Carbon PartT 2

We will ask Air liquide on this, pretty sure they have the answers.

Vincent Bugliosi "Reclaiming History"

vs

F. Conolly "JFK to 911 Everything is a Rich Mans Trick"

some are better informed, some have their head buried (in sand or arse)

"WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A CONSPIRACY IS DENIED?"

"but he has no clothes" ...pointed out by the boy in the classic

"SSSHHHHH" said the elders around him

" but........"

You think climate scientists don't know about sunspots? They are not "out shouting astrophysicists." They ARE astrophysicists. At least enough to be able to incorporate the sun into their work.

Yes, there is a close correlation with temperature and sunspots, at least there was until the 1970's, when temperature started to go up regardless of sunspot activity.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm

You suspect wrong. I don't advocate any Spartan change in anyone's life. That's just the propaganda that the fossil fuel industry sends out to scare you. Well, consider yourself scared. They can't debate the science so they make you terrified of some imagined solution, but have you ever heard them specify exactly what that "Spartan life" will be like? No, because there is nothing actually scary about it. Except for them, of course. The Koch brothers will lose some of their billions.

If they say that switching to renewable energy will be hugely expensive and wreck the economy, why do you believe them? It is far easier to predict the climate than the economy, and yet these "experts" present these doomsday scenarios to make sure their own pockets stay filled. Didn't you learn from the Great Recession? They can't predict a year ahead, and entire economics departments are in their pocket.

When I lived in Chicago and Wisconsin, I was just as interested in preserving the planet as I am now. There is no need to give up anything. If a person spends $50 and weatherstrips their windows, they save heating bills and have a warmer home. If a person spends $5000 and insulates their entire house better, that results in much greater energy savings and an even warmer home. If a person buys an electric car, that is hardly a Spartan life.

What can you possibly imagine life will be like if you buy solar panels with no money up front and the payments are lower than your current energy bill? It will be such a Spartan life to be saving enormous amounts of money and having a secure source of energy.

If you resort to propaganda about imagined scary solutions instead of debating the science of the actual problem, it is better that you really be "out of here."

Here in Ontariowe I have people calling me to install solar panels on my roof for FREE!!

In fact, some of them will even pay me a (small) monthly fee!!!

Why would they do that? Because our ever so foresighted government has offered ridiculously lucrative contracts (granted, they have been scaling back the dollar values more recently) for home base solar systems, and these companies are making their money off of selling that to the grid at far more than what I pay to buy it back. Of course, no one has to pay for that extra incentive so that has nothing to do with our rates continually spiralling upwards...

"It is easier to predict the climate than the economy"?? We "know" that tax policy affects the economy. We "know" that QE increases the money supply and raises the stock market as well as the cost of food. As for the climate, we are unable to predict where a storm is going to be 15 hrs out. We have given up on predicting hurricane activity until after the start of hurricane season. There is not one computer generated climate model that has proved accurate. Even going so far as entering 1990 data into modern software and demonstrating the flat line of GW we are currently experiencing.

Allowing our power grid to fall apart due to regulation, and replacing it with roof top solar hot water panels and PV's seems to me to be imposing a "spartan" way of life on others.

When the unreliable power industry reaches some level of efficiency that permits continuous use for a definite period of time, it will become a viable usable source. Until then, it is little more than a novelty for folks living off the grid. Here in PR we have a goal of 25% or so. So far this power has cost me 2 refrigerators, a computer, and an A/C. All due to power fluctuations, brown outs and power surges. And for the bargain basement price of $.28 KWhr. Here is another "economic" prediction. If the price of electricity hits $.28KWh in the USofA, there will be a "recession" that puts the last one to shame, followed by a revolution. Here is another "fact", there is always an upfront cost to implement something. Telling folks there is "no money up front" is just as great a lie as the scooter folks telling people their scooters are free.

28¢ a KWHR. That seems cheap to me. You have to add the service and the energy charge together to get 45.04¢ here.

When I left LI in 08 IIRC it was around 13 cents.

Tax policy affects the economy. Can you predict tax policy? Can you predict QE? The economy is a far more chaotic system than the climate, and is subject to the whims of lawmakers. (I'm not talking about predicting weather, but climate. I trust I don't have to explain that difference again.)

