Discussion:
Fuel from CO2
(too old to reply)
Jack May
2008-03-03 20:32:08 UTC
Permalink
A company (Los Alamos Renewable Energy) is developing a process that use
sunlight and hydrogen to convert CO2 and hydrogen to hydrocarbon fuel. It
is starting to look like even oil is potentually a way to reduce greenhouse
gases.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19726451.600-turning-cosub2sub-back-into-hydrocarbons.html

"They are developing a collection of technologies to retrieve some of the
CO2 that would otherwise pollute the atmosphere, using its carbon atoms to
form hydrocarbons. These could then be used as vehicle fuel, or as a
feedstock to make plastics and other materials we now derive from oil."

"The simplest route is to heat CO2 molecules to around 2400 °C, at which
point they spontaneously split into CO and oxygen. The problem is finding
the energy to do this."

"One of the drawbacks of this approach is the high operating temperature,
says Nathan Siegel of Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, where a rival team is at work. High temperatures lead to heavy
thermal losses, which in turn can reduce efficiency."

"One of the drawbacks of this approach is the high operating temperature,
says Nathan Siegel of Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, where a rival team is at work. High temperatures lead to heavy
thermal losses, which in turn can reduce efficiency."

"The energy that would be liberated by using these hydrocarbons as fuel
amounts to just under 1 per cent of the solar energy needed to produce it.
To make the most of the available land, Jensen suggests coupling LARE's
carbon capture reactor with an electricity generating station that would use
the heat wasted by the reactor itself. He reckons the combined installation
could convert as much as 48 per cent of the solar energy into usable
energy."
Kenny McCormack
2008-03-03 21:48:41 UTC
Permalink
In article <r-***@comcast.com>,
Jack May <***@comcast.net> wrote:
...
Post by Jack May
"One of the drawbacks of this approach is the high operating temperature,
says Nathan Siegel of Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, where a rival team is at work. High temperatures lead to heavy
thermal losses, which in turn can reduce efficiency."
"One of the drawbacks of this approach is the high operating temperature,
says Nathan Siegel of Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, where a rival team is at work. High temperatures lead to heavy
thermal losses, which in turn can reduce efficiency."
Really?
Jack May
2008-03-04 04:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kenny McCormack
...
Post by Jack May
"One of the drawbacks of this approach is the high operating temperature,
says Nathan Siegel of Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, where a rival team is at work. High temperatures lead to heavy
thermal losses, which in turn can reduce efficiency."
"One of the drawbacks of this approach is the high operating temperature,
says Nathan Siegel of Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, where a rival team is at work. High temperatures lead to heavy
thermal losses, which in turn can reduce efficiency."
Really?
That is what the New Scientist article says. Higher efficiency mainly means
reducing the cost per gallon of fuel because less land and solar collection
equipment is needed to convert CO2 to hydrocarbon fuel for cars and for
storage when the sun is blocked by clouds.

CO2 can be captured at power plants. One research group has developed
chemical structures that might collect CO2 from car exhaust with very dense
storage of the CO2.

It is amazing all the potential solutions that are popping up with the need
to solve the global warming problems. Lots of maybes in potential
solutions, but it appears that some of them have a good chance of becoming
real solutions that can go into high volume production.
Amy Blankenship
2008-03-04 05:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by Kenny McCormack
...
Post by Jack May
"One of the drawbacks of this approach is the high operating temperature,
says Nathan Siegel of Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, where a rival team is at work. High temperatures lead to heavy
thermal losses, which in turn can reduce efficiency."
"One of the drawbacks of this approach is the high operating temperature,
says Nathan Siegel of Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, where a rival team is at work. High temperatures lead to heavy
thermal losses, which in turn can reduce efficiency."
Really?
That is what the New Scientist article says. Higher efficiency mainly
means reducing the cost per gallon of fuel because less land and solar
collection equipment is needed to convert CO2 to hydrocarbon fuel for cars
and for storage when the sun is blocked by clouds.
CO2 can be captured at power plants. One research group has developed
chemical structures that might collect CO2 from car exhaust with very
dense storage of the CO2.
It is amazing all the potential solutions that are popping up with the
need to solve the global warming problems. Lots of maybes in potential
solutions, but it appears that some of them have a good chance of becoming
real solutions that can go into high volume production.
You act like global warming is the only problem. It's not even the most
pressing problem. The biggest environmental problem we have right now is
that we're using and/or polluting our aquifers faster than they can
recharge. There was a news story a couple of weeks ago that maybe the
problem is actually global cooling...
Jack May
2008-03-04 20:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
You act like global warming is the only problem. It's not even the most
pressing problem. The biggest environmental problem we have right now is
that we're using and/or polluting our aquifers faster than they can
recharge. There was a news story a couple of weeks ago that maybe the
problem is actually global cooling...
"Global cooling" in the news is a one to three year result of random
variations. Unlikely to be a real effect.

