# environmentalists do it again.



## Ditch (Mar 7, 2011)

San Francisco i believe, i heard the news last week. they mandated 1 1/2 gallon flush toilets. Now the sewer system is all stopped up with sludge because there isn't enough waster to move it. Now they are having to flush the lines with bleach.


----------



## CFFTB (Mar 7, 2011)

I'm surprised to hear that (even for SF), because I thought it has been that way for years. Unless it was different for each state. In my state, 1 1/2s haven been around a long time. However, I don't think it's very practical. If you're having a particularly bad gastro-intestinal epsiode, say, if you've eaten a large amount of food at one sitting, it's going to take more than one flush to flush it all away. I had a plumber who was in the house working on other things make some kind of adjustment in the tank, & now the tank allows a little more water in, which helps. Perhaps in the future, toilet manufactures will make flushers with 2 settings: One for (for lack of a better term) number 1, & another for number 2. THe new high-powered ones are supposed to be good, but still...


----------



## The Backward OX (Mar 7, 2011)

America - sorry, garza, the Yew Ess of Ay - as usual is just so far behind the rest of the world. We've had dual-flush toilets for 25 years, give or take, and we're just a banana republic.


----------



## Gumby (Mar 7, 2011)

No doubt it's all those banana's, Ox. :tongue:

I've lived in California for much of my adult life, and even I have to shake my head at some of the thinking that comes from here.


----------



## Dudester (Mar 8, 2011)

About 15 months ago, the apartment management demanded that they change out my *shower control.* It turned out to be one of those *low flow controls*. There's about a 20 degree tempature difference between my shower and the bathroom sink (cold shower anyone ?). 

I've about had it up to here with this low flow crap. I'd like to tie all that junk to the necks of the creators and throw them overboard in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

*Edited and highlighted for OX.*


----------



## The Backward OX (Mar 8, 2011)

What's wrong with US plumbing, Part II.

We've also had low-flow shower heads since Noah was a boy, and they make no difference whatsoever to temperature.


----------



## The Backward OX (Mar 8, 2011)

Gumby said:


> I've lived in California for much of my adult life, and even I have to shake my head at some of the thinking that comes from here.


I heard they'd renamed it Granola - it's full of fruits, flakes and nuts.


----------



## Blood (Mar 8, 2011)

Ditch said:


> San Francisco i believe, i heard the news last week. they mandated 1 1/2 gallon flush toilets. Now the sewer system is all stopped up with sludge because there isn't enough waster to move it. Now they are having to flush the lines with bleach.


While this certainly smells like a bad idea, it has nothing to do with environmentalist, or politics, and everything to do with _resource management_.  Nice try though.


----------



## Dudester (Mar 8, 2011)

The Backward OX said:


> What's wrong with US plumbing, Part II.
> 
> We've also had low-flow shower heads since Noah was a boy, and they make no difference whatsoever to temperature.



If you read my post, it's not the shower head, it's *the shower control-*you know, the knob that turns the water on or off.


----------



## garza (Mar 8, 2011)

Most of the toilets in Belize are dual-flush type. And low-flow is a resource management issue, not an environmental issue. 

One-and-a-half gallons is plenty if the flush mechanism and the throat of the toilet are properly designed. A proper flush depends less on the amount of water and more on the rate of flow. 

Bleach in the sewer lines is a really bad idea. That will kill the bacteria. You need the bacteria to break up the sludge and keep it moving. Using bleach to dissolve the sludge is expensive and works against natural decomposition. 

Somewhere here I have a policy paper I helped the Ministry of Works prepare some years ago that goes in-depth on all these questions. It's about 200 pages, so I don't propose to post it here, but it does recommend dual-flush one-and-a-half gallon toilets to conserve water, low-flow shower controls, and on-demand water heaters rather than tank type.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 8, 2011)

Since when is the conservation and management of resources not an environmental issue?