Can you predict when the finance industry will get the deregulation that they lust after, so that they can again create financial instruments that will drive the entire economy into a ditch again?

Can you predict which industries will fade and which will be invented over the next year, let alone the next century?

The economy is also affected by the climate to a tremendous amount. Heat waves in Russia have affected the global supply of grain. Can you predict when a drought in Mexico might drive millions of starving people over the border? But the economy only affects the climate a small amount, by increasing or decreasing the amount of CO2 emitted, causing an effect measured in decades instead of days or minutes.

The economy is so chaotic, that even studying it disrupts it. If an economist found out some kind of scientific law about the economy, and it became well known, then people would adapt to that knowledge, and the rule would become false.

In fact, ANY prediction about the economy is liable to affect whether that prediction comes true or not. There are self-fulfilling predictions and inspiring speeches. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Sorry, the economy is impossible to predict, by its very nature.

what evidence do you have to support the claim the economy is impossible to predict, and the climate can be. Seems to me like the lottery and horse racing neither are predictable. At least with the economy we know certain things affect it, but can't predict by how much or for how long. No prediction of the climate has ever held up.

"Allowing our power grid to fall apart due to regulation, and replacing it with roof top solar hot water panels and PV's seems to me to be imposing a "spartan" way of life on others."

You seem to have a different definition of "spartan" than I do. I see rooftop hot water panels and PV's as a way to save money and have a better life, and possibly still have electricity and hot water when the grid goes down.

Can you cite an example of how regulation makes our grid fall apart?

Note that there are terrorists who would like to take our grid down because of the way that Western countries treat them to get their oil.

We don't need terrorists to take down the grid. EPA regulations concerning coal powered plants, NIMBY rules concerning construction of new power plants are but two examples. POTUS making the campaign promise and keeping it of making electric rates "skyrocket" is another. Ask RedFred how Shoreham and LIPA are performing. At least this winter, fuel oil is affordable. The method of course is using the "smart" grid. Just another scam so that the people who pay the bills, can have their homes and businesses shed from the grid, so that our betters can maintain their lifestyle(s).

I do lose my cool on this subject sometimes, which is why I generally avoid it as being bad for my health. But I got sucked in this time.

I agree with all your bullet points, except the one saying your life and your descendents lives will not be affected by this slow change, and it is not your problem.

I expect to live another 30 to 40 years, and that is plenty of time for a lot of problems related to global warming. All it needs is a large heat wave at the wrong time in the wrong place, like happened in Russia to destroy their wheat crop.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/world/europe/06russia.html?_r=0

I think AGW will affect me and my descendents, and the more CO2 we emit, the worse it will be.

Retirement is looking better and better every day now. I and my only sister have no children. I have no Aunts or Uncles. I have no descendants. AGW is not my problem, regardless of how well I can see it. To paraphrase Charles Dickens. I cannot look for those with eyes that cannot see. Nor can I listen for those with ears that cannot hear. I can only rest in peace knowing that I tried to warn them.

go force your religion down someone else's throat, I have had enough of it to last a lifetime! HCC/GW is pure unadulterated BullMierd. I am so done with it, and all the other charlatans who have all but destroyed science as a pure discipline.

I am very careful not to be religious or dogmatic about AGW. If I say anything here that I can't back up with solid data, then I'll take it back with apologies. Can you cite anything I said dogmatically that I didn't support?

If I could give you a hug for that answer, plues 20 GA's I would. That is what we need more of, and less of the other BullMierd. This exactly correlates, or at least correlates a multiple greater than anything to do with minute amounts of atmospheric gases. It is just nonsense when "science" attempts to accuse the "fine-tuning" knob as the main control knob in a series of observations, and all they could ever possibly do is muddy the water, when science is all about bringing the truth to light.

If you want to know the real story about HCC/GW, follow the money and the wretched trail of all politicians lined up with their hands out to receive it. This level of corruption did not even exist in the Roman Empire, and they essentially are the definition of subtrafuge, deception, and guile.

Thank you very much, gentlemen for putting up with my rants, when other are lambasted almost immediately for expressing a minor personal opinion.

