This Battery Uses Up CO2 to Create Energy

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Market forces and greed dictate those prices and much of the price is the land not the building.  It's really hard, and expensive, to make more land.

Where I live a totally worthless house on a small lot in a nice older neighborhood will sell for $300,000+.  People buy two, tear down both and build a fancy large house.

Big problem with sprawl is so much land gets used up by roads.  If we pave everything where do we live?  I could never live in San Francisco - the land of no trees, or grass.

Probably 99% of the land in America has nothing on it. City folks must not get around much. If all you know is the megalopolises like Southern California, or greater New York it just seems that land is scarce. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

19 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I'd stay away from these cities then Ron!

The World's Most Densely Populated Cities
Rank         City               Population    Density (Per Sq Km)
1              Manila             1,780,148       41,515
2              Mumbai           2,478,447       28,508
3              Dhaka              8,523,137       28,410
4              Caloocan        1,489,040       27,916
5              Chennai          4,681,087       25,854
6              Kolkata           4,486,679       24,252
7              Kathmandu    1,183,000       23,923
8              Subang Jaya  1,683,589       23,911
9              Paris               2,265,886       21,498
10            Macau                643,100       21,224

I have only been in one of these, that is Paris. I loved visiting it. Now Notre Dame has been ravished by fire and there are no go districts. I would only live in such a place if I could live as a wealthy person. As an average Joe, I will stay with the countryside which is what I love. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/30/2020 at 5:55 AM, Rob Plant said:

I disagree as you are presuming that there will be no improved efficiencies in current technology and no new technology at all. if you couple advancements here with people being more responsible in recycling, less wasteful with foodstuffs and managing waste then I believe the population can still grow. However how that is implemented around the world particularly poorer countries I don't know.

I do agree that the planet is becoming a very small place though.

I think the answer is that poor people know how to live poor and help each other far more than middle class and wealthy people do. Unfortunately, they don't have the best sanitation, health care, education, and opportunities. 

I really wonder how much worse their happiness level is than those from richer nations. Maybe someone knows of a study on that issue. 

Modern technology and the abundance of energy would make it quite possible to much more densely populate colder regions. Buildings can be partially underground, food can be grown in greenhouses. Heating is a lot easier when modern technology is used. Geothermal heating and proper placement of windows, insulation, solar heated mass etc. 

This is my Population topic: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P5E7KXffXhi_nqMJETLjtoVfYdVHr-pVrYWzVg36ykk/edit

Edited February 1, 2020 by ronwagn
addition

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Here is how land is used in America. Note how little is populated. Also, realize that much of that grassland could be used to produce vegetarian food for people rather than for cattle and other livestock. Chickens take very little land to raise. The same is true of rabbits, goats, turkeys, ducks, fish, etc. 

The average American would also be healthier if they ate about one third less than they do. 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/december/a-primer-on-land-use-in-the-united-states/

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by ronwagn
addition

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

10 hours ago, ronwagn said:

The average American would also be healthier if they ate about one third less than they do. 

This is the point I continually raise. Not about Americans, but western consumerism. Changing our lifestyles and consumer patterns would not only be healthy for us; it would also be healthy for the planet. let's use the tax system to make healthy living cheaper, but unhealthy living more expensive.. but retain the right to choose. 

Yet, I am chastised as being a greenie.. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

This is the point I continually raise. Not about Americans, but western consumerism. Changing our lifestyles and consumer patterns would not only be healthy for us; it would also be healthy for the planet. let's use the tax system to make healthy living cheaper, but unhealthy living more expensive.. but retain the right to choose. 

Yet, I am chastised as being a greenie.. 

I agree with people living on less and in smaller homes but where they want, whether it be urban or rural. I disagree with trying to overtax people on things to change their behavior, that is a slippery slope that leads to soft dictatorship.

[PE Scott + 563]

On 1/30/2020 at 11:56 PM, ronwagn said:

I am a person who grew up in Los Angeles from the fifties on. I left in 1986 and visit frequently but am always glad that I went to rural central Illinois back then. Unfortunately Chicagoland has caused our state to be taken over by regressives and we are suffering some of the same problems Californians are. I think big dense cities are an abomination. Drive around America and see how much room we have. Much of it is wasteland that could make room for more liveable small to medium size cities. 

I don't completely disagree, all though from an environmental standpoint the nig city is still less impactful. 

I am a big fan of the countryside and large amounts of unpopulated land......I'd hate to see homes sprawled all over the place with roads everywhere. Every single one of those people would use more resources than their high density city equivalent. So the problem of overpopulation would only be exacerbated in my opinion and the far greater land use for home and infrastructure construction would further decimate 'green's acreage and local environments.