----------



## garza (Mar 8, 2011)

When we discuss policies related to management of resources, we must look first at economic and social issues. From what I've read of the situation in California the battle is between growing urban and suburban demand for more water for household use, and rural demand for water for agricultural production. Do you apportion more water for farmers to grow fruits and vegetables for people to eat, or more water for households to use to cook the food and flush the toilets. Those are economic and social issues and very often neither side in such an argument looks at strictly environmental issues. If the city water supply is barely adequate, then you have to manage what water resources you have to allow fair distribution, thus you mandate low-flow controls and small-tank toilets. If the farmer needs water to irrigate his fields and orchards, that must be taken into account, and a balance found. 

As cities grow, the demand for fresh water and the need for enhanced-capacity sewerage systems will increase. City planners must look first to satisfying the needs of a growing population that needs more water than the system was designed to supply. That growing population can easily overload a sewerage system designed many years ago when the population density was half or less of what it is today.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 8, 2011)

This thread is based on the idea propagated by certain conservatives that all environmentalists are loonies -- which of course, isn't true. It's another lame stereotype. We'd be in a world of hurt today as far as air and water quality is concerned had it not been for the environmental movement of the 60's and 70's. While it's true that it's sometimes taken too far, we still need environmentalists to keep industries and municipalities in check to maintain and improve our water and air quality. Generalizing to make a point is never a good idea -- and conservatives love to point out the extreme examples of environmentalism and paint all environmentalists with one broad brush. This story is really about poor execution of a sound concept -- not crazy environmentalists. And no, I'm not a liberal or a democrat.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 8, 2011)

garza said:


> When we discuss policies related to management of resources, we must look first at economic and social issues. From what I've read of the situation in California the battle is between growing urban and suburban demand for more water for household use, and rural demand for water for agricultural production. Do you apportion more water for farmers to grow fruits and vegetables for people to eat, or more water for households to use to cook the food and flush the toilets. Those are economic and social issues and very often neither side in such an argument looks at strictly environmental issues. If the city water supply is barely adequate, then you have to manage what water resources you have to allow fair distribution, thus you mandate low-flow controls and small-tank toilets. If the farmer needs water to irrigate his fields and orchards, that must be taken into account, and a balance found.
> 
> As cities grow, the demand for fresh water and the need for enhanced-capacity sewerage systems will increase. City planners must look first to satisfying the needs of a growing population that needs more water than the system was designed to supply. That growing population can easily overload a sewerage system designed many years ago when the population density was half or less of what it is today.



I agree with all of this -- but management of natural resources is still an environmental issue, no matter how you slice it.


----------



## garza (Mar 8, 2011)

If you are talking about the management of all natural resources, yes, environmental concerns must be part of the equation. But here we are talking about conserving water in an urban setting. That's an economic and social issue.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 8, 2011)

Where do you think the water in the "urban setting" comes from? Water is a natural resource that must be managed and conserved. It's an economic, social issue _and_ environmental issue.


----------



## Blood (Mar 8, 2011)

JosephB said:


> I agree with all of this -- but management of natural resources is still an environmental issue, no matter how you slice it.


Then what is the environmental issue here [that concerns 'environmentalists']?  We go through this almost every summer, or every other summer here San Antonio during a long hot dry season when aquifers are low - water rationing that is.  The city puts out a schedule limiting us residents to certain days and times when we can water our lawns.  Yes water is part of the environment but the environment itself is not the issue.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 8, 2011)

Well, you're not looking at it from the standpoint of where some people get their water. For example, here in Atlanta, we get our water from one river source -- how that's managed affects wildlife, fish and water quality. Those are environmental issues. How much water is used also effects how waste is removed -- and that process also affects the environment. Do you think all the bleach they're going to use in San Fransisco is going to have any negative impact on the environment?


----------



## Blood (Mar 8, 2011)

JosephB said:


> Where do you think the water in the "urban setting" comes from? Water is a natural resource that must be managed and conserved. It's an economic, social issue _and_ environmental issue.


You forgot 'religious' issue.


