Image of the day

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...


2020 President - NO COMMENTS (take to Politics Forum)

Previous Polls

Need Help?

Posts Made By: Guy Jordan

April 13, 2007 10:12 PM Forum: Polls

AI Winner

Posted By Guy Jordan

I hope to see Blake and Jordin at the end but I'm afraid to see Sanjaya there.... Ugh.


May 22, 2007 09:47 PM Forum: Polls

AI Winner

Posted By Guy Jordan

Jordin's power and sensitivity won the night for me. Blake may be fresh but he was in her shadow. -Guy

May 21, 2008 10:10 PM Forum: Polls

American Idol Winner Is

Posted By Guy Jordan

- but ZZ Top was the highlight.

July 15, 2008 11:10 PM Forum: Polls

You have to choose one for your backyard to help in the energy crisis

Posted By Guy Jordan

Coal is here now, it is cheap, it is cleaner now and it can be used to make synthetic fuels.

With solar we might even be able to make synthetic gas out of air (co2) and water (H). Kind of like a battery with the plus of reducing that scary carbon stuff.

Just stuff-

July 16, 2008 12:09 PM Forum: Polls

You have to choose one for your backyard to help in the energy crisis

Posted By Guy Jordan

Richard Wright said:

What I am really finding interesting about these past few polls is what popular media has done to people's perceptions of the energy problem and what is possible. The use of a buzzword by a trade group like "Clean Coal" gets repeated a few times and it sounds like it must be a recognized industry standard, like Energy Star or something, despite the fact it simply does not exist. A few loud assertions of "More drilling is needed" and the impression is there are proven reserves nearby able to meet our needs in the near future, when there aren't and nothing would show up for a decade or more, anyway. And on the alternative side, we are given the impression wind farms will cure all. In reality, they have a lot of limits on where they will work, and when they generate power. Solar, likewise, has real limits to it's practicality based on when and where it will work, regardless of technical limitations. Nuclear is touted as a source of inexhaustible power, when scale up is a massive industrial undertaking, and it has limits on power generation since it needs water to reject waste heat. And listening to the recent Governors' conference as one after another suggested get rich quick schemes for pet interests in their states as potential solutions tells why.

There is a gold rush to be had for expensive power. There isn't so much in saying "build houses like they were in the 1850s, and didn't require artificial climate control for the bulk of their heating and cooling requirements.". That would mean answers like living close to where you work in a home with features like walls with thermal mass to stabilize temperatures and wide porches and eaves to keep the summer sun off.

There isn't any discussion about how our ancestors were already pursuing what was easiest to make work. It's because you can't make a killing on it. But that would be what we wanted- to be less at the mercy of energy prices, isn't it?

Clean Coal. Clean Coal. Clean Coal. OK, so I used a buzzword, that's not bad in itself. Conservation is neither sexy nor powerful enough to get the political power brokers involved; just the grassroots. Conservation can also never offset the need for new energy supplies. The frustrations of that reality make the worst of the ECO types promote mass reductions in population... that wasn't mentioned either. In 1850 heating with wood was an option; is it now? There were ~1.3 billion people in the world and ~26 million in North America then; now there are ~6.6 billion and ~320 million respectively.

For the record I insulated my 1999 home with Icynene foam, in hind sight closed cell would have been better, and live 2 miles from work. My wife worked with me there for 5 years but now drives all over the place as a temp. Hard to fix that with a new home location... and building when not necessary is wasteful too. Living like the 1850s would require a much slower pace of life and much less comfort for everyone except the most elite and a huge hit against the toys of our favorite hobby.

I agree, there are multiple down sides to each energy source. Wind is land hungry, inefficient, ugly and interferes with micro climate air flow. Solar is very land intense and production of panels is polluting. Geothermal is very expensive, can be disruptive of geological dynamics (earthquakes), and has low yield in inactive zones. Dams destroy ECO systems so they are frowned on now. They also MAKE ecosystems but that is ignored by many. Nuclear had an option with breeder reactors but THAT debate brought out all kinds of boogie men. Fear of all boogie men is cutting us off at the knees. Ethanol is horrible land use and disruptive to food supply. Oil drilling is fairly short term solution given known supplies.

Global warming is now first a political movement and secondly a climate theory. The impact of the theory is not foregone but the dynamics of the political power struggle are obvious. Theoretical models are trotted out as gospel yet the keep changing to reflect new facts. But politically, global warming is embraced because it is heresy to dismiss it. The last information I read states we can expect higher rainfall everywhere and a better environment for growth of vegetation if average temps rise permanently. Worst case, even if seas rise the deserts will become fertile again.

