Social Security? - MarketWatch

Where is mine?

Immigration Reform Update: Cornyn Plays A Shell Game In The Senate And Influential Republican Drops Out Of House Gang Of 8

AOSHQ

quote:

The problem, says the Cornyn aide, is that a security-first arrangement is just not politically possible. “You could put legalization contingent on triggers on the front end,” the aide says. “But that’s never going to pass Congress. Democrats are never going to vote for that. Republicans are never going to be unified on that. It’s never going to happen. You’re never going to be able to say, ‘enforcement first.’ It’s a purist position. It’s never going to become law.”[ emphasis added]

comment:

That's where the GOP is weak. It views itself as needing to be unified, whereas the Democrats already are unified. The GOP doesn't seem to understand that this bill is favored by Democrats because it is in the interest of Democrats and comes at the expense of the GOP. Why can't the GOP unify around that? Why does the GOP think they have to act against their own interests and support the interests of Democrats? It doesn't make sense unless they are terminally stupid.

The AOSHQ article points that out, of course. But I had to add a little of my own juice to it.

Eric Holder Refuses To Answer If DOJ Monitored Phones for Members of Congress

Chilling. The way Holder answers, it is as if monitoring Congress was a national security issue that can only be discussed behind closed doors.

We have an administration that views itself and its political adversaries as enemies of each other. Yet it seems intent upon defending enemies that actually want to kill Americans and do kill Americans. People voted for this, which is even more distressing.

The only thing I can note is it all appears normal. Nobody shouting. Nobody shooting at each other. Not yet, anyway.

The Financial System Is Running Out of Quality Collateral

Forbes, Free Republic

quote:

Another pressure point on bank profits is the haircut they must take on collateral they utlize to do their business. You used to be able to borrow 99.5% on the face value of Treasuries. Now you can only get 91 or 92% of face value. On corporates you used to get 95% of the value as collateral; now you only get 75%

comment:

Could this be a phenomenon that is related to all of this money printing?

When all you produce is paper, it is only natural that it gets manifested somewhere. Everyone needs to get into their bones the understanding that you can't create value out of thin air. You can create currency that way, but not value. Currency and value are not synonymous.

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Tentative: won't work

Bad news. Calculations based on 11 reactions per kilowatt hour gives it cost somewhere around $40 worth of electricity to make 16 dollars worth of methane at current market prices. That may not be accurate calculation so I'll have to recheck once I get home. If that holds up this is too expensive.

Update:

I've already done this calculation once.

Here it is again, but this time from another point of view. Verdict: It will work unless I've made a mistake . Now that I've checked it two different ways, the odds are less that that happened. The worry that it won't work was premature.

Biocrude is number two fuel oil

Fuel oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Says that's good for home heating. I am thinking process heat.

Rover to climb Mt. Sharp soon

BBC News - Nasa's Curiosity Mars rover reaching turning point

But there's no big hurry.

Fuel cell cars and molten salt reactors, a synergistic synthesis

This is a type of synergistic synthesis post of two different ideas

fuel cell powered cars, and
molten salt reactors

I think there's a solution for both that makes it a more attractive political solution than the status quo.

For fuel cell cars, the problem is cost. Fuel cells cost a lot, the hydrogen cost a lot. Now, if Aronsson is right about the fuel cells he promotes, then that problem is solved. For the molten salt reactors, if Sorensen and Hargraves are right, you can make cheaper hydrogen than from fossil fuels. If they are both right, and I'm right, then they can be synergistic. The synergies deliver real benefits for real people.

For example:

If thorium is cheaper than coal, this can reduce the cost of hydrogen. With cheap fuels cells, you can replace the internal combustion engine. This can revitalize the American automobile industry---if they are built here.

If molten salt reactors reduce waste, and can run on already existing waste, then they can be employed to reduce the waste that already exists without incurring additional risks. For there's nothing additional being created, rather it is existing radiation being destroyed. Employ this method of reducing radioactive wastes in order to obtain the energy in order to reduce carbon emissions. While doing both of these, you can also reduce dependency upon fossil fuels which have to be imported from unfriendly regimes.

This solves several problems on several levels, as you may infer. A kind of creative synergy.