"Fossil fuels are finite"- not so. Entirely apart from biofuels (and of course any discussions about their practicality) conventionally accepted science dictates that the majority of fossil fuels are in fact biomass that has been sequestered and further altered over millennia. This process would be ongoing right now; it's a valid question to ask if any replacement processes approach the drain of humans on the available supply but that is more a balance of the practicality of such use on a long term basis than to say that one day the last drop of oil/lump of coal etc. will disappear eternally.

Now on the subject of the comet, I'm QUITE worried that it might somehow miss Al Gore.....

I'll only take issue with one thing you say. The rest is, as you say, is open to debate.

There is no guarantee that humanity will be around as long as the sun is.

What about "Carrie"?

I like it.

You mean "Carry"

As in load, death, misery

If you don't mind, I'm going to parse your inquiry to match what is known. There is a guarantee that humanity will not be on Earth long before our sun runs out of all fuel. Our sun is a main sequence star. After it consumes all of the Hydrogen it will collapse. This relatively brief time will likely kill off all life on Earth. If not the next cycle certainly will. Helium will start to fuse which with less total mass now available the sun will become a red giant with a surface out beyond the orbit of Mars. Now a red giant is certainly cooler than our sun is now but being inside the heliosphere will make it hot as hell on Earth.

which is exactly why we need to explore space...our possible time here does have an expiration date when this star goes red, and it WILL one day

Yes, I understand that. Not in the depth that some others here do.

For clarity, I should have stated "the sun in its present state".

I see no insurance that we even last until then.

Mankind may, or may not, be the cause of our extinction. My money's on Yellowstone to radically thin the herd long before the sun dims.

Still, the amount of heat and pollution mankind is pumping into the atmosphere (and oceans) cannot be ignored.

Some are prepping for the falling of economy and militarization. Seriously

We don't need to have consensus on whether Global Warming is indeed actually happening. We need a consensus on whether we want to risk it being true and how to hedge our massive bet on fossil fuel.

I don't mind if the fossil fuel companies go ahead and pour the rest of the deposits of fossil fuel into the atmosphere, as long as they make a backup of the Earth first. I object to them running a massive experiment on the Earth without even having a control Earth to compare it with.

So what are the risks of putting more CO2 into the atmosphere? Most of the people who study it say that it would be very dangerous, and have lots of predictable and unpredictable effects. High risk.

What are the chances that most of the climate scientists in the world are either wrong or in a huge conspiracy to fool the world into taking some kind of action that they don't actually specify? Yes some people make money on environmental causes, and some people make money on fossil fuels. There is no reason to believe any of the vested interests on either side. I think we need to go with the science.

In my opinion, the probability of a conspiracy of climate scientists is extremely low, like under 1%. WAY under 1%. I don't see how such a conspiracy could be kept secret among people whose lives are devoted to finding out the truth, and if they are found to be faking data they may never work in their field, or in science, again. They are not like evil movie scientists destroying the world for unobtainium.

In my opinion the chances of them being wrong on the science are higher, like 10%.

What they have found shows that there is great danger, but maybe there is still something they have not thought of yet. Maybe the small but measurable excess of solar radiation that hits the Earth that is not re-emitted as infrared radiation is getting back off the Earth somehow we have not yet located. Recently they discovered a lot more was going into the oceans than they thought, which means that the oceans are warming faster than they thought, but that doesn't actually solve the problem, only clears up a puzzle, because the heat is still accumulating. Maybe, even though we can see everything warming up around us, that is really just a coincidence and the excess heat is actually not accumulating. Maybe UFOs are absorbing the excess heat and taking it out into space so it won't heat up the earth. Maybe a lot of volcanoes will erupt, and keep erupting, so that less solar radiation penetrates to the surface. Maybe God is taking the excess heat out into space. Maybe a lot of things. In my opinion the probability of any of those things happening is rather small, but maybe something will be found that accounts for the missing infrared radiation.

What we need to do is decide whether all the things that seem to be associated with Global Warming are things we should gradually stop doing, just in case, especially since stopping those things benefits us in many other ways.

Cheap energy from solar panels is now cost competitive at the wholesale (utility) level. It has been a money saver at the retail (homeowner) level for many years. It also stimulates the economy with many jobs that cannot be outsourced.

Reducing oil use means less pollution, fewer wars, fewer oil spills, less cancer.

We will live better, healthier, lives if we switch to solar power. We don't have to wait for some other country to do this first, in order to get all these benefits.