----------



## Blood (Mar 8, 2011)

JosephB said:


> Well, you're not looking at it from the standpoint of where some people get their water. For example, here in Atlanta, we get our water from one river source -- how that's managed affects wildlife, fish and water quality. Those are environmental issues.


Well that's true regarding fish and wildlife concerns, but they're not part of the equation in this matter.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 8, 2011)

JosephB said:


> This thread is based on the idea propagated by certain conservatives that all environmentalists are loonies -- which of course, isn't true. It's another lame stereotype. We'd be in a world of hurt today as far as air and water quality is concerned had it not been for the environmental movement of the 60's and 70's. While it's true that it's sometimes taken too far, *we still need environmentalists to keep industries and municipalities in check to maintain and improve our water and air quality*. Generalizing to make a point is never a good idea -- and conservatives love to point out the extreme examples of environmentalism and paint all environmentalists with one broad brush. This story is really about poor execution of a sound concept -- not crazy environmentalists. And no, I'm not a liberal or a democrat.


I am with you on this whole post Joseph, but the bolded part really struck a chord with me, when I was little someone thought it a good idea to build a power station in Battersea, in the middle of London, they didn't need to bring the power long distances and it had its own wharf on the river for delivering the coal. By comparing death rates before and after it shut down it became apparent that it caused something like two thousand deaths a year from pulmonary conditions.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 8, 2011)

Blood said:


> Well that's true regarding fish and wildlife concerns.



OK  then. As far as I know, fish and wildlife are part of our environment. It really doesn't matter -- I just don't see the need to separate the two issues. 

Anyway, that's not what the thread is about -- it's about "them crazy environmentalists." If you do a Google search on this, like "toilets, San Fransisco" you'll see that the results are mostly conservative blogs and websites -- all overreaching to make some simplistic, lame point.


----------



## Ditch (Mar 8, 2011)

This thread is based on the idea propagated by certain conservatives  that all environmentalists are loonies -- which of course, isn't true.  

no, they are misguided and generally do more harm than good. Drilling for oil for example, it is a fact that we have more oil than Saudi Arabia, a lot more. ANWAR alone is a very rich oil field that we can't tap because of the environmentalists. Along with over 80 % of our offshore resources. We have more than enough oil to supply our own needs and stop our dependence on foreign oil. Sarah Palin's Alaska showed her caribou hunting in a desolate place. There was nothing there and not many caribou. That was ANWAR, she intentionally took the camera crew there to see what we are protecting. With today's regulations, we could easily and successfully drill there with no incident that couldn't quickly be rectified with little or no environmental impact. Instead, we have boxed ourselves in like this, and yes, this is due to environmentalists.







We'd be in a world of hurt today as far as  air and water quality is concerned had it not been for the  environmental movement of the 60's and 70's. 

Granted, our air and water is a lot cleaner while the rest of the planet churns out pollutants without a care and we are better off for it. However, at times things that would benefit entire communities are put through the courts costing millions of dollars in delay and the lack of clean power as in the Snail Darter case. The *snail darter controversy* involved the delay of the construction of the Tellico Dam on the Little Tennessee River in 1973. On August 12, 1973, University of Tennessee biologist and professor David Etnier discovered the snail darter in the Little Tennessee River while doing research related to a lawsuit involving the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The lawsuit stated that the Tellico Reservoir,  to be created by Tellico Dam, would alter the habitat of the river to  the point of extirpating the snail darter. The NEPA lawsuits slowed the  construction of the Tellico Dam but did not stop it.

Timber is ceased being cut ruining local economies because a particular owl lives there. Wouldn't it be a lot more feasible to relocate these animals? Why should we remain dependant on foriegn oil when as this week, Libya has an uprising and gas goes up a dime overnight with no end in sight? We have the oil, more than they do and it is the environmentalists who stop us from drilling for it. California refuses to build clean, nuclear power and is lacking for electricity. They won't dam the rivers or burn coal. Even Ted Kennedy nixed the windmills in Pueget Sound that were to be built, clean, dependable power. They even count the number of birds that run into these things as an argument.


