Jump to content

green work shop

Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About green work shop

  • Rank
    Newbie
  • Birthday 02/16/1956

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/green-work-shop/
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    solar lattitude 36.87 degrees
  1. green work shop

    For The Energy Future To Come

    For those of you who want to look over the site where we are working on our project's web information. And so, get a look at the US DOE Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy "Green Building Program." And review some of the projects that are currently open to public access. Then go here: http://www.eere.energy.gov/
  2. green work shop

    For The Energy Future To Come

    I see I double clicked a post (#24 and #25) I guess someone might fix that sometime. Stuff happens. I want to mention that I have no advertising or marketing accounts with any of the products I mention. These are just my personal choices for my project. These are things I promote because under analysis I realize that they are cost effective (affordable) and provide the public with an energy impact. That provides them with a good return. Which is the bottom line. And so, the public education aspect of making people aware of the performance and investment cost. Is something I am committed to. And part of my project. ~ Ok folks I got to finish up some files and documents and get them uploaded at the US DOE. So when my project site is done, I will open it up for public access. And will be back. I know I will busy awhile with this, so catch you around here.
  3. Underling I followed your suggestion to this discussion. My view is allot like that of DrBubb's comments with regards to "Innovative Solutions." I agree with you on the aspect of converting old malls to factories rather than community centers. And no nation can invest in retrofitting older buildings or building new green building projects. Without the people being prosperous through having local jobs. Which as you put it. Reduces the commuting distance and the related expense of energy that results from long commutes. Unless we all can switch over to hybrid electric vehicles capable of long commutes. (Which can only be made possible by the combustion engine portion of the hybrid electric automobile running all the time, to constantly supply additional charge. Which still is more energy efficient than the conventional combustion engine only powered vehicle.) The thing that some of the world's community planners and visionaries do not incorporate into their vision. Is as you mention, the need for more local factories and jobs. Which actually helps innovation since the technology and product directions one nation takes will not be dictated by the direction of one nation around the globe. Who dominates the global market with their concepts of technology. And nations have to stop exporting their work or out sourcing jobs over seas. Since this is an unsustainable practise. Every nation should put it's people above others when it comes to the prosperity of that nation. And that nation's internal economy. And keep jobs internal to the nation. Out sourcing work to other nations, is merely sending a nation's wealth to another. And no nation can do that too many decades without collapsing from within. In effect closing local factories and then rebuilding them around the globe somewheres else. Personally the people of a nation should boy cott overseas imports; by not buying things from other countries so that the governments realize that the people need local work. And this will result in equilibrium once we get back to more local jobs around the world. Then we can commit to fair trade with other nations. Anyways this is the most unsustainable scenario. Creating welfare states around the world. One thing I personally have disliked since the 1980s. Is that Blue Tooth miniturized electronics meant for cell phone, satelite and computer technologies. Crossed over into amateur radio, and other home electronics. Which meant new equipment; for electronics repair shops to have to invest in. But since those kinds of "surface mount" electronic technologies came to market. They are not repairable by the local repair shops. They put repair men and women out of work. Since those electronic technologies are throw away; and end up in land fills and other undersired places. And it seems that the technology is not as rugged and does not last as long. Anyways it is an ecological problem to continue to overly use surface mount electronic technology. Standard sized transistors and ICs for non PC, and cell phone technologies should be returned to for both environmental as well as economic reasons. My view personally is focused on a more narrow item. Which is that which DrBubb mentions, about Innovative Solutions. With the need to retrofit and upgrade existing buildings to be more energy efficiency. And to implement green building from this point forwards for all new constructions (meaning for homes). And people need to be educated on what is the best way to retrofit thier homes. I personally realize that it is better to put up new studded wall frames, over the interior of the existing exterior walls of a home. To add R 11 insulation into the cavities of the overlapping wall frame. Thus doubling up the insulation. And this has more of an impact than trying to place new fab materials on the exterior of older homes to better insulate them. Cost wise it will work out better in the long run. And will provide a means to run all new upgraded wiring through older homes. The future cost of energy will make this approach more of an investment than it might be considered to be at the moment. Some home owners can do this themselves as they go along, a room at a time as they can afford and have the time. Here is another thing about some of the world's community planners and visionaries. They seem to act or think as if a nation can subsidize or completely fund such upgrades, and new sustainable community constructions. Which is the "welfare state mentality." If this were legistlated then everybody would want in on it. And then the nation would be more bankrupt than it is. And so, that vision of how to fund things is unsustainable. Actually sustainability will take 2 decades at least to realize. If we get to work on it today. And so, the matter is knowing where to start with the most affordable approach. As we also look at more localize jobs. My understanding of the sustainable economics. Is that we have to have renewable resources that are affordable for manufactures, coupled with renewable energy that is affordable for both the commercial / industrial sectors and the private sector. The economic factor I am referring to now. Is the means to obtain cost savings on energy for one thing. That can help all of use to save some money. And hence those savings can be reinvested locally or, we can invest into another renewable energy system. Anyways money saved on energy will be placed back into the economy and help to fuel commerce. And money saved might be used by some to invest into a small business enterprise and help put more people to work. Small business then adds to the localized job scenario which will reduce the long distance commuting factor. One thing about converting old malls to factories. If there is not adequate sewage systems to the mall, with adquate processing. And means to handle industrial waste. Then the kind of factory that can move into those buildings has to be limited to such that can make use of the existing systems. Instead of planners and visionaries marketing their ideas to governments for grants. They need to market them to the people who can invest in them if they want. If the people are not aware of what is on the market and how it works. Nor the specification of the product or technology. Then they will not know what to invest in, and which investment will be the wisest in the long run. So we need more public education, advertising and marketing. But before we can build sustainable communities and cities across a nation. We have to return to local factories, and fuel local commerce and economies. So that the people can invest in new homes and communities.
  4. green work shop

