[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Actually much of Utah is under EPA regulation because of the air quality. In Utah county all gasoline is oxegenated from November through March to reduce pollution. The safety and emmission requirements are extremely strict here. For a while a lot of people tried to go out of state to avoid them but now they charge fines if you are a Utah resident with an out of state registered car. They also charge property tax the same as a house on cars. I paid something like $500 in taxes on my SUV last year.

Those are punitive measures for having so many days in a year where the air quality exceeds the regulation, right? I was under the impression Utah was under some probation regime until it met standards.

At any rate, I suppose the tax burden on citizens for their vehicles could be greatly offset if the state put more burden on the heavy polluters instead of everyone.

It's hard for me to imagine that Utah's air pollution problems are substantially attributable to cars. I think you might be paying for the relatively lax fines placed on polluting industries.

Any tax breaks for buying a car that exceeds the standard?

[clarkgoble]

I think that charging property taxes on cars is primarily a revenue earner and not necessarily for pollution. However it has the benefit of that (and is taken into consideration) since expensive cars tend to be the most polluting. In addition every year you have to have your car's emmissions inspected and you aren't allowed to register it if they don't meet. And the restrictions are high.

A lot of people claimed that the steel mill was the source of a lot of the pollution. That was true to a point. But I think something like 1/3 of the pollution that the EPA is concerned with comes from cars. The state has been pushing mass transit, but the population really doesn't like it. But Utah wisely used the Olympics to install light rail and to upgrade its mass transit systems. Still they are a real hassle because Utah is so spread out.

Geneva Steel has shut down now, but I don't think there is a *huge* improvement. The problem is that the valleys here naturally get inversions in the winter and collect the smoke. There are fireplace bans regularly during the winter as well. But even in the 19th century when the initial settlers arrived they commented on air quality during January. A lot of smog is natural - although admittedly during the winter inversions the air collects all the pollution for a week. Which can be bad for those with asthma or the like.

[thunderous_funker]

I remember you could smell Geneva steel and Flying J on certain days. Especially in the winter. Then in the summer you got the brine shrimp smell from the lake.

I do remember the fireplace bans. My dad was ticked. Our house relied on a wood-burning stove for much of it's heat. He eventually got one that burned both wood and coal and had a type of catalytic converter that burned off excess particulates that was "blessed" by the state.

I hope there is improvement. Utah is so beautiful it would be a shame to have significant air quality issues. LA is a disaster. You can be 200 miles away from the city and you can still see the wall of smog from any elevation. It extends out to see for miles and miles too.

Well, hopefully if Utah manages it well now while the population is still small, it can avoid the fate of LA and Pheonix down the line.

I think the light rail in SLC is a fantastic step. I realize they had to cram it down the city's throat, but I got the impression that people really liked it now that they had it. Aren't they expanding it now? Something servicing West Jordan would probably be a good idea.

[clarkgoble]

They finished the north - south light rail before the Olympics. They finished a big chunk of the east - west light rail last fall. I don't think they have the east - west reaching the Airport yet, which really is necessary.

A lot of people do like the light rail. Having it reach Utah valley (or better yet a high speed commuter rail) would be better. But everyone *wants* their car and the Utah simply doesn't have central hubs the way most cities do. The first thing I noticed when I moved here was how spread out everything is. Cities in Utah are really all suburb. It's improving somewhat. But not by much.

The pollution here is nowhere near as bad as LA or Phoenix or even most east coast cities. However during inversions it does get bad. You can hike up on the benches and look over the valley and see brown. But as I mentioned that is natural and no pollution control can stop inversions. It is a natural feature of the valley and the Salt Lake.

As I mentioned Geneva is dead. It's a superfund site so I don't know when it will be cleaned up. Provo/Orem is now full with no place to put development except around Geneva. So I suspect eventually there will be political and economic pressure to clean it up. It'll be interesting to see since Chris Cannon's family owned the mill. (He's our rep - but he's not like most of the Canons. I rather like Chris and I used to rent the basement below where his sister lived) Chris actually goes out shooting with us sometimes. Good guy.