----------



## Leyline (Mar 8, 2011)

In 1998, the USGS estimated that between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (2.54×109 m3)  of technically recoverable crude oil and natural gas liquids are in the  coastal plain area of ANWR, with a mean estimate of 10.4 billion  barrels (1.65×109 m3), of which 7.7 billion barrels (1.22×109 m3) lie within the Federal portion of the ANWR 1002 Area.[17]  In comparison, the estimated volume of undiscovered, technically  recoverable oil in the rest of the United States is about *120 billion  barrels *(1.9×1010 m3)



Proven *oil reserves in Saudi Arabia* are the second largest claimed in the world, estimated to be *267 billion barrels *(42×109 m3) (Gbbl hereafter) including 2.5 Gbbl in the Saudi-Kuwaiti neutral zone. These reserves were the largest in the world until Venezuela announced they had increased their proven reserves to 297 Gbbl in January 2011.[1]  The Saudi reserves are about one-fifth of the world's total  conventional oil reserves, a large fraction of these reserves comes from  a small number of very large oil fields, and past production amounts to  40% of the stated reserves.^


----------



## alanmt (Mar 8, 2011)

Ditch, I don't think this is really a good time to blame environmentalists for prohibiting responsible oil drilling.  BP set back that cause much more than any environmentalists.


----------



## Blood (Mar 8, 2011)

JosephB said:


> Anyway, that's not what the thread is about -- it's about "them crazy environmentalists." If you do a Google search on this, like "toilets, San Fransisco" you'll see that the results are mostly conservative blogs and websites -- all overreaching to make some simplistic, lame point.


Yes I've seen the blogs.  And my point is that environmentalist have nothing do to with SF water conservation efforts.


----------



## Blood (Mar 8, 2011)

Ditch said:


> no, they are misguided and generally do more harm than good. Drilling for oil for example, it is a fact that we have more oil than Saudi Arabia, a lot more. ANWAR alone is a very rich oil field that we can't tap because of the environmentalists. Along with over 80 % of our offshore resources. We have more than enough oil to supply our own needs and stop our dependence on foreign oil. Sarah Palin's Alaska showed her caribou hunting in a desolate place. There was nothing there and not many caribou. That was ANWAR...


It's ANWR.  Are you guided?


----------



## Ditch (Mar 8, 2011)

Leyline, perhaps I misspoke. Combined with ANWR, the total oil reserves in the United States far outweigh Saudi Arabia.

i have respect for the EPA, they actually have degrees and are qualified to make rulings. However, the majority of rulings restricting energy development are made by governors, congress and senators who woo votes.

Take California, they won't allow nuclear energy, dams. offshore drilling or heaven forbid coal, yet they thirst for power and energy. there must be a compromise, with the exception of me, few of us choose to wake up and go to work yet we need money. California being largely liberals, won't support any energy measures but they need it.So every time the Arabs tighten the spigot, we pay when we could support ourselves and sell oil to our neighbors.

Florida won't allow any offshore drilling, yet Cuba drills 80 miles from our coast. Who do you trust more to be more environmentally sound? We are cutting our own nose off to spite our face.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 8, 2011)

Extremists on both side of the oil drilling issue are what  cause the inaction and paralysis that lead to our continuing dependency on foreign oil. You've got the people who mindlessly chant "drill baby drill" on one side, and the zero tolerance environmentalists on the other. The case for drilling is weakened by conservatives who misrepresent the facts about oil reserves or get them wrong -- and who parrot 40 year old nonsense about snail darters and owls instead of making the case for the technology and monitoring that might allow for cleaner, safer drilling. 

Yeah, some environmentalists are extremists and support polices that fail to take economic impact into account. But maybe someday conservatives will learn to make a case against them without twisting the facts and falling back on the same old mostly irrelevant arguments.