    For The Energy Future To Come

    I realize that allot of people are aware of solar heating panels. But they have not had the energy capacity explained to them. To show them how important they are to the overall renewable energy scheme of society. And the potential that the home owner can obtain in cost savings. I suppose that the matter is one of not before having had software to deal with the computations of the panel. But when you do get to see and understand them. Then they become more significant than you had realized. And so, their potential for implementing renewable energy in the private sector can not be ignore. As well as their investment value.
  5. green work shop

    For The Energy Future To Come

    List Prices For ICRT Calculations Here is a site that has some good prices on 4' x 8' solar heating panels: http://www.lakotasolarenterprises.com/ $850.00 which as you can see is not a bad price for the amount of energy that these things can harness. Competition in the future can bring these prices down some. You can use this to compute the ICRT or Investment Cost Recovery Time of the investment. And so, compare this to other technologies. I am interested in investors considering a venture to manufacture these panels. Since competition will help to lower their cost. $600 seems more like what they should retail for. Knowing how that they are constructed. And so, just do a little research of the technology. Find out how it is constructed. Also there are kits that one can obtain to build these at home. So kits are another venture. And there is solar Btu software that computes the performance of the panel at each users site around the world.
  6. green work shop

    For The Energy Future To Come

    List Prices For ICRT Calculations Here is a site that has some good prices on 4' x 8' solar heating panels: http://www.lakotasolarenterprises.com/ $850.00 which as you can see is not a bad price for the amount of energy that these things can harness. Competition in the future can bring these prices down some. You can use this to compute the ICRT or Investment Cost Recovery Time of the investment. And so, compare this to other technologies. I am interested in investors considering a venture to manufacture these panels. Since competition will help to lower their cost. $600 seems more like what they should retail for. Knowing how that they are constructed. And so, just do a little research of the technology. Find out how it is constructed. Also there are kits that one can obtain to build these at home. So kits are another venture. And there is solar Btu software that computes the performance of the panel at each users site around the world.
  7. green work shop

    For The Energy Future To Come

    Jake your answers can most all be found here: http://www.gekgasifier.com/forums/
  8. green work shop