If the reactors are on the site where the waste is produced, there's no need to transport it away from a secure site.

If the hydrogen is shipped as a green hydrocarbon, there's no problem with new infrastructure. It already exists for the fossil fuel industry. Green house gas remediation is a benefit.

No need to finance military spending on protecting long fuel supply lines. Money can be better spent elsewhere even if it is still military spending. We can change priorities to better suit our interests.

An additional benefit is that it will create jobs. Isn't that what everybody's looking for these days?

What's not to like?

Ace: Yeah So Susan Rice, Huh?

AOSHQ

quote:

People who do exactly what you told them to do -- especially if it was a noxious thing -- get promoted.

comment:

As a point of review, Susan Rice got a lot of face time with her blaming Benghazi on a riot, when it was actually terrorism. Just another reminder that Obama doesn't want people to connect the dots when connecting said dots hurts him politically.

But this appointment should allow anyone with a pair of eyeballs to connect the dots about Benghazi and the IRS.

This administration is dirty.

Partisan Bias Diminishes When Partisans Pay

marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution via AOSHQ

comment:

By the way, before commenting upon marginal revolution, the post at Ace is pretty good too. Read both.

I want to quote the following from marginal revolution:

In a new paper, Bullock, Gerber, Huber and Hill provide evidence that the respondents don’t actually believe what they say and the authors do so by making partisans pay for their beliefs...The paper also has implications for democracy. Voting is just another survey without individual consequence so voting encourages expressions of rational irrationality and it’s no surprise why democracies choose bad policies.

I'm coming to the conclusion lately that democracy is flawed. Voting is rigged ( as in the last election ) and those who do vote are "bullshitting" as noted in the article.

Is there a solution? Can you make people pay for their bullshit as is in this paper? Can you make the process honest?

Ann Coulter on IRS scandal

Ann Coulter - Tips for Right-Wingers on the IRS Scandal

comment:

The power of the state to interfere in the outcome of elections should be taken pretty seriously. It was that way with Watergate, it should be the same with this.

shared post: Paul A. Rahe: 'A Smoking Gun' on Ricochet.com

The plot thickens...
	Paul A. Rahe: 'A Smoking Gun' on Ricochet.com Source: ricochet.com Yesterday, thanks to Troy Senik, devotees of Ricochet were offered an opportunity to watch Jim McDermott (D-Washington) deny vociferously that the Internal Revenue Service scandal involved anything more than low-level bureaucrats going a slight bit overboard. There is here nothing to see, he suggested, nothing to be the slightest bit worried about. The IRS, he and other administration apologists argue, is an executive agency so distant from Barack Obama and so free from his influen...

I sent this using ShareThis.

comment:

Did Obama have any connection to the IRS scandal? Well, he did say something to the effect that he would "kill Romney".

NASA to launch equipment for 3D manufacturing in space

nanowerk.com/news2/space via Instapundit

comment:

Want to get to Mars? Nuke the problem!

House Talks on Immigration Reform Near Collapse

abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics

quote:

The stumbling block is GOP insistence that newly legalized workers now working in the shadows have no access to government-sponsored health care during their 15-year pathway to citizenship, according to two sources with access to the secret house “Gang of 8″ meetings.

comment:

Even that is too generous. There should be only extraordinary circumstances that would allow a "pathway to citizenship". No citizenship for law-breakers.

Methanol Production:Syn-Gas Considerations.mov

The production of syngas can be further produced into methanol. The pyrolysis process mentioned in an earlier post can produce the syngas, biocrude, and biochar. Methanol can be reformed into hydrogen at the point of sale for a fuel cell powered car. Biochar can be used to improve soils. Biocrude can be further processed into useful products.

Biomass to Biochar through Pyrolysis in a Double Barrel / 2 keg retort

Main objective in this video is the production of biochar.

Homemade petrol refinery ( sort of )

Instead of using the propane as is in this video, why not use the device in the previous video? Products are creosote ( biocrude ) , syngas, and biochar.