Global warming is not the only problem but it is a monumental problem that
is leading to a lot of damage to civilization.

We don't seem to have the aquifer problems in California. At least the
problem never seems to make the news.
Gary V
2008-03-04 21:05:07 UTC
Permalink
So we're going to unburn some emissions to create fuel that can be
burned again. Since burning is an exothermic reaction (releasing
heat), unburning must be endothermic. And they worry that this
process takes a lot of heat to accomplish, and they don't know where
to get the energy? Duh.
Jack May
2008-03-05 05:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary V
So we're going to unburn some emissions to create fuel that can be
burned again. Since burning is an exothermic reaction (releasing
heat), unburning must be endothermic. And they worry that this
process takes a lot of heat to accomplish, and they don't know where
to get the energy? Duh.
The energy is coming from solar reflectors that heat the CO2 to around 2400
degrees C. At 2400 degrees C, CO2 is converted into CO and O. Then
hydrogen is added to convert the CO into a hydrocarbon which can be burned
as a fuel.

So they know exactly where to get the energy for the conversion. The energy
from solar reflectors of course takes land area and lots of hardware. The
trick then will be to make the entire process cheaper than other approaches
being developed to produce alternative fuels.
Floyd Rogers
2008-03-04 21:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
You act like global warming is the only problem. It's not even the most
pressing problem. The biggest environmental problem we have right now is
that we're using and/or polluting our aquifers faster than they can
recharge. There was a news story a couple of weeks ago that maybe the
problem is actually global cooling...
We don't seem to have the aquifer problems in California. At least the
problem never seems to make the news.
Actually, Jack, CA has *huge* problems with it's aquifers.
Pumping in the Tulare region of the San Joaquin valley has caused
10 feet or more of subsidence. Most CA aquifers are polluted
with excess salts from irrigation, and nitrates from the same source.
CA has been buffered for decades by CO and Sacramento river
water. However, there is an article in this week's Science News
to the effect that Lake Mead will be running dry in 20-30 years, not
the 50-100 that was previously thought.

FloydR
Jack May
2008-03-05 05:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
You act like global warming is the only problem. It's not even the most
pressing problem. The biggest environmental problem we have right now
is that we're using and/or polluting our aquifers faster than they can
recharge. There was a news story a couple of weeks ago that maybe the
problem is actually global cooling...
We don't seem to have the aquifer problems in California. At least the
problem never seems to make the news.
Actually, Jack, CA has *huge* problems with it's aquifers.
Pumping in the Tulare region of the San Joaquin valley has caused
10 feet or more of subsidence. Most CA aquifers are polluted
with excess salts from irrigation, and nitrates from the same source.
CA has been buffered for decades by CO and Sacramento river
water. However, there is an article in this week's Science News
to the effect that Lake Mead will be running dry in 20-30 years, not
the 50-100 that was previously thought.
Thanks. Does anybody have potentially practical solutions?
Amy Blankenship
2008-03-05 14:55:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
You act like global warming is the only problem. It's not even the
most pressing problem. The biggest environmental problem we have right
now is that we're using and/or polluting our aquifers faster than they
can recharge. There was a news story a couple of weeks ago that maybe
the problem is actually global cooling...
We don't seem to have the aquifer problems in California. At least the
problem never seems to make the news.
Actually, Jack, CA has *huge* problems with it's aquifers.
Pumping in the Tulare region of the San Joaquin valley has caused
10 feet or more of subsidence. Most CA aquifers are polluted
with excess salts from irrigation, and nitrates from the same source.
CA has been buffered for decades by CO and Sacramento river
water. However, there is an article in this week's Science News
to the effect that Lake Mead will be running dry in 20-30 years, not
the 50-100 that was previously thought.
Thanks. Does anybody have potentially practical solutions?
1) Quit paving over the infiltration zones.
2) Switch to less chemical-intensive farming methods
3) Discourage development in areas that already have a lot of pressure on
the aquifers.