----------



## Foxee (Mar 8, 2011)

JosephB said:


> This thread is based on the idea propagated by certain conservatives that all environmentalists are loonies -- which of course, isn't true. It's another lame stereotype. We'd be in a world of hurt today as far as air and water quality is concerned had it not been for the environmental movement of the 60's and 70's. While it's true that it's sometimes taken too far, we still need environmentalists to keep industries and municipalities in check to maintain and improve our water and air quality. Generalizing to make a point is never a good idea -- and conservatives love to point out the extreme examples of environmentalism and paint all environmentalists with one broad brush. This story is really about poor execution of a sound concept -- not crazy environmentalists. And no, I'm not a liberal or a democrat.


 Unfortunately it's a case of 'who watches the watchmen?' The EPA certainly isn't guiltless nor infallible and they've far too much unchecked power themselves.


----------



## caelum (Mar 8, 2011)

I don't understand how anyone can _not_ be an environmentalist.  Who doesn't want to protect our planet so future generations have clean water, air, etc.?  It's beyond selfish to take and pollute without thinking of our descendants, not to mention the other living things we share our planet with.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 8, 2011)

caelum said:


> I don't understand how anyone can _not_ be an environmentalist.  Who doesn't want to protect our planet so future generations have clean water, air, etc.?  It's beyond selfish to take and pollute without thinking of our descendants, not to mention the other living things we share our planet with.



In the context of a conversation like this, we're talking about environmentalism -- a political movement, and it's about affecting laws and government policy. It's not just about people who are mindful of the environment and want clean air and water, etc.


----------



## alanmt (Mar 8, 2011)

There used to be a distinction between conservationism and environmentalism.  Both shared common aims, although the former included conservation of resources for use by humans, while the latter is more focused on protection of the environment for its own sake.  

Conservationism was a philosophically conservative approach, but seems to have been supplanted amongst the current so-called political conservatives by a "drill, baby, drill" sort of disregard for the future, a sort of reversion to the copper kings philosophy of resource extraction.


----------



## bazz cargo (Mar 8, 2011)

Pardon me for butting in,
but I read in the national geographic that you don't need oil. You must have more than two hundred square miles of rooftops. Stick solar panels on them. You will then have enough energy to run the United States, and to provide hydrogen for all your motoring needs.
Just think, no oil, no backing nasty little dictators. That could contribute more to peace on Earth than any amount of soldiers looking for Osama.
 As for water, it falls free and currently untaxed from the sky, you can quite legally harvest it yourselves. Why bleat on about the Governments tendency to lean a little towards trying to be sensible, when you can contribute to the solution yourselves.
All I hear is a lot of prejudice, used to cover up some individuals own inaction.


----------



## caelum (Mar 8, 2011)

JosephB said:


> In the context of a conversation like this, we're talking about environmentalism -- a political movement, and it's about affecting laws and government policy. It's not just about people who are mindful of the environment and want clean air and water, etc.


 
Obviously I'm referring to the philosophy behind the political movement.

For me, those two terms mesh, Al.  Conservation for the sake of helping future generations _as well_ as the planet at large.  We seem to be running into the future wearing blinders as if our excesses can last forever.  I hope I'm not around when the oil really starts running out.  There'll be wars all over the place.  Unless we find an alternative source of energy that can effectively replace it.


----------



## garza (Mar 8, 2011)

When you have to sit down with the engineers from the water service, and the city planner, and the area representatives (politicians), and the man from Treasury and the lady from the city comptroller's office, and representatives of citizens' groups to try and put together a workable plan, _not a theory_, but _a workable plan_ for how the limited supply of water that is available can be fairly distributed at a metered rate that will on the one hand provide sufficient income for the water service to operate and on the other hand be affordable for all but the lowest income people, who will receive special assistance, knowing that thousands of households with tens of thousands of men, women, and children depend on having a regular supply of potable water available, environmental concerns are back burner issues. They are there, but they will have to wait. The priority is on getting water, and with it proper sewerage disposal, to the people. Those who only sit on the outside and only read the news reports have no idea of the stress, no idea of the complexities of developing water management policy for even a small city.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 8, 2011)

caelum said:


> Obviously I'm referring to the philosophy behind the political movement.
> 
> For me, those two terms mesh, Al.  Conservation for the sake of helping future generations _as well_ as the planet at large.  We seem to be running into the future wearing blinders as if our excesses can last forever.  I hope I'm not around when the oil really starts running out.  There'll be wars all over the place.  Unless we find an alternative source of energy that can effectively replace it.