    For The Energy Future To Come

    Comparing Private Sector Investments I want to look at our example investments here. Comparing the best residential wind electrical system the Honeywell Wind Turbine WT6500 3 kW grid tie system and the 1.5 kW single turbine system to our study of the solar heating panel. The 3 kW 3 turbine system is rated: 2752 kW/yr The 1 kW 1 turbine system is rated: 1500 kW/yr On the other hand we can see that a 4 x 8 solar panel before losses is rated at: 51,640 Btu = 15,130.52 watts = 15.13 kW per 9 hour solar day in December. Which means that we have the following potential for the 31 days of December: 51640 Btu * 31 days = 1.60084e+6 Btu = 1.6 mega Btu Which is 4.6904612e+5 watts = 469046.12 watts = 469.046 kW Now these computations are relative to my location on 36.87 degrees latitude. This tells us that over the winter heating season. If we compute the months of October, November, December, January, Febuary and March. With these six months we will have racked up nearly the same amount of energy that the 3 turbine 3 kW wind turbine systems is rated for annually. Now add in also that the amount of solar heating panels that we might have on a home may be as many as 4. So our December energy potential with 4 will be 1876.184 kW. Which easily surpasses the 3 kW wind turbine system's annual kW generation in just 2 winter months. Investment wise, 4 panels compared to the wind turbine system. Is more cost effective and so, outperforms wind and solar electrical systems. In our analysis in the HTML file, we saw that even for a system that was 50% efficient. The amount of energy capacity was still impressive. http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index....ost&id=1531 If we implement this kind of renewable energy first of all. We will cover the private sector's greatest year round home energy demand. In an affordable way, which is affordable for investors to invest in in terms of a manufacturing venture. Which in turn means low cost technology for the home owner. In the comparison of a 60' * 60' massive panel to a large wind far sized wind generator. The thought of such a thing was unrealistic. However in the construction of a large appartment complex building or a Federal Housing Project with multiply appartment buildings. If we use 113 (4' * 8') solar heating panels then we will have a little over the energy input of the 60' * 60' massive panel. Which in our example input 1.466 mega W over the course of the 9 hour solar day of a typical December day. Now there is also the green merits and credits of the technology in terms of manufacturing. Low cost materials that will not result in allot of industrial waste. And so, uses low amounts of energy to manufacture. And the user does not have any emission or chemicals as side products of the technology. Which happens to lower their homes emissions signature. And racks up some cost savings sooner than other technologies can. All in all we are looking at the cleanest form of renewable energy in terms of both manufacturing and private sector use. Hence this should be the one technology with the highest green merits and credits. No batteries required. I could go into details about a green energy efficient prototype home I have been working on. That uses 4 panels. Which I have also added wind and solar electrical systems too. Which can also have a 10 kW gasifier power plant added. But merely using the solar heating panels alone. And no other renewable energy technology. The energy cost to operate the home. Is such that the home helps to pay for itself. You will never have the monthly energy bills coming about in times of high fuel prices, to come to compete with the monthly home loan payments. And so, the owner would not default on the home. Now this one scenario can help to fuel the home construction as well as Federal Housing Projects industry. And provide manufacturing jobs since the technology can provide the investor a good profit in return. And help the people to save money each month that is in turn returned to the local economy. So this scenario will help to fuel the green economy in a sustainable market way. Helping other businesses in the community to realize an increase in commerce. Which is the result of cost savings that the home owners realize every month. So the the matter starts to stack up as a most desirable way for us to turn towards providing people with realistic and affordable answers. And one that is not going to come with some unwanted environmental waste biproducts in the communities that invest into this technology. Reconsidering the large 60' * 60' solar heating panel model. Consider 1000 homes using from 2 to 4 ~ 4' * 8' panels. Now we have a scenario that competes with the energy harnessing capability of a most wind generator farm. But cost much less to emplement. Also many existing homes can install these panels. So we can retrofit many existing buildings. And this technology has been used with mobile homes too.
  9. green work shop