There are also technologies where people are trying to clean aquifers that
have been polluted, but they are expensive and no one knows how effective
they will be. The best solution is to quit doing things that deplete and
pollute aquifers.
Jack May
2008-03-05 21:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Jack May
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
You act like global warming is the only problem. It's not even the
most pressing problem. The biggest environmental problem we have
right now is that we're using and/or polluting our aquifers faster
than they can recharge. There was a news story a couple of weeks ago
that maybe the problem is actually global cooling...
We don't seem to have the aquifer problems in California. At least
the problem never seems to make the news.
Actually, Jack, CA has *huge* problems with it's aquifers.
Pumping in the Tulare region of the San Joaquin valley has caused
10 feet or more of subsidence. Most CA aquifers are polluted
with excess salts from irrigation, and nitrates from the same source.
CA has been buffered for decades by CO and Sacramento river
water. However, there is an article in this week's Science News
to the effect that Lake Mead will be running dry in 20-30 years, not
the 50-100 that was previously thought.
Thanks. Does anybody have potentially practical solutions?
1) Quit paving over the infiltration zones.
2) Switch to less chemical-intensive farming methods
3) Discourage development in areas that already have a lot of pressure
on the aquifers.
There are also technologies where people are trying to clean aquifers that
have been polluted, but they are expensive and no one knows how effective
they will be. The best solution is to quit doing things that deplete and
pollute aquifers.
The reason that drip irrigation was developed was to solve the problem of
salt build up. I assume it is more expensive than other types of farming
but Israel seems to do very well with it.

A lot better than your three "stop the world" approaches.
Floyd Rogers
2008-03-05 23:21:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
There are also technologies where people are trying to clean aquifers
that have been polluted, but they are expensive and no one knows how
effective they will be. The best solution is to quit doing things that
deplete and pollute aquifers.
The reason that drip irrigation was developed was to solve the problem of
salt build up. I assume it is more expensive than other types of farming
but Israel seems to do very well with it.
The problem is that the only irrigators that have a desire to switch to
drip are those with junior water rights. And even then they can just
increase their pumping from acquifers; screw their neighbors.

Senior water districts are caught in a "use it or lose it" situation; none
of them wants to lose any rights that they currently have, even if they
could switch to drip and continue irrigating their current or increased
acreage.

FloydR
Amy Blankenship
2008-03-06 03:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
There are also technologies where people are trying to clean aquifers
that have been polluted, but they are expensive and no one knows how
effective they will be. The best solution is to quit doing things that
deplete and pollute aquifers.
The reason that drip irrigation was developed was to solve the problem of
salt build up. I assume it is more expensive than other types of
farming but Israel seems to do very well with it.
The problem is that the only irrigators that have a desire to switch to
drip are those with junior water rights. And even then they can just
increase their pumping from acquifers; screw their neighbors.
Senior water districts are caught in a "use it or lose it" situation; none
of them wants to lose any rights that they currently have, even if they
could switch to drip and continue irrigating their current or increased
acreage.
Plus, drip irrigation only addresses part of the problem. Things like
no-till planting and trap crops are already starting to take hold as farmers
see how they can reduce their expenditures for labor, fertilizer, and
insecticide, while maintaining or increasing yields.
Amy Blankenship
2008-03-06 03:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Jack May
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
You act like global warming is the only problem. It's not even the
most pressing problem. The biggest environmental problem we have
right now is that we're using and/or polluting our aquifers faster
than they can recharge. There was a news story a couple of weeks ago
that maybe the problem is actually global cooling...
We don't seem to have the aquifer problems in California. At least
the problem never seems to make the news.
Actually, Jack, CA has *huge* problems with it's aquifers.
Pumping in the Tulare region of the San Joaquin valley has caused
10 feet or more of subsidence. Most CA aquifers are polluted
with excess salts from irrigation, and nitrates from the same source.
CA has been buffered for decades by CO and Sacramento river
water. However, there is an article in this week's Science News
to the effect that Lake Mead will be running dry in 20-30 years, not
the 50-100 that was previously thought.
Thanks. Does anybody have potentially practical solutions?
1) Quit paving over the infiltration zones.
2) Switch to less chemical-intensive farming methods
3) Discourage development in areas that already have a lot of pressure
on the aquifers.
There are also technologies where people are trying to clean aquifers
that have been polluted, but they are expensive and no one knows how
effective they will be. The best solution is to quit doing things that
deplete and pollute aquifers.
The reason that drip irrigation was developed was to solve the problem of
salt build up. I assume it is more expensive than other types of farming
but Israel seems to do very well with it.
A lot better than your three "stop the world" approaches.
Sure, let's just do things that don't work very well. We couldn't ask
ourselves to actually change our approach to anything. After all, by the
time the aquifer problem gets critical, we'll be elderly or dead. Let those
young energetic whipper-snappers solve the problem, even if it is insoluble
(pun intended) by then.
Jack May
2008-03-06 04:26:30 UTC
Permalink
lot better than your three "stop the world" approaches.
Post by Amy Blankenship
Sure, let's just do things that don't work very well. We couldn't ask
ourselves to actually change our approach to anything. After all, by the
time the aquifer problem gets critical, we'll be elderly or dead. Let
those young energetic whipper-snappers solve the problem, even if it is
insoluble (pun intended) by then.
Everything in your list has zero chances of working because you can not
figure out any way to benefit the people that would have to do it. Doing
it "for the good of society" never works.

