Artful Dodger: Yes.. but this is hardly the same situation. The analogy quite frankly I find silly.

Artful Dodger: The authorities are required to log events even if they amount to nothing. These are schools and that is the law. This has happened due to the amount of bullying that has occurred, which at the time no-one paid attention to.. till some school children committed suicide with a direct link established to the bullying in the schools that was being ignored.

So some mistakes and over reactions occur in order to save lives of kids. But that is not important to the Daily Mail, just the over reaction.

(V): The source of the info doesn't matter if what is said is true. Clearly the kid did nothing wrong and the authorities went overboard. They are morons.

ScarletRose:

> I like a home around 2500 to 3000 sq ft.. 4 bed rooms and 2 1/2 baths.. 2 car garage.. with a nice big yard to make into a garden and room for a greenhouse and a studio.. that is my dream..

That is precisely the current "North American" dream. I say North American because Canada is the same. The point I am trying to make is this. We want big homes. That's fine. However, where does all the concrete, lumber, metal and plastic come from? Is the environment affected more by a bigger or a smaller home? Obviously yes. Lumber comes from cutting down the forest. Metal and concrete from open pit mining. Plastics from processing of oil products. To produce all these things e need to run refineries, smelters, factories, power plants, etc. That means carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Heating, air conditioning, cleaning a bigger home, removing more garbage from a bigger home. All these things mean more environmental impact.

Bernice pointed that in the UK the average home is 800 sq. ft. In the USA it is 2200 sq. ft. One in relation ot the other means about 3 times as much environmental impact for a home in the USA.

So people face two choices. Keep building large homes, or scale back. Since people always want bigger, the USA will continue to consume a lot of energy, until the price of oil is so high that people are forced to consume less. I suspect that in 30 years, it will be impossible for Americans to keep building like they are. We already see signs of that. In many places there is already a crisis in the collapse of home values. Since building bigger homes means that properties are more expensive, the market place is forcing a loss in the sale of those big homes.

The future probably will be such that people will see themselves forced to live in tiny, very expensive apartments. How long before rising house and energy prices forces people to build small, energy efficient homes? Only the rich will be able to afford the 2,200 sq. ft. I already see it here. Little houses worth 500,000 USD. Nobody can afford to buy those homes any more. Hence the short-term price collapse, followed by massive inflation as energy goes up in price.

Artful Dodger: Nicely stated in the comments...

"Any comment perceived to be racist HAS to be logged. The form she was asked to sign would not label her son a racist but state his involvement in a racist incident with a clear and accurate description of the incident, including quotes (the forms usually go out to parents of all involved, including any victim). This is standard procedure. Teachers and school staff are not in the habit of accusing young children of racism, and none of us know the context the 'quote' was said in, or any other background information, The LEA gather stats of racist incidents from schools so it would not be in their interest to falsely report racist incidents. Sounds like the parent is blowing this way out of proportion to me,which is ironic since that is what she is accusing the school of."

- Cal, Enfield, 19/2/2012 8:13


Likewise the Daily Mail

Bernice: I think you just have a strange imagination. No-one does that unless they are very strange, as it is not needed.

"but then from what I have seen they all live on the footpath anyway"

We have wheelie bins. They by law are not allowed to sit on the footpath, except on the night before collection day.

Übergeek 바둑이: ... land here in the UK is more expensive. More recent building projects have in many being squeezing in more units per plot.

"Considering winters here, heating those houses uses a lot of energy."

It does. We've seen in the UK more guidelines on what is the minimum effective insulation in the attic, which has basically doubled. This was done after thermal imaging tests showed that roofs were still leaking a significant loss. Bigger the roof area.. bigger the loss.

