Power Outages
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Tracer Jul 23, 2006 10:46 AM EDT |
It appears that the massive worldwide heatwave going on is what's to blame for the power outages and the fact that several sites on the Internet have knocked off. This might make a great article on Reuters, Cnet, AP, or AFP news, but I haven't heard it yet. Anyway, the last word I have is that it wasn't hacking going on that caused Ubuntu to be off the net. It was power outages. |
| richo123 Jul 23, 2006 11:18 AM EDT |
Two words: Global Warming. Temperatures in Canada's NW Territories at present (1pm local time) are 75F. |
| jimf Jul 23, 2006 11:31 AM EDT |
> Global Warming Or just a normal global weather cycle... |
| richo123 Jul 23, 2006 11:47 AM EDT |
2006 is on track to be the hottest year on record globally. The previous record holder? 2005. |
| jimf Jul 23, 2006 11:57 AM EDT |
richo, That's a pretty short stretch in the history of the planet. Don't believe everything Al Gore tells you. I'm not saying that human polution is good by any means, but, 'Global Warming' as it's now being presented is junk science. |
| richo123 Jul 23, 2006 12:08 PM EDT |
Facts (Not junk science): 1) Since the industrial revolution CO2 has increased 50% 2) CO2 is radiatively a greenhouse gas. 3) Numerical global climate models which are forced with the observed CO2 and smoke levels for the last 150 years (these levels are well known) are able to simulate with high accuracy the observed temperature record for that period. If these models do not have a CO2 increase inserted they show up and down temperature fluctuations of 10% of the level of the observed increase. The models are therefore believable. 4) The same models when forced with projected CO2 increases show a large and worrying increase in temperature over the next 100 years. Disregard this evidence and believe crackpots like Michael Crichton and the US energy industry at your own peril. |
| jimf Jul 23, 2006 12:19 PM EDT |
> increase in temperature over the next 100 years. Maybe... I don't see' the world' in real good shape (at least for humans) in the next 100 years, so, the whole thing is probably moot. Figure a way to reduce the population by 'at least' 3/4 and you might have a chance, but then, nature may do that for us.... |
| devnet Jul 23, 2006 12:23 PM EDT |
Quoting:Figure a way to reduce the population by 'at least' 3/4 Stop burning oil. Of course, the US Economy depends too much on this and no government in their right mind would cripple the US economy by supporting any measure to cripple it. |
| jimf Jul 23, 2006 1:05 PM EDT |
> Of course, the US Economy depends too much on this and no government in their right mind would cripple the US economy by supporting any measure to cripple it. Right, so it won't happen... But, It is far more than just oil and other fossle fuels that are a problem. So are we talking end of the world here? I seriously doubt it. The World will keep right on spinning, and heal itself given time. Humanity will just play a much reduced role in the scope of thing. Knocked back to stone age? Well, probably not quite. For sure, we can expect a real shake up. Let's hope we learn something this time... That would be a first. |
| dinotrac Jul 23, 2006 1:20 PM EDT |
richo - Global warming is one arena in which the "old boys" and "publish or perish" effects do not serve us well. There is a lot of junk science being done, but, more to the point, a lot of good science getting junk treatment. In my gut, I believe that global warming is happening. I'm not sure what it means and not sure what we should do about it -- presuming we should do anything at all. It would just be nice to hear people pursuing the truth vigorously as if the conclusion weren't foregone, to understand the anomolies, to forget the politics, etc. For example -- that big spike in CO2? It still leaves both CO2 concentrations and temperatures lower than they were about 130,000 years ago and about 320,000 years ago. Does that mean anything? Beats me, though I am amazed that we could add billions of people using fossil fuels and doing bad things without exceeding levels on the planet way back when. And -- those global climate models...I know they've improved a lot over the last few years, but most are still incapable of making the kind of predictions you cite in any kind of trustworthy way. The modelers are still working out the net effect of the oceans, of clouds, etc. |
| richo123 Jul 23, 2006 1:47 PM EDT |
Dino,