And maybe it will also reduce the risk of global warming. Just in case.

so far...solar wont work at night

Currently most house systems use the grid as a storage "battery". They put energy in during the day, which reduces the need for extra capacity for peak use, and take it out at night. But there are many other options.

Wind energy currently generates far more energy than solar, and it can pick up the slack at night. Even a minimal storage option for each windmill can even out variations in output.

There are battery installations suitable for houses. Utilities are now exploring massive storage options in California. Conservation can be a huge factor. Where I used to live the landlord did not have air conditioning in the house at all because it was so well insulated, and seldom had to turn on the heat at night. As the popularity of electric cars increases, they might be used as local storage for the grid in the evening, if they can be coordinated so that they are fully recharged by morning. People might want to avoid doing lots of laundry or running their dishwasher at night, unless they have a good storage installation.

I find your content of most of your posts to be questionable.houses store some heat, not electrons. in the US air conditioning and the operation of large buildings are your big energy hogs.

I don't really understand your question. I don't see anywhere that I said houses store electrons, but I will expand on what I was getting at.

Residential solar installations usually are "grid-tied", which means they feed their electricity directly into the power grid, not into the house. The house uses electricity from the grid. During the day they supply a lot more than they use. At night the solar panels stop feeding electricity into the grid, and the house still uses electricity from the grid. That is "as if" the solar panels were storing electricity in the grid during the day and getting it back out during the night, like using it as a "virtual battery", but that is not actually what is happening.

http://pureenergies.com/us/how-solar-works/solar-batteries-and-backup-systems/

I also was saying that well insulated houses don't use much air conditioning or heating. There is a lot of energy savings to be had in conservation like improving insulation.

I was also saying that there are lots of new systems for storing electricity in the home using batteries. The newest ones are Lithium Ion, but some might be just lead-acid batteries. Their weight doesn't matter, and you could put a lot of them in an ordinary sized closet, or in a corner of the basement. That would be enough to supply most houses for the evening hours, before everyone goes to sleep. No hardship involved.

http://www.solarcity.com/residential/energy-storage

I also said that utilities might be able to store energy by charging up the big batteries in electric cars during the day, getting the energy back in the evening, and then charging them up again later at night when there is not much else drawing power.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/29/business/la-fi-electric-cars-20131229

None of these are my ideas.

I'll just say this on the use of batteries to store solar....lead acid works..until you ruin the batteries. lithium is too expensive and belongs in your phone or Tesla, by far and away the best choice for a battery in a home situation is the Edison type battery, if you pro-rate them they'll outlast you!http://ironedison.com/nickel-iron-ni-fe-battery

You are correct on that. The only issue is you need a lot of room, the energy density is quite low. But with a virtual unlimited life span, and no toxic electrolytes, they are a great choice. Not perfect, but large step in the right direction

I am glad you brought that up! Edison was a doggone genius, and Tesla a wizard.

I look forward to within the next month purchasing my first iron-nickel Edison battery. The objective is to combine my excercise program (currently almost non-existent) with a bicycle, an alternator/regulator, Edison battery bank with inverter, and my work shop as a beginner project. I have been powering the shop with an extension cord, and it is downright dangerous if not just inconvenient. I know it is pretty lame of me not to have progressed past where I am now, but I have been busy working on the fusion reactor of the future, and batteries that only need low level heat to produce "usable" power. Once I get used to the "Mother Earth" way of doing things, then I should have no problems with the hurdle of powering my whole home off grid, or nearly so. My reasons for wanting to do so when I actually work for the power company?

I don't think the local grid will be trust worthy for much longer due to local politics. that is all I have to say about the matter.

Would you please tell us about the perfect energy source, you know the one that provides endless free energy, uses no transmission lines, gluten free, 0 transfats, and is not known to cause cancer to the State of California. It is obvious your solar cooker is not the answer

Funny, I didn't think you knew about my solar cooker.

The sun qualifies as a source of endless free energy. No trans fats, gluten free, no transmission lines. Unfortunately it does cause cancer, including in California, unless you wear protective clothing.

You can get commercial solar cookers, but the fun is in making your own.