    For The Energy Future To Come

    Saw mills will and do want to rid themselves of wood chips and saw dust. The saw dust is used to make wood pellets for gasifiers. Also home owners can use bags of pine bark and cedar chips. And then there is the refuse of agriculture. Large farms can burn this for their own energy needs. In which a farm can stock the biproduct for up to a years worth of single farm use. The thing is, I am not looking at a scenario where the home owner is into producing all of their electricity from a gasifier. Only when they need to boost the battery bank to a modest and more affordable scaled down solar / wind electrical system. And to occaisonally charge up their hybrid electric automobile. Given enough power capability. You can run a gasifier power plant about 4 to 6 hours to charge up a battery bank. That can supply an energy efficient home with electrical power for several days. Just for a few hours of charge. This then would mean that the use of the gasifier is not intensive. And if you alos have wind and solar electricity for the battery bank. You might negate charging the batteries when there has been enough wind and sun. But I also am thinking that such homes are also running off the local power grid. So your choice to make some electricity is dependant upon if you have the time and feel like doing it. But if the power grid goes down. Then you have energy security in that you can produce and store more power than you can use in one days time. Providing we have an energy efficient home with a low energy demand. Which means that our renewable energy systems requirement is smaller; as a more modest investment. The conventional old school home would require a larger renewable energy system which would be expensive. And so, un-affordable for most people. If it happened that we had a national or global economic crisis due to oil or some other scenario. No one would be going to work. So you'd be home. And have time to produce energy. And can have energy to run your tractor and do some farming. Of course no one wants it to come to such a scenario. As far as farming of wood goes. We have already mastered the management of wood farming. We know which species of trees that can grow fast, and be large enough in 5 years to harvest. And so, we plant this year, and some next year. And rotate the crops, replanting what we harvest each year. Today there are houses being built all around the world. Some housing projects, and appartment buildings are being built today, with wood crops that the world has learned to wisely manage. Now we do have to increase the energy efficiency of our buildings. So that their energy demand is less than that of buildings that have been built in the past. And so, increasing the efficiency reduces the energy demand. Hence the demand on resources being reduced helps us to curb exploitation of the natural resources. Which are renewable if wisely managed. Trees are a renewable resource. So long as we continue to manage them and not deplete them. Europe just about cut down every tree in Europe in the days of wooden ships. Around the time of Columbus. From this they learned the lesson of forestry management. Now we do have to fill in the gaps here and there with wind and solar farms. And so, just like my scenario of using residential wind and solar electrical systems to fill in the gaps between using a bio mass gasifier at home. And then there are other technologies we can use to fill in some other gaps. Providing that we know to use the most affordable renewable energy systems with the best investment cost, and impact. And another way we fill in the gaps is via energy efficient home construction. And hybrid electric automobiles who's combustion engine portion uses natural gas. And so using the most efficient automotive technology with natural gas means we are conserving the resource. Which we would not be doing if we used V8 combustion engines with natural gas.
  10. green work shop

    For The Energy Future To Come

    How To Implement Renewable Energy In The Private Sector... Lets actually do an analysis and comparision. Based upon some actual software plots. All of this is in the zip file I upload with this post. I want to show you something. And so, want to show you some simple math computations. Using software models and their plots. To demonstrate an analysis of renewable energy input for your awareness. To which when you consider the levels of energy computed. This should blow you away. ~ Since no one seems to be marketing truth to us these days. You know how people are marketing their products, and are in competition with other products. Which is only natural, you know how it is. Stretching the merits and truth in their advertising. Thats how sales pitches go sometimes. The main file is a HTML document. Which details the analysis. Snap shots of the software plots are included. The math is simple, you can do it yourself. And so, prove something to yourself. And so, I compare the simple technology to a Thin Film technology solar electrical panel. And a large scale wind farm sized wind generator. Of which that model is massive and unrealistic. But size for size comparison is important to realize the energy involved. There are two models. One of the models is conventional sized. The other is the massive one to compare to the wind generator. And keep in mind that this out performs wind and solar electrical systems in affordability. It out performs residential sized wind and solar electrical systems in energy harnessing capacity. Once you do a little research on how cost effective this technology is to manufacture. Then it becomes very attractive as an investment. And can do allot of good in terms of our energy scheme, which you will see in the energy computation. Of course ome will downplay it's merits. But compare it to other technologies and their cost. Remember that the greatest home energy demand is for winter time heating. And so, we want to consider addressing the greatest year round home energy demand in the private sector. ~ Clean, no emissions or chemicals. And a dramatic impact on our energy usage. How_To_Implement_Renwable_Energy_In_The_Privte_Sector.zip
  11. green work shop