Coal is a current option that can be made better. Closed loop energy systems are the only sustainable option otherwise we are messing with one system or another in planetary dynamics. Then again, if we don't truly understand the nature of climatic stability we can't determine if it is out of control.


July 16, 2008 10:54 PM Forum: Polls

You have to choose one for your backyard to help in the energy crisis

Posted By Guy Jordan

Richard -

I've missed points before, and did not intend to offend you in the least. Your knowledge no doubt exceeds mine on these issues at least. Debates help me to flesh out my understanding but I loose track sometimes. Maybe that's laughable. Clean coal may be less tangible than I was aware of but that doesn't diminish coal's value as an energy source.

I didn't think I missed your point about conservation and I conserve what I can though I'm sure your point wasn't directed personally. Nevertheless I already don't go on vacations, or buy cars frequently (7 and 8 year old boring cars). Or even shop much. But I cool the house at 78 most of the summer and heat it to 75 most of the winter so I'm not neutral. Conservation will only go so far and the reality is most people won't unless they have to financially. I'm already poor.

I don't think my block on sources is a mess; but it is not polished. MY point is there are strikes against all the options, including conservation. Some problems I relayed are minor and some are major but these concerns, and others, are valid.

Conservation is good for some reasons and noble for others but it won't happen across the board until it hurts too much to not conserve. Old homes leak too much for modern energy costs and thermal mass is only comfortable with mild temperature variation. For example, my parents lived in an earth bermed home for years. The selling point was that the ground is always about 55 degrees below the frost line so it is cheaper to heat and cool from that point. The cooling part worked only so far but unfortunately the designer failed to recognize the mass of earth at 55 degrees was not going to heat up very easily. My folks were very cold in the winter and Minnesota has long winters.

How much energy do we need to conserve to eliminate dependence on fossil fuels? What are the comprehensive plans that make my concerns invalid?
Who lives and who dies? I'm looking for answers too, doing a lot of reading actually, and know there of no one solution.

You said; "After all, this country was built before there was air conditioning or cars." Cars have been part of this country for about half its existence and most of our society is built around them. AC is essential for a lot of the developed real estate in the world. I'd like to hold off the revolution for a while to give real innovation a chance here.

I'd rather we had the will to find that Star Trek solution but if the doom sayers are right it might be an apocalypse instead.


July 16, 2008 11:14 PM Forum: Polls

You have to choose one for your backyard to help in the energy crisis

Posted By Guy Jordan

Joe Bergeron said: live in a culture sane enough to actually build houses suited to their environment...not one that builds the same flimsy shacks everywhere, in all climates, houses so poor at providing shelter that they are uninhabitable without massive energy inputs. Some corner of creation must contain a paradise where people are smart enough to do that.

We are too mobile for that. If we planned to stay in our homes for decades then long-term solutions would be more obvious. As ii is a system or design upgrade that has even a 10 year payback doesn't make financial sense if you will relocate in 5 and the next buyer won't value the upgrade.

September 7, 2008 03:12 PM Forum: Polls

In 50 years who is the leader in space exploration?

Posted By Guy Jordan

If so, I win... Yea me.

"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me." -I don't know who


(ps, don't forget about Venera)

Richard Wright said:

We are measuring the diameter of our paranoia.

Philip Davis said:

I think I must have missed something.
Who put humans on the moon? Who has sent more than one successful lander to Mars? Who has sent probes to Mercury & Venus? Who has sent probes to the larger planets and finally out of the solar system? Has China done 30+% of that [as of 9/4/08]? Russia deserves a sentimental vote for Sputnik and for first putting people in space around Earth.
What are we measuring here? :S

September 7, 2008 05:33 PM Forum: Polls

The QUESTION - some of you shouldn't look - you have been warned

Posted By Guy Jordan

I may not agree with everything McCain offers but I agree with almost nothing Obama brings.

I won't stump for it here, opinions are too set.


September 17, 2008 08:48 PM Forum: Polls

The fundamentals of our economy are ---

Posted By Guy Jordan

Our fundamentals are so strong that we can, and do, debate options endlessly and go right on "making it work". They are so strong we've walked away from many of them and what is left still makes things work for anyone willing to put effort in. There are so many chinks in the armor yes but the foundations are still strong. When the polls say half the people want 'A' and half want 'B' there is no mandate for fundamental change.

To me the bigger issue is mediocrity. The pale blandness of cheaper = better, and "not in my back yard"-isms corrode more than a wrong turn ever does. The debates are factually weak and philosophically strong because there is no major wrong turn to fix...