>And -- those global climate models...I know they've improved a lot over the last few years, but most are still >incapable of making the kind of predictions you cite in any kind of trustworthy way. The modelers are still >working out the net effect of the oceans, of clouds, etc. It sounds as if you did not read my post: These models are not perfect BUT the fact that they are able to accurately simulate all the ups and downs (mainly ups) of global temperature in the past 150 years is clear evidence that, contrary to your assertion, they do have reasonable trustworthiness in making global temperature projections. The representations of clouds and the oceans are actually quite good. The main uncertainty is in regional variations in the global increase (will Europe warm up?) and in what Antarctic land ice will do (will it slide into the Southern Ocean ?- I hope not). The science of land ice is very poorly understood. The science of physical oceanography and cloud physics/dynamics is really quite well understood. In fact climate models are far more trustworthy than econometric models which are used every month to set interest rates. They are certainly trustworthy enough to make policy decisions concerning future emissions. |
| jimf Jul 23, 2006 1:58 PM EDT |
> They are certainly trustworthy enough to make policy decisions concerning future emissions. Policy decisions which even if implemented, will be too little too late. Even if you convince the Europe (likely) and the US (questionable), do you really think that China will give up its development and the fossil fuel necessary for that? |
| richo123 Jul 23, 2006 2:06 PM EDT |
jimf, In my view there will not be policy changes until the reality of global warming becomes obvious even to blind freddy (He's an Australian ;-)). This is what happened with the ozone hole: As soon as it was obvious that there was a massive problem in 1988, an effective protocol (in Montreal) was signed and chlorflourocarbons were phased out. The hole is now slowly recovering. I don't think these things are ever too late just that it would be desirable to do something before things get really freaky. My estimate is that we need to do something meaningful in the next 50 years. If we do we have a shot at managing the inevitable and large warming. |
| Tracer Jul 23, 2006 2:06 PM EDT |
Okay, so we're going to play this game. Okay, here's my two cents. Man increases CO2 and plants grow more. What happens when plants grow more? They spit out more oxygen. There goes the global warming theory. No, I think this is a cycle that Earth goes through and the plants haven't yet caught up. Now, on the flipside, the bad news is that the Mayans predicted the rebuilding of civilization would occur around Christmas time in 2012. It would be rebuilt because of some great catastrophe. Sure, news to disregard easily, but then how come the Mayans had calendars so accurate that they even beat the Egyptian versions and came almost scientifically close to what we use today? (Source: Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods book.) So that kind of catastrophe awaits us? Pick your choice. Massive asteroid, huge meteor showers, solar flare, floods, moon passing too close to our atmosphere, or a huge electromagnetic shift of the Earth's core. Some say that the electromagnetic shift of our core (shifting North and South poles to somwhere on Earth) could cause all of the above and fry anything electronic as well. |
| grouch Jul 23, 2006 2:06 PM EDT |
I have trouble accepting things as inevitable without giving alternatives a fighting chance. |
| richo123 Jul 23, 2006 2:13 PM EDT |
Hear Hear grouch. |
| grouch Jul 23, 2006 2:52 PM EDT |
Are solar panels so expensive because of low manufacturing volume, or is there something inherently expensive about making them? |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 23, 2006 3:10 PM EDT |
I think solar panels are extremely expensive to run. Their efficiency is low and it costs a lot to maintain. You'd need vast fields filled with solar panels to get some kind of usable output. For solar power, look towards solar updraft towers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower). Much more interesting. IIRC they're going to build one un Australia. |
| Tracer Jul 23, 2006 3:50 PM EDT |
grouch, From what I hear, solar panels are more expensive to purchase and use than what you can make on your own or for the cost-savings you would have from having them. There's another way, though. One efficient design I heard was a large plastic pipe cut lengthwise and lined with reflective tin. It forms a kind of halfpipe. In the middle is a suspended can of motor oil on wire. Somehow there's a way to connect the motor oil to cause steam to rise (don't know this part well) and then this turns a tiny car turbine part that you can purchase at an auto parts store. The turbine then generates electricity. There are guys on the web who've made designs for how to build your own power regulator so that you can store this in batteries without overjuicing them. In Africa, the Peace Corps is using this design and they don't worry about putting a timer and motor on the bottom to direct the panels. Instead, they point them all South in a slightly different angle than each. With this configuration, at least 2, if not 3, of the panels should be generating energy for the largest section of daylight time. |