    For The Energy Future To Come

    "Energy return on investment (EROI) for wind energy." I thought that this article on the Internet would help us to evaluate various technologies. But it is merely a biased commercial for wind power. But that is not unusual as we know. A sales pitch. And so, you can analyze the article and glean some counter points they admit to. I was reading through this article about the method employed in evaluating technologies. First of all some data with regards to other technologies listed in the Figure 3. is errant. (Graphic seen at the end of my previous post.) I have US DOE Measurement and Verification data and UCLA analysis software that demonstrates the performance of an affordable technology; that out performs wind and solar per square foot area of the products. If you scale the technology I refer to up to the size of the large wind farm generators. The amount of energy harnessed will blow the wind generator away. (I am not referring to the wood gasifier, which in terms of size capacity will easily blow the large wind generators away.) Also, this article refers to these large wind farm sized fan type wind generators as wind turbines. Which they are not. The Honeywell Wind Turbine WT6500 is a wind turbine. Which means that it comes with a wind tunnel forming ring around the wind generator blades. And so, can not be built in sizes as large as the wind farm wind generators. If it were it would have massive weight. Which means that wind turbines come only in residential sizes. And I suppose that this use of the term wind turbine is merely a lack of misplacing terminology. Or deliberate to misconstrue the Google search for wind turbines to land on wind generators instead. Since the Honeywell Wind Turbine is a better performer for the home owner. Instead of analyzing the IRCT or Investment Cost Recovery Time of the technology, they are using this EROI analysis method for energy capacity. Naturally a large wind generator is going to generate allot of energy. More so than a residential wind or solar electrical system. And more so than the affordable kinds of technology I am looking at. Simply because of the large surface area and larger generator of wind farm sized wind generators. So this article is misleading in that it is biased towards wind power from the get go. Though it appears to be comparing other technologies with wind. Next of all, they tell you that they committed a study of wind power technologies, rather than a study of other technologies. And so, I am thinking that some of their graphical data was opinion or borrowed and hence was not studied by them at all. Which leads to publishing misinformation that is commercial in nature. Which means that it makes their chosen technology look good. And so, is a sales pitch. But this does not surprise investors I know. Sales pitches are always biased towards the paradigm of the salesmen. The matter is the affordability not the power generation capacity or density. However it can be demonstrated that contrary to figure 3 of the article. That there is a technology that can out perform the wind generator size for size. Of course the article is biased for wind energy. But then goes into a bunch of complicated and problematic scenarios that come with the investment. Of which I am already aware of. In the article you read this: "The PTC provides a 1.9 cent-per-kilowatt-hour (kWh) tax credit for electricity generated with wind turbines over the first ten years of a project’s operations, and is a critical factor in financing new wind farms. The inconsistent nature of this tax credit has been a significant challenge for the wind industry, creating uncertainty for long-term planning and preventing faster market development." Which is to say that wind energy has to be assisted by government subsidies. In order to help the power company to have an edge towards some kind of profit. Which they can not afford to have without government assistance. And so without the tax incentive, they consider this a "challenge for the wind industry, creating uncertainty for long-term planning and preventing faster market development." Here in the words of the article, however is the matter of why recovery cost in the lifetime of the equipment and it's installation can compute to be a poor investment. ~ "The uncontrolled, intermittent nature of wind reduces its value relative to operator-controlled resources such as coal, gas, or nuclear generation. Intermittency impacts include the seasonal and diurnal match or mis-match to regional energy demands; the contribution of wind energy to capacity reserves for meeting regional reliability requirements; and the lost value to wind plant owners in surplus generation that occurs when wind power saturates the flexible dispatch portion of grid operations. Wind energy also affects the overall reliability of the electric power system, which is represented in part by the system reserve margin — that is, a margin of total installed capacity above projected peak load. The capacity credit of an isolated wind plant is generally equal to its capacity factor during the system’s peak load period, which normally is less than an operator-controlled source. As more wind capacity is added to a system within a finite geographic area, it becomes increasingly likely that an “outage” at any given facility will be temporally correlated with an “outage” at a nearby (or even not-so nearby) plant. This tends to reduce the average capacity credit for a wind plant as more such facilities are added in a region." At times it generates less than ideal energy. And then at other times it generates more that is being used on the grid, in which no one is using and paying for it then. Given all of the problems with the wind investment scenario (except for more reasonable and higher performing residential sized wind turbine technologies ~ such as the nice and moderately affordable Honeywell Wind Turbine WT6500). If you were to analyze the investment in terms of Investment Cost Recovery Time within the rated lifetime of the technology. It does not compute to be a wise investment. And so, it has to be subsidized by tax incentives to help invite power companies to invest into wind. So this all comes out of the analysis of the article, which is as we can see. Was meant to promote wind power. Yet they do spill the beans in their own words. When you read between the lines analyzing the many problems that come with the investment. In all cases with renewable energy technologies, it will be that you have to compute the ICRT or Investment Cost Recovery Time which does take into account the energy generation capacity of the product over it's rated lifetime. Via taking the annual average kW generation of the product, times it's rated lifetime. And then compute that times the local cost of the kilo watt hour. To see whether or not the technology is going to generate enough energy to pay for itself in it's rated life time. If it does not, or just barely breaks even then there is no profit in it. Sometimes you have to compute more years past the rated lifetime to recover the initial investment cost. And so, that is not a sustainable investment. ICRT = annual kW generated x product rated lifetime x local power grid cost of the kW/hour = +/- IC Where IC = initial investment cost The above equation is the investor's equation.
  12. green work shop