I don't think Utah's population can be considered small. I think that within 5 years it'll be straight city with no gaps from Nephi up past Ogden. It is nearly there *now*, although there are still a few orchards and farm land in the south. The cities and state have realized the importance of open space though and are putting in a lot more parks. Plus having the city in a 3 - 10 mile wide strip that runs 120 miles beside gorgeous mountains helps in that regard.

I don't smell the brine shrimp much and you have to live close to the lake to really smell them. Once again though, that is a natural phenomena and can't be tied to human influence. The fact of the matter is that neither Utah lake nor Salt Lake are ever going to be the kind of lakes people like. (Actually Utah lake used to be much cleaner but Scandanavian introduced carp into it back in the mid 19th century which did in the local fish populations and which had a significantly different diet)

BTW - the flying J smell probably was that pet food place. It takes dead animals from farms and zoos and renders them into protein. It can smell pretty nasty. A lot of people complain, but to be fair when they built that factory they were in the middle of nowhere. It's hardly their fault that populations have grown up around them.

[ink]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
It figures. It sounded too good, so I'm not surprised there's a "little" catch to the whole thing.

This has always been the case with hydrogen energy... it's not like you can just mine it from the magical hydrogen mines. Electric transportation, fuled by solar, wind, water, geo-thermal and nuclear power is the only real, clean solution for the environment.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ink:
This has always been the case with hydrogen energy... it's not like you can just mine it from the magical hydrogen mines. Electric transportation, fuled by solar, wind, water, geo-thermal and nuclear power is the only real, clean solution for the environment.

Nuclear, clean!?

What are you on!?

Nuclear is only cheap and clean if you happen to have enough desert you can tunnel under to remove the deadly waste for several thousand years.

Most places on the planet do not have this luxury.

Not that it's really a luxury, or a solution; it just turns it into Somebody Else's Problem.

-s*

[clarkgoble]

The effects of nuclear waste aren't nearly as horrible as you outline. Further we do have deserts we can bury things in.

Related to the initial discussion, I noticed on Slashdot that DOE is suggesting a nuclear reactor that generates hydrogen as a byproduct. Here't the link to the original article.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0322/baard.php

Obviously the Village Voice is a tad liberal but the general idea is rather interesting.

[thunderous_funker]

Aside from the technology fear surrounding Nuclear power, I think many many Americans distrust it as an industry.

Certaily the technology exists to make it a relatively clean, efficient energy source, but many of us simply do not trust it to be run responsibly by energy companies. You know, the likes of PG&E, Monsanto, Enron, etc. Companies with pollution rap sheets worthy of a demon's resume.

The Simpson's character of Mr. Burn's is the intersection of art, public perception and reality.

[ink]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Aside from the technology fear surrounding Nuclear power, I think many many Americans distrust it as an industry.

Certaily the technology exists to make it a relatively clean, efficient energy source, but many of us simply do not trust it to be run responsibly by energy companies. You know, the likes of PG&E, Monsanto, Enron, etc. Companies with pollution rap sheets worthy of a demon's resume.

Good point. No, it's not irrational to be afraid of nuclear power. It is, IMHO, silly to let that fear dominate your actions. As industries, nuclear power has been FAR cleaner than fossil-fuel generation. One could argue that we don't know the future of the waste situation, but at least all the waste is easily contained (unlike coal byproducts, which are inhaled by everyone). There are some very cool, very clean, new reactor designs that we are unable to test due to this fear.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ink:
Good point. No, it's not irrational to be afraid of nuclear power. It is, IMHO, silly to let that fear dominate your actions. As industries, nuclear power has been FAR cleaner than fossil-fuel generation. One could argue that we don't know the future of the waste situation, but at least all the waste is easily contained (unlike coal byproducts, which are inhaled by everyone). There are some very cool, very clean, new reactor designs that we are unable to test due to this fear.

on the other hand, there is Chernobyl and Three MIle Island.
Not even mentioning sabotage or terrorist acts.

but please, do continue.

