Comments for WastedEnergy

Comment on Thar She Blows! by Green Energy

Green Energy — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:41:42 +0000

Hi there! This blog post couldn’t be written any better! Going through this post reminds me of my previous roommate! He continually kept preaching about this. I most certainly will send this information to him. Pretty sure he’s going to have a very good read. Thank you for sharing!

Comment on One for a Rainy Day by heyyou

heyyou — Tue, 17 May 2011 03:05:48 +0000

Hey

Great post!

How are things working out for you these days?

Comment on The Fallacy of the Beard and the Paradox of Zero by daniel jarvis

daniel jarvis — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 05:40:09 +0000

what do you do if i say i am buttnick dan? i see two ways i will know somethings stupid . 1.hi buttnickifier 2.hi phil is your wife in the audience again?

Comment on One for a Rainy Day by shabbir

shabbir — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 04:39:00 +0000

Planet of Earth Energy Crisis.

Dear Sir

Subject mater all our the World facing Energy problem So I am try to explain a idea for Old & New Dams / Reservoirs Hydel Civil Design can move in architectural Transition to increase our energy potential Because we are losing heavy quantum of already storage water in our Big Dams to generate past technology now need to convert into New theory of Technology.

Thanks.

with best regards.

Comment on Mislead By Example by Jim Nastix

Jim Nastix — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 03:06:04 +0000

Koch-heads haven’t filed a lawsuit yet, have they? LOL

Comment on Clearing The Air: Why GAIA and Other Waste-to-Energy Critics Have it Backwards by wastedenergy

wastedenergy — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:27:42 +0000

Amy, just to put first things first: when you say “your industry” I am not sure what it is to which you refer. Currently, I work as a ceramic artist and lobbyist for humanity’s future, nothing more

That said, this piece was intended as a response to GAIA’s claims regarding “incinerators” or as I prefer to call them, waste-to-energy plants. I can’t speak to the cleanliness or dirtiness of TDF because I just haven’t done enough homework in that area, but with regard to conventional solid waste combustors, I suggest you compare the requirements for WTE plants to those for conventional coal- and even natural-gas fired facilities. WTE plants are the only facilities required to meet Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards. There is a world of difference between what is asked of the fossil fuel industries, with their armies of lobbyists, and the waste-to-energy industry, with its single lobbyist (he’s still around, right? Let’s hope so).

All I can really say is to summarize what I have already said, which is that waste-to-energy technology is some of the cleanest clean energy tech around, and has quite a few side benefits to boot. Read up on the latest and greatest if you don’t believe me, I’m sure you can find more around the web if you put a little effort into it.

Comment on Clearing The Air: Why GAIA and Other Waste-to-Energy Critics Have it Backwards by Amy Hammes

Amy Hammes — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:17:28 +0000

My question to the facts that your industry claims as having advanced emission controls and that burning tires are a “minor” source of air pollution–then why was the tire lobby against the EPA’s recent attempt to mandate the scrap tires as “waste” rather than fuel under the Clean Air Act? The defense by TIA and RMA was that TDF burners such as cement kilns would avoid using tires since they wouldn’t want to install new pollution controls. Doesn’t that contradict your statements that this is a very responsible use of these resources when your clients don’t want to install advanced emission controls?

Secondly, TDF is the fastest growing use of scrap tires. This easy “out” by calling it “fuel” allows the industry to be lax on regulation and more importantly, finding true reutilization such as rubberized asphalt applications? This very fact is what gave your EPA fight weight because there is simply not many markets that have been developed so the over-reliance on TDF is the very thing keeping the industry from advancing alternatives. Thus, agencies like EPA have little choice but to let the industry be for fear of stockpiling. So, my other question is shouldn’t the tire manufacturers and their lobby be working harder towards advancing market development while discouraging growth in TDF?

Methinks if the industry can’t break free of the TDF temptation then Extended Producer Responsibility may be “down the road”, excuse the pun. Organizations like GAIA are advocacy to protect health and social equity, whereas “facts” from your industry should be questionable due to the ulterior motives. Do you really think you are going to publish scientific research that says TDF is harmful?

Comment on You Got Lynched by timl2k11

timl2k11 — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 19:24:35 +0000

“No to be on a production plateau.” should have been “Now we seem to be on a production plateau”.

Comment on You Got Lynched by timl2k11

timl2k11 — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 19:22:44 +0000

“Hubbert did not say, in his 1956 article, that production would peak in 2010 at 85 mb/d. He said 2000 at about 35 mb/d.” This point I can concede. Applying the Hubbert curve to the US was relatively easy, no geopolitical instability, and just one country. Applying the curve to the whole globe is a much more difficult, maybe impractical proposition. Civil wars breakout crippling production, countries destabilize crippling production. Recessions occur destroying demand, sometimes as during the late 90′s early 2000′s demand surges. So we are dealing with more factors than just a simple curve when looking at the global picture. The picture is muddier. The IEA admitted production peaked in 2006. No to be on a production plateau. The world doesn’t want oil to peak, we are now in a frenzy, mining tar sands, drilling deep water, we are doing everything technologically and financially we can to prevent a decline. This is all very expensive and will only get more so. This frenzy doesn’t throw water on “peak oil” it only confirms it emphatically. The harder we fight the decline the worse it will be, the faster you drain an emptying container the sooner it’s empty.
“And public debates have a drawback, which is that people can say almost anything, since it is hardly possible to provide full citations.” You are just speaking of bad debating. Watch the Miller-Morris Evolution-creation debates. It is totally possible to provide full citations, but it takes a lot of effort. That’s a deplorable cop-out.

Comment on You Got Lynched by WastedEnergy

WastedEnergy — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:55:08 +0000

Mike: your latest comment was entirely over the top and came across as extremely arrogant. Therefore, I will not bother replying to the “substance” of what you have said, since you have introduced nothing new, and the final rebuttal is too late to do so anyway. I’m not giving a 3NR; you’re not worth my time, and your arguments, to the extent that you even made any, have already been thoroughly demolished by Spec, myself, and numerous other commenters.

Instead, I will let our beef stand. You’ve had your chance to prove yourself in writing, and you failed. I won this debate, and I bet every single observer here would agree, even Redmond. Now it’s time to stand up and defend your viewpoint. If you are going to publish masturbatory editorial content, you had better be prepared to back up what you have to say. But now that you have refused to debate, you have just obliterated your final shred of credibility.

Or as we said back in the old school: JUST DEBATE IT.

Oh, and finally: the reason I asked for your client list is so I can know who is funding your “research” and just what kind of skin you have in the game. I can think of no other reason why someone would defend such an indefensible position unless they were on the payroll for Koch Industries or its equivalent. Game over.