    For The Energy Future To Come

    All very good views here in these threads. Underling Your concerns for the outlook of gasification are well stated. The matter with gasification of bio mass, is that it results in lower emissions as compared to oil and coal. And the power plant is located outside the residence, there is no flue (with regards to your flue comment which I admit I might not understand your vision of the flue). Since the exhaust comes out of the combustion engine. And modern developments have lead to innovations in making the current trend in the technology even cleaner on it's emission. Unlike oil and coal. Wood and bio mass gasification does not contain long chain hydro carbons which are the trouble with coal and oil emissions, and coal also has heavy carbon emissions. Yet here in the USA many electrical power plants have turned to coal gasification because it dramatically lowers the emission to acceptable EPA levels, and it also stretches the efficiency and hence better conserves the non renewable resource. To see what I mean about the way this works look at this gasification power plant called the Power Pallet which is a 10kW system. There is no flue and there are emission control systems. This will kind of help you to better envision the technology. The Power Pallet as an example investment. Is rated at producing electricity for 2 to 3 cents / kW. Where I live the local power company charges 9 cents / kW. And many regions across the nation sell it for 12 cents. Agriculture waste such as left over nut shells, husk, corn cobs, etc can be put to work rather than be thrown away. Thus making farm enterprises more profitable and sustainable. And the gasifier can produce enough electrical power to charge up the battery bank of hybrid electrical automobiles. Thus enabling savings in that regards. A business venture for powering up automobiles, as an electrical service station can be built around this technology. http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-st...r-genset-skids/ In the cities now the use of gasification will no doubt only be desired by a certain percentage of people. And so, other non emitting technologies are preferred there I can think of one very interesting one, that performs better than wind or solar PV systems. With no emissions or battery banks. And it outperforms wind and solar electrical systems. The matter is that high cost renewable energy technologies are not sustainable. Affordable = Sustainable Market Un~Affordable = Unsustainable On The Market BP has announced it is selling it's assets in two solar manufacturing plants. One here in the USA and one in Spain. (The product is not moving on the market.) Since BP suffered allot of money going out in the oil well dissaster. And their stocks suffered. They have to cut their losses, and so cut free first of all those things that are not sustainable on the market. Example: the plant here in the USA went under and is closed. So like I am saying as an example here, Un~Affordable = Unsustainable On The Market. So this is the crux of the matter. But I am optimistic with technology that exist, seeing what has come along in technology in the past 20 years. Which I can see has lacked advertising and marketing. I realize a hopeful scenario on the horizon. So I am not pessimistic, though without public education, no one will know what exist that is affordable. And yet as long as this is the case, we are heading into trouble. ~The project that uses solar water heating, well I have considered that. But the cost of the solar water heating panel technology. Is kind of high compared to another means or methods of renewable clean energy heating with no emissions, chemical fluids, nor batteries. Which again is more affordable. International Rock Super Star Your question about whether oil has become any more expensive as compared to gold I believe you are referring too. Well I understand that gold still has about the same buying power today, that it had 100 years ago. But since the nations stopped using gold backed currencies. When gold is selling high. It tells me that the currency has been devalued. And so, if the currency can be made strong again. Gold prices drop and then it is the time to buy. Gold might still go up some here, and some folk might be able to still buy and turn a profit. But I wonder how long this can continue? Though in our current situation it does look like gold will be high for awhile. I just wonder how far it will go and how long? And if it does continue upwards, it merely means that currency is continuing to devalue. If gold goes on up and were to hit $3000 then that means we will be suffering the world over on the general price of everything. You said "I hate to sound optimistic, but it could mean people get to eat actual food instead of crap like wheat." Really now that scenario