But you don't understand people or planning. You just think thing will
magically happen if you just say the good words. You continually show you
have no capability to develop anything resembling a realistic solution.
Amy Blankenship
2008-03-06 16:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
Sure, let's just do things that don't work very well. We couldn't ask
ourselves to actually change our approach to anything. After all, by the
time the aquifer problem gets critical, we'll be elderly or dead. Let
those young energetic whipper-snappers solve the problem, even if it is
insoluble (pun intended) by then.
Everything in your list has zero chances of working because you can not
figure out any way to benefit the people that would have to do it. Doing
it "for the good of society" never works.
But you don't understand people or planning. You just think thing will
magically happen if you just say the good words. You continually show you
have no capability to develop anything resembling a realistic solution.
I think it's sad you have such a low vision of humanity that you think that
there is no way people will take a short-term hit for long-term gain.
James Robinson
2008-03-07 15:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
Sure, let's just do things that don't work very well. We couldn't
ask ourselves to actually change our approach to anything. After
all, by the time the aquifer problem gets critical, we'll be elderly
or dead. Let those young energetic whipper-snappers solve the
problem, even if it is insoluble (pun intended) by then.
Everything in your list has zero chances of working because you can
not figure out any way to benefit the people that would have to do it.
Doing it "for the good of society" never works.
But you don't understand people or planning. You just think thing
will magically happen if you just say the good words. You continually
show you have no capability to develop anything resembling a realistic
solution.
Your approach seems to be to do nothing until the water problems become so
critical that urgent attention will be required to recover. That's the
same approach that was used when industries dumped their waste into the
Great Lakes and eastern rivers. It was the easy way of handling waste,
since just dumping it cost so little, and treating it was far more
expensive. Changing that approach cost the people that had to do it
plenty, which is contrary to your assumptions.
Jack May
2008-03-06 05:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Jack May
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
You act like global warming is the only problem. It's not even the
most pressing problem. The biggest environmental problem we have
right now is that we're using and/or polluting our aquifers faster
than they can recharge. There was a news story a couple of weeks ago
that maybe the problem is actually global cooling...
We don't seem to have the aquifer problems in California. At least
the problem never seems to make the news.
Actually, Jack, CA has *huge* problems with it's aquifers.
Pumping in the Tulare region of the San Joaquin valley has caused
10 feet or more of subsidence. Most CA aquifers are polluted
with excess salts from irrigation, and nitrates from the same source.
CA has been buffered for decades by CO and Sacramento river
water. However, there is an article in this week's Science News
to the effect that Lake Mead will be running dry in 20-30 years, not
the 50-100 that was previously thought.
Thanks. Does anybody have potentially practical solutions?
1) Quit paving over the infiltration zones.
2) Switch to less chemical-intensive farming methods
3) Discourage development in areas that already have a lot of pressure
on the aquifers.
There are also technologies where people are trying to clean aquifers that
have been polluted, but they are expensive and no one knows how effective
they will be. The best solution is to quit doing things that deplete and
pollute aquifers.
Since Amy has little capability to explain what she means, let me translate.