As a hobby, I used to make solar cookers out of cardboard boxes, insulation, and glass. I could cook a big pot of rice and chicken in a couple of hours. If you get fancy you can make a more durable one in your back yard set on a pedestal, allowing it to rotate to follow the sun.

If you get even more fancy, if your kitchen is on a south-facing wall of your house, you can build a solar oven into that wall, so that it is accessible from inside. That way you don't have to wear the protective clothing.

They have competitions but I never participated. Still have my old solar cooker though.

This is an engineer's dream. Great engineering challenges, lots of fun, good food, camaraderie, making an important difference in the world. In native villages they reduce lung cancer, environmental degradation, and violence against women by using solar cookers.

Take a look.

http://solarcooking.wikia.com/wiki/Solar_Cookers_International_Network_%28Home%29

(I know you were just trying to be snarky, but it's still a great project.)

I can't wait to find out how solar cooking reduces violence against women? Are they learning how to aim a solar beam at strategic places on the men?

They have to spend far less time searching for wood to burn in the forests, where predators, both human and animal, are roaming.

If you want to make a point, make it, and cut out the snark.

So where do those of us who sit in group three have a say in this?

Group three being those who have looked at both sides of the data and have came to the conclusions that some of us have much to gain from the potential/theoretical changes?

I see myself as one who would likely greatly benefit from these theoretical changes and now put an active effort into trying to find the best solutions to keep things going in the direction that I see fit at this time.

Simply put I do not want to spend my money and tax dollars trying to prevent the very thing I see as being gainful to me and I would really appreciate it it others would stop trying to prevent me from gaining from your losses in the end being as I see it now I am loosing what I am striving for to keep others ways of life the same and I really don't like it.

Yea think about that for a while.

I've thought about this. As I understand it, you are saying that you will benefit from global warming, and therefore you don't want anyone interfering in the warming. I suspect that you may be overly optimistic about the benefits, but I'd like more detail. What kind of business are you in and how do you think you will benefit?

He means that he will have to burn fewer tires and less used motor oil to heat his house in the winter.

Badly! And thats in direct response to your last question!

Who? Me? Why?

What? Why you? Its not for you! Its a straight answer to OP.

But then! Why bother!

Yes, I mean you, you there with the Red thing. Is that a Fred?

Fred, Fredski?!!!???!?!?!?

Whats that?

Whats that mean?

Explain!

I likewise believe that the claim climate change is caused entirely by man's activities is as yet unproven, however I also believe that we have a responsibility to care for the planet on which we live the environment in which we live. We are stewards of the planet and the environment for the generations to come ..... our children and their children.

If we learn to live in harmony with the environment we will be blessed by future generations and we will have enabled them to learn to enjoy it in all its diversity as we have.

There are things which have been done in the past which are impossible to undo - extinction of the Dodo, Thylacine and many others
and the introduction of pest species where they do not belong - rabbits, foxes, cane toads to Australia, Possums to New Zealand which very difficult if not verging on impossible to undo

and there are other activities of mankind which we may still have some time to correct - deforestation in the Amazon South East Asia and other places .....

We need to learn to enjoy and work and live in harmony with the environment so that it may be enjoyed for many generations to come.....

My thoughts.....

GA WAWAUS.

We, mankind, has been given the task of being the stewards for the Earth. We do need to take care of it well.

The Earth was also designed to handle us, mankind. It was made to sustain us and also to survive us. Our impact is miniscule compared to natural events in nature, i.e. volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, lighning strikes, oil seeping from the ground and oceans, etc. We are a tiny microcosm in the Universe.

Still need some arithmetic on that one.

It bothers me greatly when people cram their religion down my throat.

I apologize for voicing an opinion that "bothers" you.

If I said that 300 Billion years ago, give or take a couple of hundred million years, that there was this big bang and voila, here we are, would that "bother" you as well? Evolution is a religious ideology as well.

I'm not preaching, I simply voiced a point of view that is different from global warming, selling carbon credits, etc.

I do not think climate change is that big of a deal whether human activity influences it or not. The reason I think this is:

If it was such a big deal, we would have come back from the future and warned us.

Maybe they did, and they ended up in psych wards.

Maybe it was such a big deal that there that there will be no civilization left to build that time machine.

Or maybe they decided we were already being warned, and another warning wouldn't make any difference.

We are being warned, aren't we?