Here's a video that sets up a homemade refinery for processing the biocrude, produced just above.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Greenpowersciece video how to

Watch "Dan's Solar Tracker FRESNEL LENS STAND part 1 DIY table" on YouTube

Karen Kenney Testifies at Hearing on IRS Abuses of Power

Published on Jun 4, 2013 Karen Kenney of the San Fernando Valley Patriots testifies before Congress on the mistreatment of Tea Party affiliated groups by the IRS.

h/t Instapundit, and Hot Air

comment:

How did we end up with Obama? The economic mess that started with the Great Recession has a lot to do with it. But the recession began in December 2007, nearly a year before the election. Perhaps the collapse in the markets near election day had something to do with it? If so, was this event a natural event, or was this event precipitated in some way in order to manipulate the voters into supporting Obama? For the economic collapse was something that made Bush's presidency look like a failure, yet there were more people working in 2009 when Bush left office than there is now.

Now, with these scandals, one can ask the question: How did we get Obama again after such a miserable economic performance? Any other president would have been defeated. But not Obama. How come? Did these scandals make the difference in Obama's favor? If these scandals made such a difference, could there be a bigger one in 2008 that caused the markets to tank, and thus propelled Obama into the White House?

Management of perceptions

To some people, perceptions are reality. If a thing is perceived as so, it is so. However, if a thing is not so, and appears so, does that make it so? The perception can be manipulated. A magician can fool you with magic tricks. What you see isn't necessarily what you think you see.

With that last post, I noticed something that I noticed before. To wit, when you see some comments being made on a post, they'll be thumb up or thumbs down. This suggests approval or disapproval. Now, anybody who looks at this will think that the thumbs up or thumbs down indicator is an actual count of how well something is liked or disliked. But wait a minute. The numbers could be manipulated. Nobody is doing an actual head count of who actually likes a comment or not. Somebody out there could be voting many times.

I noticed on a comment that somebody used a lot of insults and so forth against those who supported the protest against limitations of free speech. The commenter claimed "extremism" and "bigotry" and so forth. Along with that was an unusual number of thumbs up for that commenters position and thumbs down for the comments that went against this commenter. But this commenter who got all the thumbs up appeared to be a minority of comments. Something doesn't add up.

So, I figured this commenter was jazzing up his/her thumbs up by voting up his/her comment and down everybody else's.

Management of perception, folks. What you see may not be the actual reality but what someone wants you to see.

The high cost of energy

At the risk of beating this to death, here's a spreadsheet calculation which shows how kinetic energy increases with increases in mass and velocity. Kinetic energy is defined as mass in motion. For example, in the spreadsheet near the bottom, a jogger going 5 mph has kinetic energy in the amount calculated according to the formula indicated.

By the way, my apologies for any mistakes. I'm running on a tight schedule. I have to work a little later today. If I am going to put anything up on this blog, it may have more mistakes than I would like. Anyway, any mistakes do not detract from the major point being attempted here.

Now, compare how much energy a jogger requires for his velocity as compared to an auto traveling at highway speed. There's a couple more comparisons there too in case you're interested.

The point is that kinetic energy required to reach a velocity increases rapidly with changes in velocity.

That's why the Saturn V required enough energy to supply the entire United Kingdom with power just for the purposes of getting a relatively small amount of mass that housed only 3 astronauts with enough kinetic energy to get to the moon and back.

That's why a baseball thrown at the speed of light will do some very nasty things ( because of all that energy).

That's why nuclear reactions are so powerful. A split atom will fly apart at a velocity that is comparable to the speed of light.

That's why a spacecraft that can do anything serious like going to Mars is likely going to need nuclear power to get the necessary kinetic energy.

That's why to live at the standard of living we are accustomed to and are dependent upon for our very lives is going to require nuclear energy to sustain it at some point in the future. We need the kinetic energy for our machines.

jogger's kinetic energy compared with various other objects and velocities

Now, an auto at highway speed requires 711, 111/ 172.8 times the energy of the jogger. Doing the math gives 4134 times more kinetic energy. The auto may be traveling about 10 times faster, but you need all that mass for the machine to get that kind of speed going.

The benefit of speed is time saved. You can drive much faster than you can walk. But that speed and time saved comes at a great cost.