[thunderous_funker]

I think France has made tremendous efforts to educate and eliminate irrational fear of Nuclear power. They even offer public tours, I think.

Am I correct in thiking that nuclear power in France is not a private, for-profit enterprise?

I have a lot of engineers in the family, including an uncle who was a pioneer in the nuclear power industry in this country. I have faith in the science, just not the business.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ink:
Good point. No, it's not irrational to be afraid of nuclear power. It is, IMHO, silly to let that fear dominate your actions. As industries, nuclear power has been FAR cleaner than fossil-fuel generation. One could argue that we don't know the future of the waste situation, but at least all the waste is easily contained (unlike coal byproducts, which are inhaled by everyone). There are some very cool, very clean, new reactor designs that we are unable to test due to this fear.

on the other hand, there is Chernobyl and Three MIle Island.
Not even mentioning sabotage or terrorist acts.

but please, do continue.

[ink]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
on the other hand, there is Chernobyl and Three MIle Island.
Not even mentioning sabotage or terrorist acts.

but please, do continue.

What of all the deaths caused by conventional power plants? 1 ounce of uranium can generate as much power as the Yankee stadium filled with coal. How many died from mining it? Transporting it? From disases caused by the pollution it generates?

Chernobyl was a state-run plant that caused 28 deaths, and more illnesses. Compare that with the death count for our current power generation; include the deaths in the wars to protect those resources, the wells to get the natural gas and such... Three-mile produced no deaths, and was contained by safety precautions (other than, perhaps, deaths caused by mining the uranium).

But please, do continue...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ink:
What of all the deaths caused by conventional power plants? 1 ounce of uranium can generate as much power as the Yankee stadium filled with coal. How many died from mining it? Transporting it? From disases caused by the pollution it generates?

Chernobyl was a state-run plant that caused 28 deaths, and more illnesses. Compare that with the death count for our current power generation; include the deaths in the wars to protect those resources, the wells to get the natural gas and such... Three-mile produced no deaths, and was contained by safety precautions (other than, perhaps, deaths caused by mining the uranium).

But please, do continue...

a little sensitive, I see.
I'm only stating that there are other sides than the rebecca of sunnybrook farm view on nuclear power.
I only stated two examples of things that went wrong. People are imperfect, and even safety systems are imperfect. One was a disaster, and one didn't go that far.

[clarkgoble]

It is a little unfair comparing Cherynoble (sp?) to western styled plants. The Soviet Union wasn't exactly concerned about the environment or worker safety. We're talking a bunch of guys who used nukes to create lakes.

The Cherynoble plant design was quite different as well. American plant design from the early 70's also has been dramatically improved upon the past 30 years. Heavens, Canada's reactor design always was better than the American one.

The limits on nuclear power arise because of environmental activists who unfortunately have no solution to energy production beyond using less energy and hand waving about solar and wind power.

[Cog]

I know this is a little late in the game since this article by Berry C. Lynn published "Hydrogen's Dirty Secret' back in May-June of 2003 but I had to add my two cents anyway:

There is a book that explains the technology titled, FUEL FROM WATER, Energy Independence with Hydrogen (ISBN 0-945516-04-5) by Michael A. Peavey published by Merit Products, Inc and another I don't own but which is referred to by Mr. Peavey titled, FOREVER FUEL by Peter Hoffmann. It gives the formulas, materials, plans and comparitively accesses them against one another.

The article written by Mr. Lynn which was the spinnoff from Mr. Bush's grandiose unveiling is about corporate control and economic profiteering centered around using pressurized liquid hydrogen as processed from OIL. One goes to the 'gas' pumps and simply filles her up. This presidentially proposed 'plan' is disguising how a fuel cell can be designed that encourages economic independence. Furthermore, the arguements dismissing fuel cells based on electrolysis disregards how they use a battery in Alaska which means the similer electrolysis process of fuel cells is viable as well.

If Mr. Bush's plan is solely about reducing the polluting effects of hydrocarbons then his plan has merit, but we can conclude that it is about corporate ownship of the process because it disregards the the political advantages of nondependence.