One point that I haven't seen considered is that according to the orbital pattern of the earth we are in a period where an ice age is predicted in about 1500 years. I imagine if we descend into an ice age there will not be enough food production to sustain life as it will be known at that time.

Wouldn't our efforts at assisting this process be better spent in looking for some regulated higher temperature that would sustain life as we know it?

I look forward to the day I can relieve myself on Al Gore's grave (joke).

I think we need carbon. Like beer, carbon is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy! No carbon, no fun, plain and simple.

Oh, and one other thing before permanently step off the stage, and off to my next venture, since when is "concensus" important or even marginally important to the real advancement of science? As I see it, concensus is what gets the human race in trouble every time. It is the one scientist (or a small cadre' of like-thinking ones), that stretch the limits of understanding, challenge the extant paradigm, and then burst forth the light that always brings the human race one step farther from monkeys in trees, and one step closer to true enlightenment. Religion by itself does not bring enlightenment. Science and religion should merge into near agreement if truth indeed sets us free. When science and religion diverge, some of use should question what are the nefarious motivations for actually concealing the truth that some have (which ever "side" they are on). This is a dilemma for all mankind to sort out before we end up destroying ourselved through stupid bigotry, an unforgiving spirit, or just downright hatred of others that do not see things yet as we do.

On the other hand, goats and sheep will be separated as truth reveals the darkness for what it has become. Truth does not enslave, it liberates. Religion that pontificates (no pun intended) against the truth should be regarded as heresy against the true tenets of that faith. Science that preaches some theory as absolute truth had better be careful that the truth and this "theory" have any relationship other than diametric opposition. Science that purports something as infallible, must not be contridicted by even one observational fact. This is why truth-tellers will win out.

Human nature can be set aside. Human motivations lead us into all forms of unrighteousness, including systems that only exist for the benefit of the system, governement that exists for the sake of benefiting those in the government and not the people. If human nature ever could be refined (by teaching the truth?), then human morality might be ready to lead all humanity into a livable "new heaven and a new earth", but we are definitely no where near that state at this time.

If a man gains all the material things we could ever lust after (want), but has lost his soul, of what purpose is he to humanity? I see that engineers seem to have as much mental balance in regards to this as there is to be found, based on the engineering code of ethics, and general engineering practices, so I salute you.

I'm more in agreement with Lyn so far as we have the Yellowstone Super-volcano which has a history of blowing its top every 700,000 or so years and the last one was about 650,000 years ago. And that's not even taking into account Mt. Redoubt in Alaska which goes off about every 20 years, last one 2009, and then there's Iceland off to our northeast and it has 2 good sized volcanoes, one of which messed up airline travel to Europe just a few years ago. It's still smoking away. There are at least 7 Super-volcanoes on our earth, anyone of which could shut down "global warming" for quite awhile.

With our current flight to "renewable energy supplies', what happens to the solar cells when the hydrofluoric acid that forms after eruptions hits the panels. What happens to the windmills and their gearing systems when that volcanic ash gets in there and grinds the gears and erodes the blades? I think that a "nuclear winter" like that of 1783 is more imminent than the old Sol shutting down.

"What happens to the windmills and their gearing systems when that volcanic ash gets in there and grinds the gears and erodes the blades?"

You are aware that as with most everything that is actively used these systems also get actively maintained and they are not just installed and walked away from right?

The gear boxes are sealed well enough and have filter systems on them plus get regular oil changes after so many running hours so that's not an issue.

The blades get their leading edges re coated with epoxy paint or something similar as needed just as they do now to deal with dust from fields.

Yes I am aware of that. I am also aware that those gear boxes are not hermetically sealed and generally have breathers which allow air and hence atmospheric gases to pass in and out and to some extent particles in the air. as far as oil changes a sudden volcanic explosion in a large geographic area would probably prevent all from being changed all at once.

I would also question the protective effect of epoxy against the volcanic ash since pumice is basically a product of volcanic debris and that is quite abrasive.

Well I see both points to be pretty weak straw man arguments but I will indulge you a bit.

Granted they have breathers but very few commercial application gearboxes have them directly to open air. Most often they are breathing through some sort of small air filtration system to keep moisture levels under control.

Besides to be honest the air exchange in any large gearbox is still very small and rather slow compared to its physical size. It may take days or more for even a few cubic feet of air to be exchanged.

