LOL!!

I guess this could be considered off topic, but with the price of gas now a days, how long until someone invents the coal powered SUV?

Haven't glaciers and ice caps been retreating since the last ice age - growing or shrinking are the only two choices - I'd rather they shrink.

Don't laugh, the Chinese may be working on a coal powered SUV.
Guys like Mo Strong haven't admitted it yet but China LOVES coal, China IS coal, take away their coal and they're dead.

Everybody knows, all storms are manmade. After all if there's a storm and nobody hears it, did it really happen?

I blame AGW for the rock chips in my windshield. I just need present my feelings to Al Gore and I'm sure he will agree. I mean who can argue with St. Al.

Boss429 at 6:49 PM . . . said,

**but with the price of gas now a days, how long until someone invents the coal powered SUV?**

One half of the USA Electric grid is Coal Power Generation.

So any plug-in SUV is really a coal powered vehicle 1/2 the time.

Using coal directly in the vehicle would make it a steam powered SUV... right?

BTW, the cure for an oil burner [blue smoke] is on my blog.= TG

The Germans were using the gasification of wood and coal to power vehicles during the second world war.

I believe what you are looking for is Coal to Liquid.

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/21840

By the way the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal with an estimated 400 year supply.

Antarctica is getting colder so if the global warming poppycock were true would,nt the south pole be melting like the eco-wackos from that green pest bunch GREENPEACE claim and the whole idea that HURRICANE KATRINA was cuased by GLOBAL WARMING is a whole bunch of hogwash the biggist amount of HOT AIR comes from the mouths of AL GORE and the GREENPEACE and other eco-wackos

As someone said now these Al Gore idiots are saying the green house gases are responsible for the arsonist that started the California fires.

Hydrogen cars is where the future is.... So Suzuki tells us...

Hydrogen production needs elecetricity , so the cars essentially run on electricity except that there is an inefficiency when converting Electricity into hydrogen. ie more energy required to produce the efficient Hydrogen fuel... And most electricity is produced by coal... so more coal is required to produce the electrcity to produce Hydrogen for the cars.

a GHG and with the energy conversion from coal to electricity to hydrogen the mileage of a Hydrogen car may not seem to be as good as it seem.

And by the way a hydrogen powered car emits a non polluting gas called water vapour.... H2O, which by the way is the most abundant GHG.

So by burning the so called Green fuel Hydrogen we not only produce more GHG to produce it with coal,, but also the tail pipe is really bad... a GHG called water vapour which comprises 90% of GGHG gas on earth. By comparison CO2 comprises only .4% of GHG.

Why would the Greens support Hydrogen cars when it contributes to the largest GHG compenent in our atmosp[here.

"Because it's self-evident that SUVs and coal-powered plants cause undersea earthquakes ..."

Well, I guess that is a possibility. It's all a matter of subduction.

The plates are moving around the rim of the Pacific. Those nutters on the Left Coast are so excited about AGW, SUVs and coal-powered plants that they are jumping up and down. Probably not an advisable thing to do on the edge of an active plate.

There may be a direct correlation. We report, you decide.

Yoop...the direct correlation is that if the EEEEVVVIILLLL MchimpyBushHalliHitler conglommerate had don't taken all that oil/gas and coal from under the Pacific,the plates wouldn't have slipped,caused an earthquake,and ergo the tsunami would not have happened!! Oh wait...

I noted that NBC reported on its nightly newcast last week that a huge chunk of ice had broken off the Antarctic ice sheet. No mention of the fact the ice sheet is growing and they're having a record cold year. But then as Rush would put it that part didn't fit the narrative.

When it does get properly reported that the south pole is colder this year it will be attributed to, wait for it; climate change. Which of course means that its still man made it just works backwards for some unknown reason. Not only am I tired of the main stream media for all this nonsense, but its leaked over to the discovery channels on Cable (which are owned by the New York times) which means I get to watch all sorts of climate "documentaries" that predict that we're going to destroy ourselves with CO2. Sickening.

So far as a coal powered car goes, I believe that the plug in hybrid vehicle will be the closest thing to that. After all, most electricity is produced by coal.

There is an expert and chief executive who ran two or three big auto companies.

Ioacocca, who knows a thing or two about auto trends, makes two statements.. one expected and another very surprising for an industrialist, but clever all the same.

[1]Iacocca: *Plug-in hybrids: that's the wave of the future, not hydrogen.* [ just logical = TG ]

Posted Nov 15th 2007 12:23PM by Sebastian Blanco
autobloggreen.com/2007/11/15/iacocca-plug-in-hybrids-thats-the-wave-of-the-future-not-hy/

[2] Iacocca also stated his belief that the U.S. needs a universal health care system because that would give the domestic carmakers and other companies a boost. Iacocca has endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson, who supports such a system. [[ Surprising? TG ]]

Surprising for an industrialist, yet if the American public gets relief from huge unpredictable medical costs, that buying public will will feel more secure in spending $100 down payment on a new Aveo.

Iacocca wants cash diverted from doctors to car lots.. and the world turns. = TG

Freedom from Oil … Sandalow [ think Sand down low ] Brookings Institute [ More reliable than Fort Knox ]

Some basic learning

Well, to be honest, amid America’s energy illiteracy, I’m probably a little bit more functionally literate than most. And, well, Sandalow has improved that literacy.
Some points that I should have known …

While a gallon of gasoline, when burned, creates 20 pounds of Co2, this doesn’t count all the production pollution, which adds another 25% to the total. Thus, every gallon of gas you burn in your car equates to 25 (not 20) pounds of additional Co2 in the atmosphere.
**
South Africa’s coal-to-liquid plant is the *largest single source of carbon dioxide emissions in the world*. (Hmmm … something to think about coal-to-liquid advocates?)
**
Moving to 50% of America’s cars to PHEVs would increase electricity demands by only 4-7%, easily accommodated within today’s peak / off-peak power imbalances.