Bernice:

dreaming is not necessarily greed... it's a motivational tool

ScarletRose: I already have a 1/4 acre (big enough) 3 bedrooms, 1 bath, carport LOL, a huge garden , greenhouse, and would LOOOOOOOOVE a studio.....for my cake decorating :) but what I have will have to do. ya cant be greedy...MUCH hahahaha

Bernice:  I like a home around 2500 to 3000 sq ft.. 4 bed rooms and 2 1/2 baths.. 2 car garage.. with a nice big yard to make into a garden and room for a greenhouse and a studio.. that is my dream..

Übergeek 바둑이: read this.......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14916580

Übergeek 바둑이: looking at stats UK homes are on average 800sf compared to Aus/Usa 2200sf. We like our open living and don't like to be locked in. We have double access (front and back) whereas from what I have seen in UK terraces you have to go in front door to get to back door.
Imagine...having your rubbish bin outside the back door and having to transport it THROUGH the house on rubbish day...but then from what I have seen they all live on the footpath anyway :(...not healthy living as far as I am concerned...gotta have that wide open spaces :)

(V):

> Not in the UK they aren't.

Here in Edmonton they are. Alberta is under a long-term oil boom. People have built ne homes in big numbers in the last 6 years. The homes are huge. Builders have lost all sense of proportion because consumers demand those big houses. Considering winters here, heating those houses uses a lot of energy. I am sure some parts of the USA face the same problem. Seeing TV shows from the USA it is obvious that all of North America has similar thinking. Bigger is better.

Übergeek 바둑이: No. Not human.. partly yes. Yet philosophically just our animal instinct to build perverted into 'things' that really have no meaning...

"Houses built in the last 10 years are easily three times as big as homes built in the 1950s."

Not in the UK they aren't.

Artful Dodger:

> I drive a small truck. a friend bought a huge truck.

It is just human nature. We always want things bigger. I see it here in our city. Old neighborhoods have homes that are much smaller than newer neighborhoods. Houses built in the last 10 years are easily three times as big as homes built in the 1950s. With each passing decade homes became larger and larger. At the same time families became smaller. Now people expect huge homes, and have only 1 or 2 children.

This translates into a big waste of lumber, steel, concrete, plastics and other construction materials. It takes energy to make those things, and more energy to heat a bigger home.

We are a society out of control. We are spoiled and we think we are entitled to bigger and bigger things all the time.

Bwild: It was a joke!!

Birds though through soaring or ground effect (skimming) can delay greatly the energy they need to use.

Übergeek 바둑이: I totally agree with your post. I believe everything you said is true. I drive a small truck. a friend bought a huge truck. Mine's paid for but his not only guzzles gas, it chews up 400 buck a month. I paid 6 thousand while he around 40. Now he can no longer afford it.. Just not smart on so many levels.

(V): what does terminal velocity have to do with the fact that if birds dont flap..their gunna fall..no matter what their terminal velocity is. gravity WILL win by confrontation with the earth! lol

Artful Dodger: I can we gather all the PR folk from the Republican 'candidate' race, and place them in a big biomass plant?

Bwild: Yep... especially at terminal velocity!!

Artful Dodger:

> I keep my heat low, turn off lights when not in use, drive only 4 miles to work, don't
> travel much, and on and on. The US may use more (they don't use the most however)
> because it's more available and we can afford it.

I think it is not realistic to ask people to cut their consumption by 80%. It is what the average American would have to do in order to bring consumption to the world average. It would be like asking people to stop using their lights, refrigerator, air conditioner, car, etc. It would not only be unrealistic, it would be economically destructive.

I think that our shcool should teach children to use energy responsibly. Teach children to waste less electricity by leaving lights on, leaving the TV on, keeping appliances plugged in when they don't need to be, etc. We should teach children to reduce wasted energy.

Then we should teach children different values. We value big vehicles. Everybody wants a huge pickup truck, a huge minivan, a huge SUV. We should teach children that cars are not toys, but working vehicles. The vehicles that we choose should be a reflection fo the work we do, not of our desire to have fun. Here people buy big pickup trucks just to show off, not because they need them for work. Those values have to change too.