You can survive on light energy from the sun. But by the time it gets here, some 90 million miles from its source, it is safely diffused enough so that you and I and the Earth aren't vaporized. You can live on that energy, but you can't power an advanced civilization with it.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Obama administration may have a fourth big scandal

The Gold Bull Vs The Paper Tiger

Peter Schiff, Kitco Commentary

quote:

Today, the fundamentals continue to point toward endless money-printing to support a zombie US economy. Meanwhile, gold and silver are being offered at bargain prices.

comment:

Good article. Well worth reading.

Great mom

No heroes allowed: Calgary student, 13, reprimanded for defending his classmate against a knife-wielding bully

Boy is being raised right.

Boston shuts down an entire city, when just a few could handle guys like this.

Don't be a hero

Hero Teen Punished by School for Stopping Knife-Wielding Bully

There's something wrong here.

They don't seem to think it's important that a life may have been saved.

Great job teaching the younguns.

Platinum v gold

A study of the precious metals charts shows rather curious observations. Price of gold may have peaked in 2011, but the price of platinum peaked sooner. The price of silver appears to have followed gold, but platinum did not and quite significantly so. Platinum did not follow the gold rally starting in 2008 at all. Platinum must be in its own little world.

Not worth the GOP's time or money

Mass. GOP Senate hopeful slams own party - News Local Massachusetts - Boston.com

All this party needs is another rino.

Rinos dont win in the people's republic of massachusetts.

Getting the Facts Straight in the Zimmerman Case

americanthinker.com

quote:

As the late Senator Daniel Moynihan reportedly said, "[e]veryone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."...The facts that follow are the ones with which both the defense and the prosecutor must contend.

comment:

Then he follows with a timeline that shows how improbable the case against Zimmerman actually is. The facts will have to discredited somehow before the prosecution can come up with a plausible case.

Maybe they are successful with it, too. It's the OJ trial all over again, but in reverse. All kinds of defenses were allowed for OJ, but won't be allowed here. All the prosecution's zeal will be reserved for Zimmerman, but not for OJ.

It ought to tell anybody with a brain SOMETHING, but does anybody bother to observe and think anymore? Or are we all zombified?

I hate to knock Elon Musk, but...

Tesla is a white elephant.

Look, the most efficient solar I ever heard of was solar dish engines. These are about 30% efficient in turning sunlight into electricity. So, I figured if you combine this with a car, you've got something. But there's no way to do this. You can't carry a solar engine on top of a car.

Perhaps you could hook up a battery to a solar dish engine at home. Then swap batteries when you get home from work. Or work at night and recharge in the day.

Otherwise, there's a problem directly connecting the two energy sources. That's the only way that anyone can make it work. Batteries are very efficient, in the ninety percent range. Forcing utility companies to buy solar energy that you produce isn't. Putting this electricity on the grid doesn't work because of its intermittent quality. This forces the rest of rate payers to subsidize the energy, which still isn't cheap. It would be cheap for cars, but for nothing else.

It doesn't pay to convert the solar energy into chemical energy for use later. That's because the conversion is only 50% efficient at best. You lose a lot that way. Besides, going to chemical loses all the advantage of electrical operation. Once you've gotten electrical energy, going back to chemical makes no sense at all.

Tesla is superficially plausible. But the logic breaks down in the real world. It doesn't work.

AOSHQ: "Conservative" Amnesty Supporter Jen Rubin: We Need Amnesty Because US Wages are "Artificially High"

via wapo

comment:

Let's see here. We have energy prices that are too high and wages that are too low. On the one hand, we got those in both parties who want cheap immigrant labor, and on the other hand, don't want cheap energy.

Looks like the working man hasn't got any friends in DC. They are both conspiring to increase our cost of living and to cost us our jobs and lower our pay.

Update:

Good stuff on Ace lately. Here's another one on the scandals.

Who's right? Dick Morris or Ace?

Not too long ago, Dick Morris said that the press would turn on Obama. But that doesn't appear to be happening, according to Ace:

“You and others have said that no one in the White House knew about IRS actions before getting the heads up on the inspector general's report last month,” George Stephanopoulos told senior White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer on Sunday. “Are you absolutely sure of that?”

“Yes,” Pfeiffer replied.