Statement (1) says she thinks eliminating all cars and going back to the
19th century with trains will solve all problems. She assumes trains would
produce no bad effects on aquifers. Coal and diesel for trains are of
course perfect, non-polluting fuels in her mind since that is what trains
use.

Statement (2) says more organic farming will solve all problems. If less
food can be produced, or people can't afford the more expensive food, and
people die, so be it. In her mind it is a perfect solution.

Statement (3) is saying that there is no reason to develop areas for people
to live. If there is no place for people to live and work there will be no
problems. She does not think that people need to live near their jobs and
there is never any reason to live in any specific place.

Amy considers herself to be a great Government planner that is much better
at planning for urban areas than anybody outside of Government.
Amy Blankenship
2008-03-06 16:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Jack May
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
You act like global warming is the only problem. It's not even the
most pressing problem. The biggest environmental problem we have
right now is that we're using and/or polluting our aquifers faster
than they can recharge. There was a news story a couple of weeks ago
that maybe the problem is actually global cooling...
We don't seem to have the aquifer problems in California. At least
the problem never seems to make the news.
Actually, Jack, CA has *huge* problems with it's aquifers.
Pumping in the Tulare region of the San Joaquin valley has caused
10 feet or more of subsidence. Most CA aquifers are polluted
with excess salts from irrigation, and nitrates from the same source.
CA has been buffered for decades by CO and Sacramento river
water. However, there is an article in this week's Science News
to the effect that Lake Mead will be running dry in 20-30 years, not
the 50-100 that was previously thought.
Thanks. Does anybody have potentially practical solutions?
1) Quit paving over the infiltration zones.
2) Switch to less chemical-intensive farming methods
3) Discourage development in areas that already have a lot of pressure
on the aquifers.
There are also technologies where people are trying to clean aquifers
that have been polluted, but they are expensive and no one knows how
effective they will be. The best solution is to quit doing things that
deplete and pollute aquifers.
Since Amy has little capability to explain what she means, let me translate.
Statement (1) says she thinks eliminating all cars and going back to the
19th century with trains will solve all problems. She assumes trains
would produce no bad effects on aquifers. Coal and diesel for trains are
of course perfect, non-polluting fuels in her mind since that is what
trains use.
If you think that is what I said, you have SERIOUS reading comprehension
issues.
Post by Jack May
Statement (2) says more organic farming will solve all problems. If less
food can be produced, or people can't afford the more expensive food, and
people die, so be it. In her mind it is a perfect solution.
See my comment above.
Post by Jack May
Statement (3) is saying that there is no reason to develop areas for
people to live. If there is no place for people to live and work there
will be no problems. She does not think that people need to live near
their jobs and there is never any reason to live in any specific place.
See my comments to one and two.
Post by Jack May
Amy considers herself to be a great Government planner that is much better
at planning for urban areas than anybody outside of Government.
Jack May doesn't care how moronic these strange statements make him look.
In fact, the less sense his position has, the prouder he is of it.
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.
2008-03-05 14:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
"Global cooling" in the news is a one to three year result of random
variations. Unlikely to be a real effect.
Right.
Post by Jack May
Global warming is not the only problem but it is a monumental problem that
is leading to a lot of damage to civilization.
Seems not to have hurt us much the last several time it hapened.
Post by Jack May
We don't seem to have the aquifer problems in California. At least the
problem never seems to make the news.
Can you say "Kesterson"? How about "Owens Valley"?


Oh...Jack May...must repair filters on this computer. Or set up a
central server....
Amy Blankenship
2008-03-05 14:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
You act like global warming is the only problem. It's not even the most
pressing problem. The biggest environmental problem we have right now is
that we're using and/or polluting our aquifers faster than they can
recharge. There was a news story a couple of weeks ago that maybe the
problem is actually global cooling...
"Global cooling" in the news is a one to three year result of random
variations. Unlikely to be a real effect.
Global warming is not the only problem but it is a monumental problem that
is leading to a lot of damage to civilization.
We don't seem to have the aquifer problems in California. At least the
problem never seems to make the news.
Right. California has no water issues ;-)
Jack May
2008-03-05 21:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Right. California has no water issues ;-)
In the heavily populated areas of California (where I live), the water comes
from melting snow in the mountains. The aquifers are replenished with this
good quality water from rain and snow run off.