| jimf Jul 23, 2006 4:18 PM EDT |
> I have trouble accepting things as inevitable without giving alternatives a fighting chance. grouch, Not disagreeing with that at all. We will all do what we can, but, I've been tracking this one since the 60's and it's right where I predicted it would be. Please prove me wrong for once, the time and the alternatives are running out. |
| grouch Jul 23, 2006 5:35 PM EDT |
sander: >"Their efficiency is low and it costs a lot to maintain. You'd need vast fields filled with solar panels to get some kind of usable output." I'm looking at a much smaller scale. Instead of noting that solar generation of electricity is not economically feasible to replace hydro, coal and oil-fired generation plants, consider the ways it can reduce the reliance on those. Many homes receive enough sunshine on at least part of the roof to produce considerable power. Panels are expensive, though, and not common enough in retail outlets. jimf: I was recently roasted in another forum (another site) for telling that I don't order things from vendors who show the world they use MS products. A common theme in the arguments against me was that MS is used by just about every business. None stopped to think how things got that way or that many people taking little actions could effect a big change. It went from, 'Microsoft can't gain/have a monopoly', to 'it's everywhere, so accept it'. How much have you heard about energy efficiency in the past 10 years or so? It seems the arguments against conservation have changed from being assertions that we can't cause global warming to being assertions that we can't stop it now that we've started it. One thing we could do in the U.S. is stop using tax law to promote urban assault vehicles. There was a bit of corporate welfare put into the tax code for several years that caused fleets of the largest SUVs to be purchased by businesses instead of anything with reasonable gas mileage. When Congress decided to allow about 10 times the write-off on a luxury SUV versus a fuel efficient hybrid, it gave the green light to guzzling. (See http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002-12-18-suv-tax-break... ). |
| dinotrac Jul 23, 2006 6:19 PM EDT |
grouch - I don't know why you think conservation has gone the way of the DoDo. It's true that consumers have chosen to drive less efficient vehicles, and that is a major component of our energy use, but... Industry has gotten the efficiency bug. Many industrial giants are far more energy efficient than they used to be. Some of the efforts would surprise you...for example, Tyson has built a rather sizeable thermal depolymerization plant to render turkey guts into oil. It's one of the major reason that the run-up in oil prices hasn't had the devastating effect on the economy that the Arab oil embargo did in the 1970s...and, let's not forget, even with the recent downturn in fleet efficiency, today's vehicles are considerably more efficient (and cleaner) than those of the 70s. With gas prices up over $3.00, reason is starting to prevail in the cars people buy. More people opting for more efficiency. Heck, even little things like the recent drop in price for compact flourescent lights makes a difference. Not that any thing we do can come close to setting off the huge increase in demand and use by China and India as their economies continue to grow. |
| jimf Jul 23, 2006 6:29 PM EDT |
> One thing we could do in the U.S. is stop using tax law to promote urban assault vehicles. Oh yes... That one for sure. |
| grouch Jul 23, 2006 6:47 PM EDT |
dinotrac: >"I don't know why you think conservation has gone the way of the DoDo." I gave an example -- the tax incentive. That wasn't just "consumers" choosing "less efficient vehicles", that was national policy giving $30,000+ pushes to everyone from individuals to corporate fleet buyers. It takes a lot of gas price increase to counter that. Meanwhile, how many extra millions of tons of greenhouse gases did Congress promote with that little act? There has also been a decided decrease in public service announcements regarding what "consumers" can do to reduce energy demands. Don't worry; be happy and *consume*. As for worrying about China and India, I think we should deal with the log in our (U.S.) own eye before pointing out the mote in our brothers'. See [url=http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/ipcc/pages_media/SRCCS-final/graphics/jpg/small/Figure TS-02a.jpg]http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/ipcc/pages_media/SRCCS-final/gra...[/url] That's from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), BTW, which is referenced from United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) http://unfccc.int/2860.php . Australia seems to be pretty active at getting info to their citizens: http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/inventory/ Where is the equivalent U.S. gov site? We are the big emitters in the world. Shouldn't U.S. citizens get that info? |