Look at it this way -- people who want to drill for oil willy-nilly aren't unconcerned about the planet or future generations. For the most part, they are. They just don't think that drilling will be detrimental to the environment. That's what separates people who want to drill from the environmentalists -- who are against drilling. See the difference?

So it's about more than just a philosophy -- at least in terms of the OP and this discussion. It's about influencing policy and law -- and no politician is going to disavow some nebulous "philosophy" that simply has to do with protecting our planet for future generations. Everyone gives that lip-service.

But if you want to have your own definition of environmentalist that isn't relevant to the discussion, fine.


----------



## caelum (Mar 8, 2011)

Oil companies care about the environment, do they? :lol: That's golden.  I mean, I almost smiled there.  I'll call it a pseudo-smirk.  And that is one of the more warped definitions of environmentalism I've seen. Environmentalists against drilling?  Against polluting, perhaps.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 8, 2011)

Who said anything about oil companies? I'm talking about proponents of drilling -- the people who are saying "drill baby drill!" Ditch mentioned Sarah Palin, for example.  And of course, there are environmentalists who are against all off-shore drilling, and in specific areas, like ANWR for example. Why don't you look up what's being discussed? Read up a bit -- then maybe you'll catch on.


----------



## caelum (Mar 8, 2011)

> people who want to drill for oil willy-nilly


For the English speaking people present, I can imagine few things this phrase would bring to mind more than oil companies.  Of course you can claim that wasn't what you meant.  I would expect no better.  And the ANWR is only _one_ group, hardly representative of all environmentalists.  Ceasing drilling utterly isn't feasible in the modern economy and the majority of environmental organizations realize this.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 8, 2011)

caelum said:


> For the English speaking people present, I can imagine few things this phrase would bring to mind more than oil companies.  Of course you can claim that wasn't what you meant.  I would expect no better.  And the ANWR is only _one_ group, hardly representative of all environmentalists.  Ceasing drilling utterly isn't feasible in the modern economy and the majority of environmental organizations realize this.



How about the people present who are paying attention? You're not considering my comments in context of the thread. No one was discussing oil companies. It's a complete no-brainer that they want to to drill. Duh.

And I seriously doubt anyone is suggesting that we CEASE all drilling -- as if that has anything to do with this. Where did you come up with that? It's about drilling NEW wells. Geez. That's the issue being discussed. And do you know what ANWR is? Hint: It's not a "group."

Read up. Think. Until then -- later.



caelum said:


> I would expect no better.



Someone who isn't on staff might get banned or at least warned or reprimanded for that. That's flaming.


----------



## caelum (Mar 8, 2011)

JosephB said:
			
		

> there are environmentalists who are against all off-shore drilling





			
				JosephB said:
			
		

> And I seriously doubt anyone is suggesting that we CEASE all drilling


And I'm the one not paying attention?



			
				JosephB said:
			
		

> And do you know what ANWR is? Hint: It's not a "group."


I encourage you look up the term "Dangling Participle."  It was your comment which lead me to believe they were a group.



			
				JosephB said:
			
		

> Someone who isn't on staff might get banned or at least warned or reprimanded for that. That's flaming.


It's not flaming if so far every rational argument I make is treated with semantic games.  It's quite literally what I expect, no offense intended.  And a case can be made for flaming when members tell others they should "think".

I'll bow out of this debate as it's obvious we're not going to see eye to eye.  All the best.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 8, 2011)

caelum said:


> It was your comment which lead me to believe they were a group.


 
Ha ha. Classic.



caelum said:


> And a case can be made for flaming when members tell others they should "think".