Shortage of water is different than build up of salts. California is in
the early states of desalination of ocean water to handle our population
growth caused by job growth.

We don't get a lot of farm and crop news in the high tech SF Bay area.
James Robinson
2008-03-05 23:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
We don't get a lot of farm and crop news in the high tech SF Bay area.
Considering that California is the largest agricultural state in the
country, in terms of cash receipts, you just aren't paying attention.
Floyd Rogers
2008-03-06 00:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Robinson
Post by Jack May
We don't get a lot of farm and crop news in the high tech SF Bay area.
Considering that California is the largest agricultural state in the
country, in terms of cash receipts, you just aren't paying attention.
Especially since Sacramento is just a short drive east on I80.
And half-way there is UC Davis, one of the largest ag schools
around. Oh, and UC Berkeley has some of the finest environmental
programs anywhere (in addition to some fine computer science ed.)

Of course, many SF/Silicon Valley people just contemplate their
navels when off-work.

FloydR
Amy Blankenship
2008-03-06 03:35:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by James Robinson
Post by Jack May
We don't get a lot of farm and crop news in the high tech SF Bay area.
Considering that California is the largest agricultural state in the
country, in terms of cash receipts, you just aren't paying attention.
Especially since Sacramento is just a short drive east on I80.
And half-way there is UC Davis, one of the largest ag schools
around. Oh, and UC Berkeley has some of the finest environmental
programs anywhere (in addition to some fine computer science ed.)
Of course, many SF/Silicon Valley people just contemplate their
navels when off-work.
I think Jack spends his time fantasizing about how technology can rescue us
from the consequences of even the most egregious shortsightedness and
carelessness.
Jack May
2008-03-06 04:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by James Robinson
Post by Jack May
We don't get a lot of farm and crop news in the high tech SF Bay area.
Considering that California is the largest agricultural state in the
country, in terms of cash receipts, you just aren't paying attention.
Especially since Sacramento is just a short drive east on I80.
And half-way there is UC Davis, one of the largest ag schools
around. Oh, and UC Berkeley has some of the finest environmental
programs anywhere (in addition to some fine computer science ed.)
Of course, many SF/Silicon Valley people just contemplate their
navels when off-work.
I think Jack spends his time fantasizing about how technology can rescue
us from the consequences of even the most egregious shortsightedness and
carelessness.
My life is technology and I am developing cutting edge technology. That is
called work, not fantasizing.

I see that you mainly ignore anything related to reality because you are not
capable of dealing with real life.
Jack May
2008-03-06 04:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Robinson
Post by Jack May
We don't get a lot of farm and crop news in the high tech SF Bay area.
Considering that California is the largest agricultural state in the
country, in terms of cash receipts, you just aren't paying attention.
I have many things to which I need to pay attention. If I can have no
effect on something or something does not effect what I am dealing with,
then paying a lot of attention to it is a waste of time.