Do you believe him?

Knowing the consequences that would befall the Obama administration if the White House or Obama’s reelection campaign knew in real time that the IRS was targeting conservatives, I desperately want to believe Pfeiffer.

So, it's time to move on, says Schumer.

Comment:

My own opinion is that certain Republicans are kidding themselves about the media. I agree with Rush and Ace.

Schiff: 2/3 of America to Lose Everything Because of This Crisis

Money Morning

"I think we are heading for a worse economic crisis than we had in 2007," Schiff said. "You're going to have a collapse in the dollar...a huge spike in interest rates... and our whole economy, which is built on the foundation of cheap money, is going to topple when you pull the rug out from under it."

comment:

This economy only produces dollars, not tangible goods. Change this into tangible goods and then you get a real recovery. The way to produce tangible goods is to be a low-cost producer of energy. You don't do this with windmills and solar panels.

Monday, June 3, 2013

Why vote against your interests?

That's what the left likes to throw out there at you if you're a white working man.

I am a white working man. But the Democrats don't like me much as far as I can tell. But, neither do the Republicans.

The Dems don't like us because we are the wrong color. The 'pubs don't like us because... well, I can't quite figure that one out. Why do you want to swamp our culture with people not of this culture? This makes no sense. The Dems call the 'pubs racist, but if they are, they sure keep it a big secret. As for me, I got nothing against equal rights, but it looks like some folks are more equal than others. Right now, in this country, I figure I'm definitely not in favor when it comes to our political class.

The Dems might accuse me of being racist, but why did they vote for Obama if it is anything other than race? I can recall that these people were saying that we should be proud that a black man is in the White House. What difference does his color make if he's the best guy for the job? Why be proud just because he's black? If that isn't about race, then what the hell was it about?

So they tell me I'm not voting for my interests when they don't like me very much from what I can observe.

That's their argument. It doesn't look like much of one from where I'm standing.

Actually, their real argument is that they should have more power and with that power, they'll take care of you. You mean like they took care of MF Global's customers who got ripped off? When they say that they'll take care of you, you really don't know quite what that could mean down the road. Sometimes, it can get a whole new meaning. They'll sic the government agencies on you if you don't tow their party line.

Most people in the polls that I've seen would rather that there be economic growth. You see, if they would do just that, they'd be helping the average man. But these are the guys who believe in Limited Growth. They may try to run away from that phrase, and pretend to be for growth, but Limited Growth is what they must truly believe in their heart of hearts. Otherwise, you don't place your bets on windmills and solar panels. Sorry to have to beat that drum again, but if you have to pay more for energy, that's not good for economic growth. The only way to get energy prices down is to make more available. It also means being the low cost producer. For that will bring market share and that means jobs. When you are not the low cost producer, it means the jobs go elsewhere.

Sometimes elsewhere means to places that don't like us very much.

The lowest costs for energy is going to be nuclear. The left would have you believe otherwise, but that's IS the way it is. It cannot be otherwise. It's in the math and in the physics and in the chemistry.

If the left was really serious about global warming and growing the economy, they'd be pushing nuclear energy. But that's not what they're doing. Instead, they are doing the exact opposite. They're pushing us in the direction of our grandfathers. Solar and wind energy has been around for as long as mankind has been. Going back to that is not going "forward", but backward at least a hundred years.

As far as the so-called right is doing, they are not hardly any different. If the left objects, they'll just slink back into the background and hide like they always do.

In the end, the working man has no friends in either party. We need a new deal. Not the 30's kind, but a new kind of deal. This one's no good.

We gotta fix this or else

Noonan: An Antidote to Cynicism Poisoning

A bully would say , or else what?

Now I ask who is the bully?

Fair question don't you think?

For the Mickey Mouse Club

Solar plane leaves Texas for St. Louis - WSJ.com

Solar powered plane is an oxymoron.

War of words ( for now )

USA TODAY

Admin defense is "look who is talking".

Feeling confident?

Mars One, continued

As I've mentioned, I have some reservations about Mars One.

What about its good points?

For better or for worse, it needs to have some interest from the public. They have a plan for doing that, which I think is probably pretty sound.