| dinotrac Jul 23, 2006 7:34 PM EDT |
grouch - Tax incentives and public service ads do not equal conservation. People and businesses cutting back on their use of energy and going about their lives in more efficient ways does. BTW -- I followed that link and it confused me. For example, it seemed to compare a $32,000 (above the line) write off with a $4,000 (below the line) tax credit for hybrids. I'm not sure what to make of that. Also...the "loophole" they're talking about on trucks -- is that the normal business deduction on trucks? Is it just a matter that you can get some pretty nice trucks, including SUVs? |
| dcparris Jul 23, 2006 7:57 PM EDT |
O.k., I hate to break it to y'all, but global warming is Dave's fault. If it weren't for him, y'all wouldn't be blowing all this hot air about global warming. :-D ...ducking and running (very fast) |
| dinotrac Jul 23, 2006 8:04 PM EDT |
Rev - No need to duck and run. Not because there is not danger, but because our behemoth earth-shaking SUVs will find you whereever you may run. So... You might as well relax, have a cup of iced tea, and wait to be crushed. |
| tuxchick2 Jul 23, 2006 8:36 PM EDT |
Where I live is mostly desert. Once upon a time it was lush semi-tropical forest. Lush semi-tropical forest seems like a nice thing to have. |
| dcparris Jul 23, 2006 8:39 PM EDT |
> You might as well relax, have a cup of iced tea, and wait to be crushed. That is, if you don't get tipped over by some little Honda. ;-) |
| grouch Jul 23, 2006 9:07 PM EDT |
dinotrac: The $4000 is a one-time thing; thereafter, depreciation expense is allowed under the normal schedule, with the value of the asset first reduced by that $4000, of course. The accelerated depreciation for those luxury SUVs allowed a first-year write-off of more than the cost of many cars. A business would have to be putting an incredible number of miles per year on a vehicle to warrant buying a fuel efficient vehicle, even at today's gas prices, versus the gigantic subsidy of those luxury guzzlers. It was done under the guise of helping the poor farmer, naturally. I just haven't seen that many farmers roaming around in Lincoln Navigators. >"Tax incentives and public service ads do not equal conservation. People and businesses cutting back on their use of energy and going about their lives in more efficient ways does." The power to tax is the power to destroy. I'm sure you've heard that before. A tax policy that provides a 75% price subsidy on some of the worst gas guzzlers on the highways certainly has the power to affect people and businesses' "use of energy". Pretending otherwise is just foolish. |
| jdixon Jul 23, 2006 9:11 PM EDT |
> Where I live is mostly desert. Once upon a time it was lush semi-tropical forest. Lush semi-tropical forest seems like a nice thing to have. Where I live is currently hardwood forest. In geologic time it's been everything from buried under hundreds of feet of ice to a subtropical swamp. The last major story I heard about global warming said that global temperatures were at their highest point in the last 400 years. That sound serious, until you realize that the industrial revolution hadn't started yet in 1606, and that the CO2 emissions everyone is complaining about weren't there yet. So, what was causing the global warming then? Yes, global temperatures are rising. Yes, CO2 levels are probably contributing to that rise (probably, not definitely). The exact percentages are anybody's guess. Should we try to cut down on CO2 emissions? Sure. And we will. Doing so will take time, and will involve messy political negotiations, but it will be done, just as it was with the chloroflourocarbons. In the worst case, even if it isn't, the oil won't last forever, and when it's gone, the CO2 emissions will go with it. In the meantime, the climate will change, just as it's done throughout the history of the planet. We, and the rest of the planet, will adapt. |
| jimf Jul 23, 2006 10:17 PM EDT |
> We, and the rest of the planet, will adapt. I'd say that, we 'may' adapt, the rest of the planet will, is far closer to fact. Remember the dinosaurs :). |
| dinotrac Jul 24, 2006 12:13 AM EDT |