might be better. Actually your comments and those of Underling and others here. Make me look at the need for us to get back to doing some of the basics. In which case. In the sustainable cities scenario. You have people with city based Victory gardens, and green houses. With people growing things within the towns and cities. Rather than just leaving that up to rural areas. Though this is more so the case in rural and country parts. Recommendations by the US DOE. Illustrates dividing a private property up into zones for such things as flowers and landscaping. Home gardening and an area for out door activities. And so, people will have to consider supplementing their food needs, in order to aid in the sustainability of society the world over. By having some small gardens on their city lots. DrBubb Hong Kong, I didn't know that. And if they eat that much beef I suspect they are going to have lots of colon cancer there. Hong Kong's scenario was created by being surrounded by China when Hong Kong was part of the British Empire. And so, they had no expansion outwards for farming. I seem to recal there was a fence surrounding Hong Kong. And so, we see that the people expanded out onto the water there. Living in boats. So I can understand what happened there. Your comment made in these threads about people taking more of interest in these matters these days. Well is somewhat encouraging. I have seen that myself. But there is currently allot of misinformation being sent out over the International airwaves to the nations (I listen to shortwave). About governments wanting to overly control the lives of people. To the extent of wanting to put GPS radio tags on all farm animals. pets etc. Even keeping track of what crops people grow. But this is not the vision or recommendation of the US DOE on how to layout a sustainable community. Really now some people involved in supposedly providing truth over the airwaves, are in some areas only propagating misinformation. And their demon-ization of Climate Change and the controversy, as to whether it is happening or not. Clouds their understanding of how that we still have to reduce emission regardless of climate change ~ simply for environmental harmony and the prevention of the extension of species. And this in turn clouds their eyes from realizing that we need to move onto affordable renewable energy in order to sustain ourselves on this planet. As well as move onto sustainable economies, and sustainable communities and businesses. They allow the controversy to taint the overal subject of sustainability. Which irrespective of the controversy over global warming. Is just as important when we look at other matters such as oil, natural resources and our need to feed the world. And regardless of global warming, for reasons of removing toxins from the air and soils. And for the preservation of wild life and clean soils for farming. We still have to reduce emissions, as well as reduce our use of toxic chemicals in industry. And so, the controversy merely clouds these other issues which can not be ignored too long I suspect. I realize that there are more problems than we can count; when we look ahead at what should be done. And so, the most logical first step. Is to invest in the most affordable things. And so, build our world up around the most affordable renewable energy technologies. And with better housing. And encourage the people to grow some of their own food. If nothing else but making it sound like a hobby. If we undertake to invest in the affordable, we take the sustainable route. And so, buy us some time, in hopes that time enables other technologies to become more affordable. Dr. Michio Kaku kind of gave us a vision of the amount of time it might take for solar electrical systems to become more affordable. Which his documentary placed at around 2050. But that was the earliest prognostication. We know how that scientist once prognosticated that by the first decade of the 21st Century we would have bases on the moon and be undertaking missions to Mars. But as we see now, technologically we are still a long ways from doing either. Is Renewable Energy a "Good" Investment? http://www.technologyreview.com/business/27000/ "Happy returns? Few companies lose money embracing renewable energy, but they don't make much either, according to an Environmental Leader survey of nearly 400 companies that have adopted solar, wind, and other renewable power sources. Credit: Mark McKie The answer is still no. After all, many companies have pretty high standards for what is considered "good." In the world of corporate finance, it generally means a 20 to 25 percent annual return. " "Energy return on investment (EROI) for wind energy." (aka ICRT Investment Cost Recovery Time.) http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_retu...for_wind_energy
  13. green work shop