If you ever get to the point in life where you are very busy, you will
probably do what I do and continually decide what to deal with and what to
largely ignore.
James Robinson
2008-03-07 15:48:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by James Robinson
Post by Jack May
We don't get a lot of farm and crop news in the high tech SF Bay area.
Considering that California is the largest agricultural state in the
country, in terms of cash receipts, you just aren't paying attention.
I have many things to which I need to pay attention. If I can have
no effect on something or something does not effect what I am dealing
with, then paying a lot of attention to it is a waste of time.
Choosing to ignore the news is entirely different than not getting it.
Post by Jack May
If you ever get to the point in life where you are very busy, you will
probably do what I do and continually decide what to deal with and
what to largely ignore.
What makes you think you are somehow any different than pretty well anyone
else in the world?
Amy Blankenship
2008-03-06 03:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
Right. California has no water issues ;-)
In the heavily populated areas of California (where I live), the water
comes from melting snow in the mountains. The aquifers are replenished
with this good quality water from rain and snow run off.
But not as much as they would be (and were once) if everything weren't paved
over.
Jack May
2008-03-06 04:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
Right. California has no water issues ;-)
In the heavily populated areas of California (where I live), the water
comes from melting snow in the mountains. The aquifers are replenished
with this good quality water from rain and snow run off.
But not as much as they would be (and were once) if everything weren't
paved over.
What a totally ignorant statement. Everything is not paved over and
wanting Silicon Valley to go back to a wilderness amazing stupidity. You
have no conception of what is required to make society work. So you want
everything to be dirt roads with horse and buggies?
Amy Blankenship
2008-03-06 16:19:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
Right. California has no water issues ;-)
In the heavily populated areas of California (where I live), the water
comes from melting snow in the mountains. The aquifers are replenished
with this good quality water from rain and snow run off.
But not as much as they would be (and were once) if everything weren't
paved over.
What a totally ignorant statement. Everything is not paved over and
wanting Silicon Valley to go back to a wilderness amazing stupidity. You
have no conception of what is required to make society work. So you want
everything to be dirt roads with horse and buggies?
I want us to pay attention to what we're doing to the environment and, at
the least, QUIT MAKING IT WORSE. When we've dug our way into a hole we
can't get out of, no amount of Pollyanna optimism will get us out. Now,
when we _might_ have a chance to recover from our own stupidity, we should
look honestly at the problems and ALL possible solutions (not just the
easy/convenient) ones and see what can be done to pull back before it is too
late. But, though you accuse me of ignoring reality, the truth is, you
ignore any part of reality that doesn't fit your pat vision of a
market-driven car-centric utopia.
Scott M. Kozel
2008-03-07 00:03:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Jack May
What a totally ignorant statement. Everything is not paved over and
wanting Silicon Valley to go back to a wilderness amazing stupidity. You
have no conception of what is required to make society work. So you want
everything to be dirt roads with horse and buggies?
I want us to pay attention to what we're doing to the environment and, at
the least, QUIT MAKING IT WORSE.
Baloney, any way you slice it.

Over the last several decades, we have made the environment enormously
better.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Amy Blankenship
2008-03-07 01:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Jack May
What a totally ignorant statement. Everything is not paved over and
wanting Silicon Valley to go back to a wilderness amazing stupidity.
You
have no conception of what is required to make society work. So you want
everything to be dirt roads with horse and buggies?
I want us to pay attention to what we're doing to the environment and, at
the least, QUIT MAKING IT WORSE.
Baloney, any way you slice it.
Over the last several decades, we have made the environment enormously
better.
In some instances. But not when it comes to paving over infiltration zones
of aquifers.
Scott M. Kozel
2008-03-07 02:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Over the last several decades, we have made the environment enormously
better.
In some instances. But not when it comes to paving over infiltration zones
of aquifers.
The infiltration zone of an aquifer would typically be measurable in
square miles. You won't find any area that size that is paved over.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Floyd Rogers
2008-03-07 02:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Over the last several decades, we have made the environment enormously
better.
In some instances. But not when it comes to paving over infiltration zones
of aquifers.
The infiltration zone of an aquifer would typically be measurable in
square miles. You won't find any area that size that is paved over.
Sorry, Scott, but you're wrong. Think about how many 1 sq mi
new subdivisions there are. Now, consider the fact that 40%-45%
of that is typically IMPERMEABLE surface (drives, roofs, roads.)