grouch - Let's try this again... 1. Top of the line vs. bottom of the line.... I think it is dishonest to compare a direct credit of $4,000 with the writeoff amount. That is comparing a direct tax savings vs. an income reduction. If you're actually talking about depreciation acceleration, it's even a bit trickier. Accelerated depreciation means that you get tax savings in one year, but you lose tax savings in subsequent years. 2. Was the so-called loophole designed to help businesses that buy trucks? Are you really just showing Puritan prudishness because the law doesn't require people to buy stripped-down bare-bones trucks? If I understood the article correctly, their example was a $47,000 truck, but the tax break only applied to the first $32,000. Is it your belief that working trucks cannot cost $32,000? Believe me, they can. How would you write the law so businesses could buy the trucks they need without allowing them to buy Range Rovers and Navigators? How would you tell a politician to sell support of that law to voters? "Yes dear constituents, I hear you. You want farmers and small business people to get tax breaks for their business vehicles. We'll do that!! But we'll make them suffer for it, yessirree, Bob! No air-conditioning for those devils!! No CD-players. Nope, not a one! Better not have power windows, reclining seats, or leather! We'll get 'em. So long as I'm in office, farmers and business people will suffer." And we must not know the same farmers. I agree that most of the farmers I know don't have Navigators. Some mighty nice extended cab pick'em up trucks, though. Mighty nice. |
| jimf Jul 24, 2006 1:23 AM EDT |
Maybe the Rev should work on it this way: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2281620,00.html Just call it evil... |
| dinotrac Jul 24, 2006 1:30 AM EDT |
jimf - You are a very, very bad man!!!!!!! |
| jimf Jul 24, 2006 2:37 AM EDT |
Sorry dino, I don't even think that's funny. The Church of England has taken the position that “Indiscriminate use of the earth’s resources must be seen as profoundly wrong, just as we now see slavery as wrong.” Frankly, I think that isn't too far off the mark. |
| perseis Jul 24, 2006 3:18 AM EDT |
Industry has gotten the efficiency bug. Many industrial giants are far more energy efficient than they used to be. Some of the efforts would surprise you... I recently found myself with way too much time on my hands and in the environment of a chatty third shift nurse. She was captivating to both look upon and listen to. With a cockney Brit accent, lush red hair and a hint of bad-girl within her demeanor, it was not an entirely unpleasant experience. I now fully understand the "nurse in white" fantasy still used in prOn clips...ahem, I hear they still use the gimmick anyway. Until this topic found its way into the wee hour conversations. Once the genie was released from it's captivity, she railed against all things US. She bragged about seeing "An Inconvenient Truth" 4 times, and claimed that the United States gluttony for oil was the root problem for every problem under the sub-heading. SUV's, tanning salons, new highway projects...all were lined up and riddled with verbal bullets by this lass from Soho. That is until I made a simple and obvious observation. "Did you know that two existing coal-fired energy plants in China produce more fluorocarbons in a 90 day period than every US SUV left to idle for a solid year?" She didn't hesitate for a micro-second. "Well if the US didn't trade with them like drunken sailors in a whore house, they wouldn't have that opportunity now would they?" Thank heaven for self-regulated morphine drips. |
| grouch Jul 24, 2006 6:48 AM EDT |
dinotrac: >"1. Top of the line vs. bottom of the line.... "I think it is dishonest to compare a direct credit of $4,000 with the writeoff amount. That is comparing a direct tax savings vs. an income reduction." I didn't write the tax code. That $4000 credit is the equivalent of about $8000 to $12000 in deductions, depending on where amongst the tax brackets you or your accountants can get you placed. So, a business buying a fleet, or an individual buying for business purposes, could get a 1-time $4,000 credit plus subsequent year depreciation expense deductions on the remainder, or take a first-year expense deduction of $24,000 to $32,000 and take subsequent year depreciation expense deductions on the remainder. Neither your enumeration, nor your highly objectionable accusation of dishonesty on my part, changes those numbers. Congress provided very large monetary incentives to purchase very large, inefficient vehicles during a time when gas prices were going up. Your "2." comments avoid the issue of tax incentives for gas guzzlers versus efficient vehicles, completely, while posing your own straw-man argument regarding what you imagine or wish that I had said. It's not worth further comment. My previous comments implying 10 years of a lack of government policy regarding energy efficiency may be wrong. It appears to be 13 years. According to "EPAct 2005", Quoting: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) is the first effort of the United States government to address U.S. energy policy since the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Among many other things, the 1724 page law provides new tax incentives for a number of solar and energy efficiency measures. http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/EPact-05.htm However, note that it is limited to 2006 and 2007, which is far too short a time period for things like commercial buildings. By contrast, the tax incentives for gas guzzlers lasted 6 years. |