    A LOAD OF RUBBISH

    Bio mass waste can be dried and burned for fuel in a gasifier to produce electricity. And the emissions are cleaner than oil or coal.
  14. green work shop

    Affordable Sustainable Homes Project

    I have blue prints and software analysis files of the building models. I do have an illustration of a solar business building I designed using the same principles. Without an architect drawing I am not sure what you would make of it. Let me go find it here. The floor plan with R Factor data, and the general illustration of the exterior is meant to go to my architect. The structures you see on the face of this building consist of solar panels and other structures. And there are software analysis files that go with the design. Underling thanks for the link.
  15. green work shop

    For The Energy Future To Come

    None of us should be afraid to reflect some pessimisism. Since if the over all world does not soon come to it's senses. The scenario you mention is inevitable. And true it's scary to realize. I know that we can conserve some of our fuels by a mass conversion over to the most affordable kinds of renewable energy. In which case, implementing that conversion will buy us some time for the other technologies to catch up. In terms of innovations to make them more affordable. Otherwise, without the conversion over to affordable renewable energy occuring first. We will only find that we have used up our non renewable resources sooner, and hasten the inevitable. Which in turn will hurt the efforts of those doing research to improve the affordability of wind and solar for instance. Simply because there is no economy to support taxes for R&D grants and other funds. No funds, no jobs, no research gets done. I spoke up on bio mass gasification in another thread. Which can fuel an automobile but it's kind of bulky. And it might be used to fuel a ship at sea, but again it is bulky unless you were to use denser coal as the fuel. But then at sea you have the matter of what to do with the spent ash. Hence gasification is not an answer for transportation by containerships. It might be tried though. But it does work well on land. It's best application is our answer to electrical generation for a community or for merely a home involved in renewable energy. The implementation of affordable renewable energy for the home owner across the nations. Reduces our dependancy upon oil fired power plants (and there is still some of them around). It reduces oil used for fuel oil every winter. And it reduces the overall requirement for electrical power from power plants. Which reduces the number of loads of coal to the power plants. Which reduces the numbers of coal transportations. And hence reduces the amount of oil used in that transportation. Which requires lots of horsepower ~ which expends fuel faster than an automobile can. And it reduces the number of diesle fueled rail road transportations. Which hence conserves our fuel for the time being. Trains require lots of fuel for the kind of horsepower they need to carry the loads they carry. High cost renewable energy systems move a little in the industrial sector. Where corporarations who have remote sites (like an oil rig) require a solar electrical system for a back up. But in the private sector, it's like a member of the forum over at Renewable Energy World Magazine said "pushing PV solar panels (on the market) is like pushing a large rock." Such high cost technologies are not moving in the private sector market. And lack of movement equates to an unsustainable market based around those technologies. Just because it is renewable energy, does not mean it equates to a sustainable green business model. Only affordable technologies are sustainable. So I am pointing to the matter of everyone getting focused in on what is affordable. Because the affordable technologies will move when the time comes. However if we do not market them, then people will not know what to invest in today. And will not know what the marketing merits are. And as we all know marketing and advertising brings such things to the attention of the average person as well as the investor. Otherwise they are moth balled in a warehouse were no one knows they exist. Anyways, we all need a common vision of what works. And then market the vision of what works and is affordable. And that will provide us all with a credible vision that others can bank on when the time comes. I realize I am guilty of writing a bit. I tend to be analytical and so I detail information. I guess I am guilty of marketing information. So thats the way it is with me. But I try to be educational. I do not know it all, and I got things yet to learn. But I do not mind sharing what I do understand. And I understand the vision of green marketing and economics. There are various green band wagons we can get on. Each are playing a tune as they go along to promote their vision and their choice renewable energy investments. However, not all of those investments are going to survive whats coming. Simply because that which works, and does so in an affordable way. Will be moving the market. While the technologies of the other band wagons find their markets coming to a stand sitll. Their stocks will dive as we understand it. Back in the 30s and 40s. There were lines of tractors and trucks, from such entities as Mercedes, Volks Wagon. Which were manufactured with wood gasifiers. So, we can keep agriculture going if we have to by this means. And we can run a rail road again with steam or gasifiers. And so, we need to know what our answers are going to be, if we find ourselves one day coming into that Mad Max post apocalyptic scenario. Which will be set off by high oil prices. But unlike Mad Max we can fuel vehicles with wood and other bio masses in that kind of a scenario. I however want to head off that kind of future with affordable renewable energy today. Below is a photo of a Vintage 1939 Wood Gas Powered Tractor. Seeing that gasification has been in the past I am reminded of the verse that says "That which is, hath already been, and God requires that which is past." We have the best of the past and the best of today for our use. A Wind And Solar Recommendation I want to mention that in doing the math on energy production versus cost. I find that there is wind and solar systems that I will be using here at the Green Work Shop. The Honeywell Wind Turbine system, and the Kaneka Silcon "thin film PV" solar panel technology. These will make a good system with a back up wood gasifier for home energy needs. The turbine and the solar panel system means. That I will have energy production in between those times I decide to fool around with the gasifier. Where the gasifier is capable of allot more energy very quickly when needed. And I want the combustion engine portion of the system to be able to run on natural gas also. So this is the recommended electrical systems set up for the future. The merits of it's wisdom will come in handy in any emergency. Little note. I noticed that I am member 5,059 I think it is. And so yesterday I suggested that if each member made a link to this forum from a blog or other site. Then Google would rate this forum very high via the numbers of links to it. And so, I suggested this as a means to market the forum. And I would think that this would help more investors find their way here. So I hope members will understand the merits of marketing GEI. And I think I sounded pessimistic there to make a point. But I meant that so perhaps some would understand that we need to promote and market our presense and interest.
×