Seen in hindsight, there is a great deal of unnecessary hardship placed on the 18-25 year olds fighting and dieing in Iraq for the sake of political expediency and the establishment of a military presence and powerbase from which to operate. As a developing country, China owns a third of our national debt and if they call in their markers via American stocks and bonds in a bid for oil and dominence then the resulting run on American currency would crash every market. Thus the Eagle crouches protectively over its oil nest egg to prevent such an eventuality, oil that China desperately needs for further development, oil that is supposed to fuel the fictional future of the hydrogen economy.

Too bad, so sad.....

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Cog

I know this is a little late in the game since this article by Berry C. Lynn published "Hydrogen's Dirty Secret' back in May-June of 2003 but I had to add my two cents anyway:

There is a book that explains the technology titled, FUEL FROM WATER, Energy Independence with Hydrogen (ISBN 0-945516-04-5) by Michael A. Peavey published by Merit Products, Inc and another I don't own but which is referred to by Mr. Peavey titled, FOREVER FUEL by Peter Hoffmann. It gives the formulas, materials, plans and comparitively accesses them against one another.

The article written by Mr. Lynn which was the spinnoff from Mr. Bush's grandiose unveiling is about corporate control and economic profiteering centered around using pressurized liquid hydrogen as processed from OIL. One goes to the 'gas' pumps and simply filles her up. This presidentially proposed 'plan' is disguising how a fuel cell can be designed that encourages economic independence. Furthermore, the arguements dismissing fuel cells based on electrolysis disregards how they use a battery in Alaska which means the similer electrolysis process of fuel cells is viable as well.

If Mr. Bush's plan is solely about reducing the polluting effects of hydrocarbons then his plan has merit, but we can conclude that it is about corporate ownship of the process because it disregards the the political advantages of nondependence.

Seen in hindsight, there is a great deal of unnecessary hardship placed on the 18-25 year olds fighting and dieing in Iraq for the sake of political expediency and the establishment of a military presence and powerbase from which to operate. As a developing country, China owns a third of our national debt and if they call in their markers via American stocks and bonds in a bid for oil and dominence then the resulting run on American currency would crash every market. Thus the Eagle crouches protectively over its oil nest egg to prevent such an eventuality, oil that China desperately needs for further development, oil that is supposed to fuel the fictional future of the hydrogen economy.

Too bad, so sad.....

I saw the thread title and was

I began reading from the top of the thread, way back in 2003 and noticed these posters were getting the right information and drawing the right conclusions and I was

Then I jumped to the end to see how some really great poster had read this whole thread and had brought some significant new information and insights to the P/L re: our greatest challenge, the one that is at the core of every one of our nation's problems and I skimmed your post and I was

Yes. The President's energy program falls waay short of what is really called for. And, in a way, I blame the American people.

And right now I would guess you are like

Well, the President has people he's beholden to. It's a dirty little not-so-secret part of politics that you make deals to get elected President. There are deals that you can live with and others that you just can't abide.

Each office holder defines HIS (HER??) own level of stink tolerance.

The only thing the President can sometimes do if the PEOPLE do nothing or say nothing in opposition to it, is to go along with plans that reward the people he's beholden to.

When the president first came out with his energy policy, if the American people had been truly educated about energy, he would have had to talk to his 'chit' holders and say, "Listen here, boys...I TRIED to get that bill passed but the American people saw right through it! I guess you are just going to have to sweeten the deal a little bit for them to get excited."

And then maybe we would have gotten a better program.

There's a lot of power in the office but there's a lot of power that's BEHIND the office...no matter if it be democrat or republican.

Certain things is the President's fault. Others just can't be avoided.

In the case of energy, most of us here STILL don't understand what's wrong with Hydrogen.

And THAT is why the President MAY have had to offer up a bill that would reward big oil and big corporations...because the US voter didn't know the difference.