| dinotrac Jul 24, 2006 6:49 AM EDT |
jimf - Sorry...misread your intent. Many Christians of every political strype have become vocal conservationists, seeing it as the logical response to God's command that we be good stewards of the earth. |
| dcparris Jul 24, 2006 3:51 PM EDT |
> The Church of England has taken the position that “Indiscriminate use of the earth’s resources must be seen as profoundly wrong, just as we now see slavery as wrong.” Frankly, I think that isn't too far off the mark. The technical term is "stewardship". The guy is absolutely correct. There's more to it than that, but I don't want to get into a religious discussion. :-) |
| jimf Jul 24, 2006 4:10 PM EDT |
> but I don't want to get into a religious discussion. :-) Nor do I (sorry Don) ... Just that I think that the statement by outfits like The Church of England are appropriate. "Stewardship" is not just a Christian, or even a religious concept. |
| dcparris Jul 24, 2006 4:36 PM EDT |
Your right about that, Jim. It's a lot like Free Software philosophy - not specifically religious, but something that generally harmonizes well with religious beliefs. |
| hkwint Jul 29, 2006 5:22 PM EDT |
I wonder if you heard this before (I hope you did): There's almost CENSORSHIP in the USA when it comes to global warming (yes, the same USA which wants to spread democracy in Iraq. Let me laugh...) The wave of hurricane's last year may (Katrina being one of them) have been so bad because of global warming, but when someone of NIST was going to tell this on TV, he was phoned by the White House telling him he was not allowed to be on the TV. Their was also a British researcher, I believe with the UN, wanting to warn about global warming. Something like "Don't worry about US economy being hurt because of Kyoto, because whole USA will turn into a desert and there won't be any economy anymore if global warming goes on like this." ExxonMobil sent a letter to Bush, after which the USA withdrew the support for that person. Now, you are whining about some farmers not getting cars with airconditioning and no subsidy? Those farmers land will change in desert (and hurricane's might become even more powerfull) if they go on with riding in their SUV's. Which is more important? Also, global warming reports were rewritten by American government to make it all look less worse. Now, why would this be? Would it be because almost every important US politician gets money from the oil industry (Cheney one million per year anyone)? Islands are (really) disappearing in the big ocean because of global warming. You may remember the internet extention .tv. It's from some country (island) in the ocean called Tuvalu. Tuvalu is sinking as I'm writing. I also hope you read about Global Dimming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming After 911, there where a few days without airplanes, and temperatures raised sharply that few days. So, without all those little dust-parts (which kills thousands of people every year BTW), the temperature would raise even more. No, you just go on worrying about your economy, without thinking half of the economy will be gone if you don't do anything about it right now. Sorry about this post, but US politicians censoring reality really piss me off. ExxonMobil etc. are a far bigger threat to this world than 1000x MS. Shamed to say, but my father works for Exxon... BTW oil is over $7 a gallon over here, and we still have airco's and CD players in our cars. |
| jsusanka Jul 29, 2006 5:46 PM EDT |
this summer has been brutal in the midwest of the United States. a week ago wednesday we had the weirdest dang storm - it had wind gusts up to 92 miles per hour - my neighbor needs a new garage and there are trees uprooted everywhere. as a result over 700,000 people were without electricity after the storm in the city I live. we got little rain which is what we needed but we had to endure 100 degree temps without air so I don't know if this was related or not to ubuntu but power outages seem pretty common around north america this summer. the heat has been brutal. |
| hkwint Jul 30, 2006 2:07 AM EDT |
Weird to see the same stuff in America. This july was (will be) the hottest July in this area since at least 1706! |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!