Secondly, they've gone to major suppliers that will be needed, and gotten their support.

Thirdly, they've got a mission profile that has the best chance of success, with limited resources. Because of this, the actual cost of going there is minimized. This is currently being estimated at USD $6 billion.

Using a robotic rover to scout sites is good. Using it further to set up the site before habitation is good.

It's all a good start, but they are going to need a lot more than this. That's what worries me. This is not something that can be done on a shoestring.

Sacramento man swept over Yosemite's Nevada Fall while swimming

LA Times

quote from the comments:

[m.g. said]"12:34 AM June 03, 2013

People never think about the consequence of their actions beforehand.

It's the "Go Big or Go Home" mentality. It's the "man up" dare.

Well here you can't just "Walk It Off".

Society has encouraged this behavior.

People need to be taught to respect nature.

It's not a video game."

comment:

Just a thought here. Could the Mars One thing be the same kind of thing? A reality video gimmick?

Sitemeter gets the boot

Something's wacky about sitemeter. Maybe a couple years ago, I used it and it seemed to reflect the growth of the blog. But when I took it off the front page, the stats went to zero. I figured if the sitemeter wasn't there, they wouldn't keep track of the stats.

Now that I came back, the stats really didn't return. According to their stats, there still is very light traffic on this blog. Maybe that's true, but it isn't likely to be LESS traffic than their own stats showed when I left.

Moreover, I found some folks out there who have had issues with sitemeter. Looks like if you don't want to pay, you can't play with them. I can understand somebody wanting to make money and such. But this goes a bit too far. Not only with my blog, but the stories out there. The bottom line is they are going to be aggressive in making money, too aggressive.

So off they go. This time for good.

dailymail.co.uk: IRS employee in bombshell congressional interviews about tea party targeting

'Washington, DC wanted some cases ... I sent seven'

New details from an interview transcript put the IRS's unethical partisanship closer to the Obama administration's Washington, DC bureaucracy

Full Story:

03 June 2013, www.dailymail.co.uk

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Mars One and Mars Curiosity Rover

Which way is the best way to visit and/or settle Mars? Should it be a private project, like Mars One, or a public project, like the Curiosity Rover.

Keep in mind that the Rover was most likely a part of the Constellation program that was canceled. It had been in the works for too long for the administration to kill it. So, it is most likely surveying the planet to learn as much about it as possible about it before actually sending anybody there.

Now, you've got this Mars One project planned that will send its own rover in the not too distant future. It will actively seek good sites for a colony. The plan is to settle the red planet with volunteers beginning in about 10 years. They won't be coming back.

If anyone is to live on Mars for the rest of their lives, they had better find water. That's just the beginning. After that, they must be able to grow their own food. There's plenty of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, but it isn't quite that simple. You need everything that you have on Earth, plus you have to make your own shelter that not only is airtight, but has to shield you against harmful radiation. This is going to be a real challenge. They will have to build their own stuff eventually, if there is to be more than one generation of people living there. Who wants to be the last of a dying breed? My verdict---too ambitious.

The government is much more conservative and thorough. Normally, I don't praise the government, but a "take it slow and steady approach" to something this ambitious is likely to have more of a chance at success.

A chilling thought

It can be rather frustrating to watch how timid the GOP is in responding to the left. But what if that timid response has a rational basis?

That's the thought that passed through my mind when I saw this on Behind the Black. A politician decided not to run after the IRS intimidated him. The intimidation was clearly meant to bring about this very result.

Perhaps I will not be quite so hard on the GOP. Maybe some of them are just plain scared of government power. They may well have good reason to be.

That's not a good excuse, but it can explain things a bit. The government is out of control.

Update:

The complete story is even worse than it looked when I first read about it on Behind the Black.

People don't seem to get it

comment:

All kinds of bad news can be found by a simple google search of "all time high", or "all time low". The results should be a wake up call, but aren't. What gives?

Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)

Try This Google Search...

By Tyler Durden

Created 06/02/2013 - 12:35

About once or twice a month for the past few years, it's been a steady ritual of mine to conduct a Google search for the words "all-time high" and "all-time low". The results provide an interesting big picture perspective on what's happening in the world.