I think we are decade away from getting rid of oil as a source of energy. However, that does not mean that we should not plan for the future. Oil will run out sooner or later, and when it does we better be ready to substitute it with something cleaner. There are alternatives, they are not perfect, but that is no reason to reject them outright.

One thing is true, the oil industry is trying to milk every cent of profit out of oil. Their economic interests lie with oil and not with "green" energy. Alternative energy companies have interests that lie away from oil. Our politicians are now caught between economically competing interest groups. As always, our politicians will side with whoever puts the most cash in their hands. It is the nature of the lobby system. Since the oil industry has the most cash for now, their political interests will be represented more than those of "green" energy. As green energy becomes a bigger and bigger business, the political wil will shift, but we are decades away from that.

Bwild: Oil is free as is gas and coal. Oh wait, there's a cost to harvest it. But there's a cost associated with all energy sources. NO energy source is free. There's always a cost involved. Even once the source is tapped, there's a cost to maintain the equipment that captures the energy.

Unfortunately, we are years away from using renewable energy sources effectively and efficiently. In the meantime, I say drill and tap ALL sources of energy.

(V): "They still have to fly."
thats only because gravity is free also!

SL-Mark: It's not creating energy out of nothing, just taking advantage of natural phenomena, such as some of the devices mentioned which can obtain charge from the potential difference between one end buried and the other at a certain distance above ground. Reminds me of the old crystal radio sets.

(V): Well, its down to how you define 'free.'

Wind, solar, and even hydrocarbon are all 'free' energy, in the sense that you can produce more energy from them than what you put in to extract it.

This is the same with a bird (or even a glider). You need some energy to first reach that height, but then using the energy in the thermal (potential) convert it into motion (kinetic) to theoretically stay airborne indefinitely.

However, this is not the same 'free' as being able to extract more energy than that which is available, something only a perpetual energy machine can do, i.e. create energy out of nothing, something truely free and unencumbered! However, your bird is encumbered, its height and speed is limited by the energy available in the thermal.

SL-Mark: Would the way some birds use thermals to gain height to be able to travel further be considered using 'free' energy?

.... They still have to fly.

(V): Thank you for the link. Had a skim read, but will look at more carefully later, with an open mind :)

I did pick up two statements in the article "...you can’t get more energy out of a system than you put into it," and "more energy can’t be taken out of a system than is put into it or is already in it.”

The former statement is of course wrong as the author argues. Whether it be solar, wind, geothermal, hydrocarbon etc. these are all forms of potential energy, which we then convert (mostly) into kinetic energy to generate power.

The latter statement is true, imho, and refers to perpetual energy / motion machines which are not possible. I believe this is what you referred to as 'free' energy. But I'll read the article carefully first!

Übergeek 바둑이: I keep my heat low, turn off lights when not in use, drive only 4 miles to work, don't travel much, and on and on. The US may use more (they don't use the most however) because it's more available and we can afford it.

SL-Mark: Seem there is some disagreement over that. Plus more out than in is not free, just a reduction. If you get 300% more out then that is a good thing. Nuclear power is not 'free' energy, it consumes power, but creates more just as with all our present systems. Even green takes some power to create the collection devices.

"Your computer hard drive probably uses them too!"

Yes they do. Even might take my unused one apart to have a look at them.

"There is no magic in these magnets, only a strong magnetic field."

I didn't say it was magic, just the application of science.

Artful Dodger: Yes, the position of 'hot spots' limits where geothermal can be used.

"Either way, they won't meet the worlds needs."

As part of the whole package of renewable energy, it in areas of good heat locality (eg Yellowstone park) you have a great potential.

"Just a small population. It's isolated."

Quite a bit of the population of the world lives near volcanoes and/or tectonic plates.