In a political climate where so much is done through advocacy and special interest groups and lobbying and PACs and boycotts and media and all, who can blame big business from looking at this as an uncontested WIN for them when uncontested wins are few and far between in Washington DC.

EDIT: Also, you fail to recognize that there would still be no relief from our current oil dependence even IF we had gone balls to the wall to develop a viable alternative to oil back in 2000. I agree about China. I think your insight into the debt China owns of ours, if this is accurate, explains much. But where you see the Eagle over the ME as a long term protection from China, and a political expediency for establishing a ME power base (could be, could be!) I see it ALSO as a vital short term necessity that no one must underestimate!

You say, too bad, too sad...but what exactly do you find those TWO TOO's TO be 4?

[Athens]

In the case of energy, most of us here STILL don't understand what's wrong with Hydrogen.

There is nothing wrong with Hydrogen as long as the other component, the energy to convert it into a fuel is there, and Fussion in my opinion is the answer to that. Forget about the it cost more energy to convert factor, if we can produce the energy to convert it, then what we have is a fuel for cars that dont pollute, how much more air pollution can our cities handle?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Athens

There is nothing wrong with Hydrogen as long as the other component, the energy to convert it into a fuel is there, and Fussion in my opinion is the answer to that. Forget about the it cost more energy to convert factor, if we can produce the energy to convert it, then what we have is a fuel for cars that dont pollute, how much more air pollution can our cities handle?

What will your NEIGHBORS say when we go to bury all the radioactive wastes, from all the fusion reactors that would be needed to do the job, in YOUR backyard?

Oh, and I'm assuming you WOULD be alright with having your part of the country designated as the most toxic land fill on earth.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by mojo2

What will your NEIGHBORS say when we go to bury all the radioactive wastes, from all the fusion reactors that would be needed to do the job, in YOUR backyard?

Oh, and I'm assuming you WOULD be alright with having your part of the country designated as the most toxic land fill on earth.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...m3_000630.html

I rather have a small amount of radioactive waste barried some place over the air pollution.

[Sky Captain]

Helium 3 is why China is looking to the moon.
They want to be there first. To claim all mining rights.
The next wars will be in space.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Helium 3 is why China is looking to the moon.
They want to be there first. To claim all mining rights.
The next wars will be in space.

OH, AND A BIG TO THOSE WHO ACCUSE THE USA OF BEING EMPIRIALISTIC AND ALL THAT STUFF...

When we landed on the moon we REALLY COULD have claimed it as OURS. We didn't. In fact, we could STILL do it. I mean, who else has the space program that could compare to ours? We put a few giant space lasers on the moon and anyone who comes near is blasted!

We could dole out or ration or sell helium 3 to whomever we want. Talk about Kings of the World! HA!

Hmmm... Maybe we SHOULD re-think that whole issue. Imagine being the only nation on Earth with power. THAT really COULD be the ball game right there. The 'walk-off' home run.

Of course we wouldn't let anyone go without, but peace could reign. Freedom would be common. People could worship as they wish. Everyone would play nice, make money and be free!

Somebody tell me where's the flaw in that plan? I'm not seeing ANY down side.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I have a question. Since I buy German cars anyway, why would I want to spend my tax dollars on US government research on alternative fuels? I'd rather let the Germans and the EU fund it with their taxes.

I call this turn about for decades of European free riderism on defense.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I have a question. Since I buy German cars anyway, why would I want to spend my tax dollars on US government research on alternative fuels? I'd rather let the Germans and the EU fund it with their taxes.

(Wide-eyed and innocently) "Gee whillikers, Simey! Do you really think they will? Do ya, huh? Wow, THAT would be GREAT and then our good old EU & German pals will let us have ALL the alternative energy we want for free or at least really, really cheap, huh?! Yeah, I just KNOW they will!!!"

[Sky Captain]

Ugh I won't buy another Porsche.
A swallowed valve in #4 cylinder cost me almost $4000 in parts alone.

And hydrgen from water will consume more energy than it will produce.
Unless we invest in MANY more nuke plants

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

"Freedom car"?

How idiotic and typical.