All that being said, I live on a few acres in the mountains. So, I'm a complete hypocrite. I wouldn't want to live in one of those dense city settings even if I do think it better for the enviroment on whole. Because I live out here though, I drive 25+ miles to go to the grocery store, work, gym, whatever. So I'm definately using more resources just in my daily commutes than I would be living more centrally in Albuquerque. I'm sure when you take into account the higher transportation cost of things like water and electricity to all these sprawled out homes, they're quite a bit more impactful per home than what you see in the city. These houses out here are mostly 2000sqft or greater single story homes, where the ones in the city tend to be 2 stories if they're that size and take up a much smaller lot with less roads between them. 

Anyhow, I don't want to live in the city, but I cant ignore the notion that living in cities is probably the 'greener' choice when considering the big picture.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 1/29/2020 at 10:31 PM, OHMO said:

 

Flaring (or even worse, venting) of NG because oversupply of gas has driven the price so low.  This waste of a precious natural resource needs to be stopped.  The industry refuses to control itself resulting in diminishing margins.  A severe penalty for wasted gas is required to stop this practice because the lost opportunity profit is so low there is no motivation to capture this current overabundance.  A better alternative would be methanol plant near the source of the excess methane production.  Normally I would abhore government involvement but large tax advantage granted to the first x% of new methanol production facility would seem to be worthwhile.

I agree that the amount of flaring in the Permian is affronting, but thankfully, most of that gas will be going to Mexico (via new pipelines), and converted to LNG (once the other pipelines and ports/dredging complete). Should take 12-18 months

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 2/2/2020 at 2:20 AM, ronwagn said:

I agree with people living on less and in smaller homes but where they want, whether it be urban or rural. I disagree with trying to overtax people on things to change their behavior, that is a slippery slope that leads to soft dictatorship.

Spot on Ron! I am a greenie (not perfect, I smoke and eat meat), but liberty is important to me and only cost-effective green schemes should be allowed. Me and my family cut our emissions in half with a small (2KW) rooftop solar system and solar hot water. Easy and cheap. Definitely worth it.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 2/2/2020 at 2:58 AM, PE Scott said:

I don't completely disagree, all though from an environmental standpoint the nig city is still less impactful. 

I am a big fan of the countryside and large amounts of unpopulated land......I'd hate to see homes sprawled all over the place with roads everywhere. Every single one of those people would use more resources than their high density city equivalent. So the problem of overpopulation would only be exacerbated in my opinion and the far greater land use for home and infrastructure construction would further decimate 'green's acreage and local environments.

All that being said, I live on a few acres in the mountains. So, I'm a complete hypocrite. I wouldn't want to live in one of those dense city settings even if I do think it better for the enviroment on whole. Because I live out here though, I drive 25+ miles to go to the grocery store, work, gym, whatever. So I'm definately using more resources just in my daily commutes than I would be living more centrally in Albuquerque. I'm sure when you take into account the higher transportation cost of things like water and electricity to all these sprawled out homes, they're quite a bit more impactful per home than what you see in the city. These houses out here are mostly 2000sqft or greater single story homes, where the ones in the city tend to be 2 stories if they're that size and take up a much smaller lot with less roads between them. 

Anyhow, I don't want to live in the city, but I cant ignore the notion that living in cities is probably the 'greener' choice when considering the big picture.

I dunno, you can't put many solar panels on top of a 90-floor residential skyscraper? Just enough to power the penthouse at the top! You need rooftop solar in the suburbs to feed the other 89 floors?

[PE Scott + 563]

16 hours ago, Wombat said:

I dunno, you can't put many solar panels on top of a 90-floor residential skyscraper? Just enough to power the penthouse at the top! You need rooftop solar in the suburbs to feed the other 89 floors?

No, but those inside rooms and floors take a small fraction of the energy to heat and cool as an equivalent square footage of homes. In dense cities whith high rises like that, it's more practical and convenient to use more efficient public transportation. Presumably the power could be sourced from a clean source outside city limits, wind, nuclear, clean NG facilities, etc. All without the need to manufacture a bunch of additional solar panels and mine the associated rare earth minerals.

Again, I'm not saying we need to force people into cities, simply that encouraging them to sprawl out into the still undeveloped countryside doesn't seem like a move in the right direction. 

Edited February 4, 2020 by PE Scott

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 2/1/2020 at 7:39 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

This is the point I continually raise. Not about Americans, but western consumerism. Changing our lifestyles and consumer patterns would not only be healthy for us; it would also be healthy for the planet. let's use the tax system to make healthy living cheaper, but unhealthy living more expensive.. but retain the right to choose. 

Yet, I am chastised as being a greenie.. 

Move to Canada, we love our "sin taxes."  Alcohol and cigarettes are super expensive here.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

16 hours ago, Wombat said:

I dunno, you can't put many solar panels on top of a 90-floor residential skyscraper? Just enough to power the penthouse at the top! You need rooftop solar in the suburbs to feed the other 89 floors?