Source URL: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-02/try-google-search

NOURIEL ROUBINI: 6 Reasons Why Gold Will Plunge To $1,000

Free Republic

comment:

I read his reasons and I'm not impressed. He has a reputation. Reputations count for a lot. They may even survive sometimes when they shouldn't. I'm thinking of Warren Buffett. Buffett got bailed out in 2008. If he is so smart, why does he need to get bailed out?

People are looking for explanations for things. So do I. I have some ideas about how things are the way they are, including gold.

Back in high school, my civics teacher once remarked that the dollar has no value. It's value depends entirely upon confidence.

Look at it this way, the US dollar is a con game. It can only work if you believe them, and believe in them. Once they lose credibility, meaning the government, the dollar is finished.

Do you see reasons to be confident in this government? Those of you who do are the ones propping up the dollar. Those of you who do not are not helping the dollar. You will not be liked for that. Evidently, Roubini must like what's going on. I'm not so sure. Anyway, this kind of dynamic has always existed. There are always going to be those who dissent, even in totalitarian regimes. We aren't there yet, but we are getting there. Still feeling confident? Anyway, once that fear dynamic reaches the tipping point, the dollar will fall.

Buffett still has his reputation. The dollar is still strong. Maybe both survive. At this point, I'm not betting the ranch on it.

Jean Stapleton has died

Perhaps known best for her role as Edith Bunker in the seventies TV sitcom, All in the Family.

Maybe we really could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

Mark Levin: Obama Not Destroying GOP, Republican Establishment Is

To Mars -- in three easy steps

S. Fred Singer, american thinker

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service. The Ph-D mission proposal is based on a 1978 study performed for NASA under Order No. H-27272B and H-343115B. For recent writings see S. Fred Singer american thinker.com and also Google Scholar.

Quite interesting.

Possible glaciers on Mars

That would certainly help with making fuel if you could land a spacecraft in there. It is a large impact basin with higher atmospheric pressure as a result of its depression. The Hellas Planitia basin is located in the southern hemisphere of Mars. It is over 23,000 feet deep.

I was thinking of a procedure by which you would not have to take hydrogen with you, but harvest it from Mars instead. Using such a landing point as this would probably leave out solar as it would get blocked, I would suppose.

The water deposits there could be significant as there is evidence of glaciers that may be protected by a layer of dirt.

Ohio State’s carbon-capture breakthrough still has long road to adoption | Midwest Energy News

Ohio State’s carbon-capture breakthrough still has long road to adoption | Midwest Energy News

quote:

Capturing carbon dioxide is technologically doable, but prohibitively expensive for power companies, at least with today’s technologies. For example, the most mature CO2-scrubbing technology, called amine scrubbing, consumes a full 30 percent of the energy produced by burning coal—energy that would otherwise have produced electricity, said Liang-Shih Fan, a professor of chemical engineering at Ohio State University, who developed the new clean-coal technology.

comment:

That gives an idea on the costs of using captured CO₂ as opposed to using biomass itself. With respect to that question, biomass' cost is at best about $30 ton. On the other hand, thirty percent of the energy for carbon capture must mean about 30% of the coal. That would be 30% of $15.69 per ton in the year 2000, giving $4.70 ton. According to a source which I cannot recollect nor bring up on the internet, carbon dioxide can be had today for about $8.00 ton. Either number is significantly less that the $30 ton for biomass.

source: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/CarolineGeorges.shtml

Dynamotive makes drop-in fuels from biomass and claims that they are able to get the costs down to less than $2.00 a gallon if the biomass is at the low end at $30 a ton.

Can we do better with the LFTR? Intuition says yes.

Besides, Dynamotive uses some of its own fuel as process heat. That is relatively expensive.

With the LFTR, you can make methane with the carbon dioxide feedstock at $8 a ton and hydrogen created on the spot with nuclear energy at near 50% efficiency and energy cheaper than coal itself. This will produce the methane at a cost that I predict would be lower than the biofuel costs that Dynamotive claims for their drop-in fuels.

The methane can be shipped to distribution points where it can be stripped of its hydrogen and used in fuel-cell powered autos that are twice as efficient as gasoline powered cars.