As for the leading edges they are not traveling at the super sonic speeds or at the high operating temperatures that jet engine turbine blades work at so fine dust suspended in the air is going to take a long time to do much damage and should the dut be in a high enough concentration there are obviously far greater social and environmental issues to worry about first.

Really your average vehicle's paint job deals with far worse abrasions just from being driven on gravel roads and look how long it takes for even that to become a paint wear issue.

As part of your indulgence you may want to read this: http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/369/wind-turbine-gearboxes-oil

and you might also want to consider the fact that although the RPM may be low the tip speed and leading edge FPM would be more of a factor in so far as the abrasion that the blades would suffer from the very abrasive nature of volcanic dust. Try using some Lava soap which has pumice as part of its makeup. It can remove your skin as well as the dirt.

If you wish to indulge me a little more here is another article of interest: http://www.windsystemsmag.com/article/detail/426/rotor-blade-leading--edge-erosion--real--life-experiences and http://www.windpowerengineering.com/design/mechanical/blades/calculate-blade-tip-speed/

I didn't see any references to volcanic dust being a major concern in either link.

You deal with the crisis in front of you, not ignore it because there might be another one later.

Yellowstone might not erupt for 50,000 or 100,000 years. The smaller volcanoes only cause a blip in the climate. Major eruptions only have an effect for a year or two, maybe 3 or 4 for a really big one, and they only happen once in 50 to 100 years or so.

It is like saying, "My engine is overheating, but I don't bother with it because statistics show I'm likely to have an accident soon, and my car might be totaled."

If a volcano erupts and it has an effect on your solar panels and windmills, I'm sure you will have greater problems to deal with, like breathing.

You are confusing me: I think that a "nuclear winter" like that of 1783 is more imminent than the old Sol shutting down.

Really? We had nuclear winter in 1783? WTF dude? I know you didn't mean that, but you just awkwardly phrased it, but I am letting you know there is a phraseology sheriff in town...LOL.

I used the term in the sense that at one time (1950's-60's) the result of a whole out nuclear war between Russia and the US was predicted to be a "nuclear winter" and it has also been used to refer to the result of vast volcanic activity such as the eruption of a super-volcano such as Yellowstone. There have been numerous "little ice ages" in the past, none of which were comical to the people alive at the time especially that of 1783.

I am not alone in connecting the terms "major super-volcano eruptions" and "nuclear winter". See http://www.timeline2012.net/prepare/possible-earth-events/volcanoes.

Perhaps having been alive through the "Cold War" period I am a little more aware of the term "nuclear winter" and it's intended meaning/result.

Well, if Elon Musk, Tesla Motor Corp., and "the Silent Partner" to the proposed "Project BlueStar" are right, there will another dent in the "carbon footprint", and a big chunk of it will be used at the new GIGAfactory to be built in Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona (maybe Nevada - but I shudder to think that). Any state dumb enough to allow Harry Reid to steal elections for 20+ years does not deserve a big new project.

The gist is the "Silent Partner" controls new and vast Lithium deposits in one of the western states, and they also contol vast supplies of carbon that are useful in making the Li+ion batteries that propel the cars. The Gigafactory will be the largest autmomotive/propulsion battery production facility in the world. 6500 new jobs projected. The plant is supposedly going to be powered entirely by renewable energy. Note: Elon Musk is not the patent holding of the 130+ patents on his technology -- what is that guy's name Schaumberg? He is the patent holder.

http://venturebeat.com/2014/11/16/how-tesla-got-nevada-to-give-it-1-4b-in-exchange-for-a-giant-battery-factory/

Based on the absolutely corrupt moral terpitude involved with the high level of bribery to steal the Gigafactory from New Mexico (which had the most to gain), I would say Elon Musk truly deserves what he will receive in the end, which is a good screwing from the State of Nevada before its over. I would not step or drive over the Nevada state line to take a leak or drop a load. The state is one of which the union would be better off without.

can you provide me with a short list of billionaires who made their money passively? Musk is a fierce negotiator, he wants the best deal, wouldn't you?

In order to not evade your question, no, I do not have a short list, and based on much of what went on in the late 19th to early 20th Centuries here in America, I would say this appears as "business as per usual", however looks can be deceiving. I like Elon Musk and hold the highest respect for him, I just hope for his sake this was a wise decision.