With ethanol’s demands on corn crops, the increased prices of corn have meant that decreasing farm subsidy payments have been more than double the cost of ethanol subsidies.

[Note: corn ethanol is not something that I strongly support. And, ethanol demands are eating up 20% of America’s corn crop. Plans on the Hill right now for a five-fold increase in ethanol imply, well, going to 100% of the crop.]

Sandalow also covered Brazil and their efficient use of cane base biofuel. [better than corn.] S. America can endure a gas & diesel cut off…. 96% dependent North. America ..can not!

In other words, in addition to giving a window to White House decision-making processes (in a rational administration) and laying out a case for a path to Freedom from Oil, this book also educates.

Is the course fully charted?
Sandalow has produced a real contribution to the discussion of America’s energy challenges and options for the better. His charted course, however, is not one to follow blindly. [ Book review by tech savvy reviewer ] = TG

= one never *blindly* follows anything =

-6 degrees c outside my house here in southeastern ontario. the furnace is running and it is warm inside.

According to the wackos earth in the future will look like it did in the dumb movie WATERWORLD where KENIN KOSNER swims around like a complete dork BECUASE HE IS A DORK. SQUAWK SQUAWK

Re: RL

It's quite simple. Go Nuclear. If we convert ALL of our plants to nuclear power, and double them, we should have enough to dedicated to hydrogen conversion. Plus, the only green house gas Nuclear emits is water vapor (the thing that AGW people never takes into account in their model), it's cleaner than ALL current fuel burning method of power generation.

It doesn't matter what we do or say. Just wait a couple more years, let the IPCC get several more raving "sky is falling" reports under its belt.

Then when they predict an imminent and painful death from AGW, all those who believe it will be locking down in their old bomb-shelters.

Simply weld'em in and the world will then belong to the sane people.

Bigfire,

I have been waiting to ask a Nuke Pro like yourself about the nasty habit of nuclear waste leaching through stainless steel containment. About the costly need to re-package waste over the years.

Why is no permanent storage been settled upon yet due to the possible contamination of water tables. That would make whole sections of provinces poison to humans and animals.

Extra deep salt mines in Texas, deep in mountains in Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, deep in old mines in the Canadian shield; None of these are deemed *Safe* for permanent storage..

Why is that? Do you know of something new?

BTW, you didn*t touch upon the circular tax/revenues system that keeps massive subsidy away from public view.

There is also the shockingly expensive cost for decommissioning old plant that remains permanently poisonous regardless of money.

The Nuclear kilowatt hour is no bargain unless you plan to abandon earth to live in a moonpod.

These views can not be correct can they?

Please remember to provide links when you straighten me out, ..OK? = TG

Oh, keep in mind... Homer Simpson works in the safety control room at the Nuke plant.

It has been a while since Three Mile Island.= TG

TG: "I have been waiting to ask a Nuke Pro like yourself about the nasty habit of nuclear waste leaching through stainless steel containment. About the costly need to re-package waste over the years."

TG: "Please remember to provide links when you straighten me out, ..OK?"

Yes, please do; current plans are to sinter nuclear waste into concrete blocks, encased in lead. So please provide us with links of your leaching and repackaging requirements, won't you?

fotosearch.com/comp/dgv/dgv093/radioactive-storage-drum-with-smoke-~-200531972-001.jpg

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court Friday blocked a plan to store more radioactive waste at a nuclear power plant, ruling that federal regulators must ...
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201035.html

According to Tajik officials, both Vostokredmet and the radioactive storage facilities are under strict control. However, local media say some of the dumps ...
eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/pp041103.shtml

NO RADIOACTIVE STORAGE IN. THESE REEFERS! Portable chest freezers. (2 @ 7 ft. 3. ) check if needed_______ .... RADIOACTIVE STORAGE IS NOT ALLOWED IN ANY OF ...
shipops.oregonstate.edu/ops/wecoma/appendix_08.pdf

radioactive storage as below. •. High-level core that cannot be stored in the main core ... stored in a purpose designed built radioactive storage area. ...
pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/11794/GTS-P-M-0040-2_0.pdf

==========================

Personal first hand experience with radioactive containment happened in the early 80s. Working part time for Arrow transfer in North Vancouver.

My job was to truck a small radioactive source to Vancouver*s General Hospital at 4AM.

4am because the protective container was as big as a house and wires had to be lifted down Broadway all the way to Cambie and then 10th ave to clear the container and the low bed.

Even *lead-lined* hot-nuke storage is massive and expensive.

Containment is a big profitable industry, hence you will easily find lots of links touting the total safety of long term nuclear storage. . .Caution, with a grain of salt. = TG

Since 1/2 as many cat 3 hurricaines hit the US in the 90's as the 50's I call Bull on the Katrina assertion too.

TG
Now that was some real interesting stuff. None of these are deemed *Safe* for permanent storage. Sounds real scarey doesn't it? Actually most of these sites you mention are perfectly acceptible as pemanent storage sites. If you say that some time, in some obscure way, and if nobody pays any attention, and the containers leak, and there happens to be a new fissure, etc. then, sure they aren't safe. By the same rationale then you aren't safe from meteorites. You really aren't. There are statistics to prove it.