Ideally make all those glass windows solar panels.

Where do you live? 90 floors is insanely tall. Our tallest building in Edmonton is 66 floors.

 

Edited February 4, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Wombat + 1,028]

46 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Ideally make all those glass windows solar panels.

Where do you live? 90 floors is insanely tall. Our tallest building in Edmonton is 66 floors.

 

We have a 90 storey residential tower on the Gold Coast, Queensland Australia.

[Wombat + 1,028]

1 hour ago, PE Scott said:

No, but those inside rooms and floors take a small fraction of the energy to heat and cool as an equivalent square footage of homes. In dense cities whith high rises like that, it's more practical and convenient to use more efficient public transportation. Presumably the power could be sourced from a clean source outside city limits, wind, nuclear, clean NG facilities, etc. All without the need to manufacture a bunch of additional solar panels and mine the associated rare earth minerals.

Again, I'm not saying we need to force people into cities, simply that encouraging them to sprawl out into the still undeveloped countryside doesn't seem like a move in the right direction. 

No thanks, getting into the city already a pain in the butt coz it already too densely populated and the traffic stops 20km out.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

Move to Canada, we love our "sin taxes."  Alcohol and cigarettes are super expensive here.

Something that is as dangerous as cigarette smoking does tempt me to over tax them but our taxes on tobacco are already sky high. I would like to see all the alcohol taxes go toward outpatient treatment. Inpatient is too expensive and should only be used for detox. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

13 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Something that is as dangerous as cigarette smoking does tempt me to over tax them but our taxes on tobacco are already sky high. I would like to see all the alcohol taxes go toward outpatient treatment. Inpatient is too expensive and should only be used for detox. 

That is funny.

A pack of smokes is like $15, a 12 pack of beer is close to $30.  When I was in the states in December I brought a carton back for a friend, I think the whole carton was less than $30. 12 pack of beer in AZ - at a gas station of all places - was $10.

Upside is your cancer treatment is covered.

Edited February 4, 2020 by Enthalpic

[ronwagn + 6,290]

15 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

That is funny.

A pack of smokes is like $15, a 12 pack of beer is close to $30.  When I was in the states in December I brought a carton back for a friend, I think the whole carton was less than $30. 12 pack of beer in AZ - at a gas station of all places - was $10.

Upside is your cancer treatment is covered.

When I was 11 I bought them for 25 cents a pack from a nearby gas station vending machine. Fortunately I never smoked much and quit at age 30. I had no idea how high your taxes were. I am planning a plains provinces trip this summer, dreading the gasoline prices. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

7 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

When I was 11 I bought them for 25 cents a pack from a nearby gas station vending machine. Fortunately I never smoked much and quit at age 30. I had no idea how high your taxes were. I am planning a plains provinces trip this summer, dreading the gasoline prices. 

When I was 16 they were $5.  I wanted to smoke but puked every time I tried.

For how much oil we have the gas prices ironically do suck.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

When I was 16 they were $5.  I wanted to smoke but puked every time I tried.

For how much oil we have the gas prices ironically do suck.

So some sectors of the downstream oil and gas business are making good money. Refineries, shippers, retailers, pipelines.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

So some sectors of the downstream oil and gas business are making good money. Refineries, shippers, retailers, pipelines.

The two biggest oil sand companies actually like low oil prices as they have their own refineries.  When crude export profits go down domestic refining profits go way up. 

It's the smaller players with no refining capacity that are panicking for pipelines.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

32 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

The two biggest oil sand companies actually like low oil prices as they have their own refineries.  When crude export profits go down domestic refining profits go way up. 

It's the smaller players with no refining capacity that are panicking for pipelines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries

[PE Scott + 563]

8 hours ago, Wombat said:

No thanks, getting into the city already a pain in the butt coz it already too densely populated and the traffic stops 20km out.

That's fine, and I prefer to live elsewhere too, but that doesn't negate reality. There again, if you already live in the city you don't have to commute in through traffic from 20km out. 

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

19 hours ago, PE Scott said:

That's fine, and I prefer to live elsewhere too, but that doesn't negate reality. There again, if you already live in the city you don't have to commute in through traffic from 20km out. 

 

Yes you do. You can't even move 100m without bumping into 50 bystanders?

 

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 2/4/2020 at 2:35 PM, ronwagn said:

Something that is as dangerous as cigarette smoking does tempt me to over tax them but our taxes on tobacco are already sky high. I would like to see all the alcohol taxes go toward outpatient treatment. Inpatient is too expensive and should only be used for detox. 

A pack of TWENTY cigarettes costs 30 DOLLARS in Australia and that why our economy headed for DEPRESSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also why we have had 7 PM's in 7 years.