Once again, I go back to my L'e'tandard: If I should follow this perfectly, I would be a happy man indeed,

if a man gains the entire world, and loses his soul in the process, then he is still lost.

I saying that Elon Musk may believe now that he has the best deal, but what will he think when he realizes he made a deal with the devil? What then? It may absolutely come full circle and bite him where he least expects it.

I think what Musk is doing is not a lot different then what Henry Ford did to lower costs by cutting out middle men and taking control of parts of supply chain.......in this case the part with the highest cost, the battery.he has his next var ready to roll, unlike the model S which is a 100+K world class car he'll next sell a smaller almost SUV ride

I expect this car to sell well over 100K units annually. his Supercharger network is on track to make "refueling" far easier than it currently is. the guy is the real deal

The stuff I was reading/listening to was targeting a much lower price range, somewhere in the $30K range. I am aware of the new Li-ion battery tech that will allow much faster charging rates. I don't argue with Musk's desire/ability to take control of his supply chain, and that is sound business acumen.

I am just saying that he can do himself and his companies more harm than good in the long run by being in any way linked to one of the most corrupt states in the union. That is really the end of what I have to say about it.

Not sure why Musk should go with the state that had the most to gain, instead of making the deal where Tesla has the most to gain. Nevada is very close to his factory in Northern California and he got a good deal. Not sure I see "any absolutely corrupt moral terpitude involved with the high level of bribery to steal the Gigafactory from New Mexico."

If Nevada stole it, or there was bribery, then they can just file a lawsuit. What are you seeing that hasn't been said yet?

Would it be a more authentic statement to say you're just pissed that Nevada got it instead of New Mexico?

Look: If it in any way involves Harry Reid, then the paper it is written on is radioactive, and I would not touch it with a ten foot pole. We have met the great Satan, and Harry is it.

carbon dioxide you mean? The old man got this since 1972. -- amazing all was recycled.

GP! I agree.

Considering the magnitude of negative effect to the atmosphere and ionosphere from drastic increases in volcanic activity throughout the world over the last 25 years I cannot see how industry or automobiles/trucks/busses could ever be the "root cause" of Global Warming.

The quantity of greenhouse gasses, dust, and other contaminants such as hydrocarbons being continuously spewed out of just 2-3 of the larger volcanoes appears to be more than all of the automobiles/trucks in the US put together.

I understand that auto, trucks, busses, and industrial processes may somewhat contribute to overall pollution however I do not think if everything is taken into consideration the actual DATA will support the alarmist cries.

You would think we could scientifically and accurately measure the quantity of pollutants from sources and come with a better system of true analysis.

Ask and ye shall receive.

From NASA's web site:

"Although volcanoes are active around the world, and continue to emit carbon dioxide as they did in the past, the amount of carbon dioxide they release is extremely small compared to human emissions. On average, volcanoes emit between 130 and 230 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. By burning fossil fuels, people release in excess of 100 times more, about 26 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere every year (as of 2005). As a result, human activity overshadows any contribution volcanoes may have made to recent global warming."

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php

Also, the US Geological Service says:

"Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO₂ budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO₂ is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO₂ annually"

"This seems like a huge amount of CO₂, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO₂ tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO₂ is large, the global fossil fuel CO₂ emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO₂ not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value."

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

No, no, no, no!

You are falling prey to the perennial trap of trying to argue against emotions with verifiable facts. This never works. Unfortunately there is not one single emotion blocking peoples perceptions. The volcano argument hinges on the emotion of insignificance. The Earth, Sun and Universe are so large that people cannot alter it. I'm not sure if this stems from a common feeling that an individual cannot properly steer their own lives, so how can they muck up the planet or a divinity has set this all up and we dare not challenge it but it is still a difficult to shake emotion.

A related emotion is the idea that we are helpless in accurately predicting the future. Never mind that climate change is predicting a long term trend and not tomorrows local storm. I have no idea when you or I will one day die however I am 100% certain that everyone that reads this today, February 2015, will be dead by February 2235.

Thanks for the heads up. I keep thinking that an engineering forum should be able to handle facts, and I keep getting surprised when it can't.

Time to move on.