FloydR
Scott M. Kozel
2008-03-07 03:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by Scott M. Kozel
The infiltration zone of an aquifer would typically be measurable in
square miles. You won't find any area that size that is paved over.
Sorry, Scott, but you're wrong. Think about how many 1 sq mi
new subdivisions there are. Now, consider the fact that 40%-45%
of that is typically IMPERMEABLE surface (drives, roofs, roads.)
No, you're wrong. If 55%-60% of the area is a PERMEABLE surface, then
it is not "paved over".
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Amy Blankenship
2008-03-07 04:24:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Floyd Rogers
Post by Scott M. Kozel
The infiltration zone of an aquifer would typically be measurable in
square miles. You won't find any area that size that is paved over.
Sorry, Scott, but you're wrong. Think about how many 1 sq mi
new subdivisions there are. Now, consider the fact that 40%-45%
of that is typically IMPERMEABLE surface (drives, roofs, roads.)
No, you're wrong. If 55%-60% of the area is a PERMEABLE surface, then
it is not "paved over".
100% of the surface does not have to be paved over in order to have a
significant effect on the amount of recharge that can happen. I've posted
links before on here, google on me, alt.planning.urban, and epa.gov.
Scott M. Kozel
2008-03-07 04:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Scott M. Kozel
If 55%-60% of the area is a PERMEABLE surface, then
it is not "paved over".
100% of the surface does not have to be paved over in order to have a
significant effect on the amount of recharge that can happen.
That is a true statement, as opposed to your original "paving over
infiltration zones of aquifers."
Post by Amy Blankenship
I've posted
links before on here, google on me, alt.planning.urban, and epa.gov.
Let's see the science on the issue, post it here.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Amy Blankenship
2008-03-07 19:26:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Scott M. Kozel
If 55%-60% of the area is a PERMEABLE surface, then
it is not "paved over".
100% of the surface does not have to be paved over in order to have a
significant effect on the amount of recharge that can happen.
That is a true statement, as opposed to your original "paving over
infiltration zones of aquifers."
Post by Amy Blankenship
I've posted
links before on here, google on me, alt.planning.urban, and epa.gov.
Let's see the science on the issue, post it here.
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/protect_water_higher_density.pdf

According to the American Housing Survey, 35 percent of new housing is built
on lots between two and five acres, and the median lot size is just under
one-half acre (Census, 2001). Local zoning may encourage building on
relatively large lots, in part because local governments often believe that
it helps protect their water quality. Indeed, research has revealed that
more impervious cover can degrade water quality. Studies have demonstrated
that at 10 percent imperviousness, a watershed is likely to become impaired
and grows more so as imperviousness increases (Arnold, 1996; Schueler,
1994). This research has prompted many communities to adopt low-density
zoning and site-level imperviousness limits, e.g., establishing a percentage
of the site, such as 10 or 20 percent, that can be covered by impervious
surfaces such as houses, garages, and driveways. These types of zoning and
development ordinances are biased against higher-density development because
it has more impervious cover.

pp 2-3

Steve Sobol
2008-03-07 03:18:50 UTC
Permalink
["Followup-To:" header set to misc.transport.road.]
Post by Scott M. Kozel
The infiltration zone of an aquifer would typically be measurable in
square miles. You won't find any area that size that is paved over.
Come visit the Victor Valley, and I'll show you a metric buttload of areas
that size that have been built over.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
Scott M. Kozel
2008-03-07 03:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Sobol
["Followup-To:" header set to misc.transport.road.]
Sorry, you posted your reply to alt.planning.urban,
so I added it back to the header.
Post by Steve Sobol
Post by Scott M. Kozel
The infiltration zone of an aquifer would typically be measurable in
square miles. You won't find any area that size that is paved over.
Come visit the Victor Valley, and I'll show you a metric buttload of areas
that size that have been built over.
"Built over" does not equate to "paved over". Even major cities are
rarely more than 30% by area "paved over".
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.
2008-03-07 03:43:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by Steve Sobol
["Followup-To:" header set to misc.transport.road.]
Sorry, you posted your reply to alt.planning.urban,
so I added it back to the header.
Post by Steve Sobol
Post by Scott M. Kozel
The infiltration zone of an aquifer would typically be measurable in
square miles. You won't find any area that size that is paved over.
Come visit the Victor Valley, and I'll show you a metric buttload of areas
that size that have been built over.
"Built over" does not equate to "paved over". Even major cities are
rarely more than 30% by area "paved over".
When I was a kid there was probably a hundred houses between Weldon
Canyon and Palmdale. Last I looked there didn't appear to be enough
land that was not covered by paving, houses, and swimming pools to put
up a hundred more houses.

The Solamint Store was in the middle of a river-bed that must have been
three miles wide. When it rained.

And at that time they were building "settling basins" in fron of Hansen
Dam, Griffith Park, and elsewhere to try to replace the lost percolation.

Big Tejunga and the rest of the of the Los Angeles River basin was miles
wide, now it is all a narrow concrete channel that carries the run off
at high speed to the Pacific.

When I was little, an inch of rain in the San Fernando Valley meant an
inch of standing water everywhere until is soaked in.

I've lost track of stuff there since my parents died, but it looked like
Big Tejunga and Hansen were going to be silted up completely by now.
What are they doing for "flood control" now?
--
Requiescas in pace o email

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio

http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
Loading...