Green energy will never work in the USA. The reason is simple: energy consumption is too great in the USA. The USA has approximately 5% of the population of the world, yet the USA consumes 30% of the energy produced in the world. That means that on average, an American consumes 6 times the world average. Since consumption is 6 times the average, the only way the USA could make green energy viable would be to reduce consumption, and that means reducing wasted energy and improving efficiency at every level. The USA has no political will to change its energy consumption habits. Politicians talk of green energy, but only as a whitewash to the reality of overconsumption and waste.

(V): Guess you are talking about magnetic motors. Sorry, they don't work and certainly don't give free energy.

Neodymium magnets are very widely used, not just in wind turbines. Your computer hard drive probably uses them too! There is no magic in these magnets, only a strong magnetic field.

(V): Wrong again. I didn't miss anything. We have the same here in the US but it's only a very SMALL portion of the US energy needs. AND you are limited as to where you can build those plants. Either way, they won't meet the worlds needs. Just a small population. It's isolated.

rod03801: Oh no I didn't. you just presumed I did.

"You enjoy arguing, for arguing sake."

Yes you do.

Artful Dodger:

"Five major geothermal power plants exist in Iceland, which produce
approximately 26.2% (2010)[1] of the nation's energy. In addition,
geothermal heating meets the heating and hot water requirements of
approximately 87% of all buildings in Iceland. Apart from geothermal
energy, 73.8% of the nation’s electricity was generated by hydro power,
and 0.1% from fossil fuels."

... you seemed to miss that part, so I've made it clearer.

SL-Mark: Actually I caught glimpses of it through my science subscription choices on youtube. It's through using neodymium magnets. The same ones used in wind turbines.

rod03801: "But WHO said anything about stopping?
I don't recall anyone suggesting THAT"


This is how the radicals think. They don't listen to what you say and they always use a straw man in their arguments.

Where renewable energy technology is successful, fine. Build away. But how many BILLIONS must we waste? We've recently seen the waste. Enough. Get back to the drawing board and figure it out.

Chevy Volt. classic example of a waste. Like Obama: Lots of hype but no spark.

(V): "Five major geothermal power plants exist in Iceland, which produce approximately 26.2% (2010

Great, and the other 74%....they all are freezing to death.

(V): Wrong again Jules. We've wasted millions because the technology isn't there yet. We need to work on the technology and THEN build. Right now you are in favor of building an airplane that simply CAN'T fly.

(V): It's not that complicated. You enjoy arguing, for arguing sake. The quote explains the question. You made the statement as though someone else had used the statement as some sort of fact, yet no one had even said it. It's just the way you love going round and round and round.

(V): "Wind, wave, solar, geothermal and now magnetic power amplifiers that produce more energy than inputted."

Produce more energy than input?????
Which journal did you read that in? Thought they had stopped publishing the 'Sunday Sport' :)

Jack: Like California's version of the 3 strikes law.

"Newt wants to go to the moon to, maybe we can send him there without an environment suit."

Only if it encourages the placement of a base there to look for him... But with an undisclosed primary role of looking into Helium3 mining!!

(V):<b> Walmart is rebuilding their store roofs to put solar power on them to operate their stores and sell the excess back to the power companies.

Some people are buying Chevy Volts and putting solar panels on their roofs to recharge them and they can sell the excess to the power companies except in California. They have a law against selling excess energy to power companies.

(V): True but we are in the process of creating a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood as well as stop insider trading with congress and the supreme court.

These career politicians have all become pigs feeding at the troth.

The supreme court needs to be put under our conflict of interest laws.

(V): lol, yes Newt is all for slave labor.
Newt wants to go to the moon to, maybe we can send him there without an environment suit.

Newt Gingrich wants child labour brought back!!

WTH

Jack: Like free solar powered electric car recharging points.

"Also not listening to corporate lobby groups that support nothing but propaganda on climate change for their own personal profits."

unlikely.. too many politicians rely on the extra cash to feed their greedy lifestyles.

(V): The answer is using more green technology that will ween us off the oil glut. Also not listening to corporate lobby groups that support nothing but propaganda on climate change for their own personal profits.