Sorry. I would consider that more as a helpful hint.


----------



## Eluixa (Mar 8, 2011)

Boys, boys, do I need to knock your heads together?


----------



## Ditch (Mar 9, 2011)

For the sake of a reasonable conversation on this topic avoiding the mud  slinging, let's try to put conservative vs liberal aside for a moment.  If you saw the picture that I posted of the no drill zone, you see that  the only place we can drill is offshore of Texas, Louisiana and  Mississippi. The entire rest of the coast is off limits due to the risk  of a spill. Why are we even drilling offshore with the risk of a spill?  Because we can't drill anywhere on land, there is just too much  opposition to it. Why is this? A spill is easier to contain, repair and  clean up on land than it is in the water.

America is a very fuel hungry country. Solar is not feasible, solar  requires that the energy be stored in batteries for the half of the time  that the sun isn't shining. The same applies to wind turbines, they too  must store the power that is generated and neither can compete with the  amount of live, dependable electricity that one dam can produce. A dam  also contributes to society by producing a large lake that wouldn't  normally be there, supplying many communities with usable water as well  as a recreational area that brings money to the local economy. Hydrogen  is coming, but probably not in our lifetimes as far as personal vehicles  go.

I would like someone to tell me if there has ever been an incident with  nuclear power in this country, as I can't recall one. Russia in their haste to produce it had the only incident that I can recall. The waste must eventually be  disposed of but there is plenty of land that this material could be  properly contained so there is no damage to the environment. The amount  of energy delivered compared to what it takes to produce this energy is  very high.

So that brings us to our current fuel that we all use the most, gasoline  which comes from oil. I'm not mindlessly screaming "Drill baby drill"  but recognize that we, as a nation, use more fuel than anyone with the  exception of China maybe and produce very little when we have plenty  right here. North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3  billion barrels of  undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the  Bakken Formation. The USGS estimate of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of  technically  recoverable oil has a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels. Scientists  conducted detailed studies in stratigraphy and structural geology and  the modeling of petroleum geochemistry. They also combined their  findings with historical exploration and production analyses to  determine the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil estimates.

I worked in the petrochemical field for 20 years and know just how  costly it is to make usable fuel out of oil. The oil companies try to  appease the public, they make commercials about making clean fuel out of  algae and other products but they know that it isn't economically  feasible at this time. We are stuck with oil and our choice is to either  drill for our own using technology to reduce the risks, or continue to  depend on a very unstable region for the oil that we so badly need. 

That brings us back to the original post, it is the environmentalists who stop us from drilling our own oil _*on land *_when  this can be done safely with today's technology. Drilling in 1,000 feet  of water is just too risky and expensive. The threat to the environment  is also a lot higher. We all want clean air and water and care for our  planet. Forget the conservative and liberal slant, we must meet in the  middle somewhere if we are to become energy independent. The middle east  is just too unstable of an area for us to keep looking to them for our  oil but we are stuck over a barrel right now. Any threat to our oil  supply causes our meddling in their affairs. What else does Saudi Arabia  or anyone in that area export that we really need?

Here is a link from the U. S. Geological Survey about the Bakken  Formation alone..USGS Release: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate— (4/10/2008 2:25:36 PM)


----------



## garza (Mar 9, 2011)

Three Mile Island was the location for the single reported incident with nuclear power in the U.S.

Didn't this thread begin as a discussion about water and low volume toilets? It seems to have gone seriously off the rails. 

In line with the original post, there is a way to double the flushing power of you one-and-a-half gallon toilet. Raise the tank. The old toilets had the tank five or six feet above the toilet itself. When the chain was pulled, gravity took the water down the pipe much faster than is the case with the modern toilet, making the siphon effect that much stronger. A raised tank, combined with today's improved throat designs, will give you a good flush with far less water. 

I suppose there are environmental advantages to using less water in the tank, but conserving a limited supply of water so that everyone in a service area has water is the overriding motive for mandating low-capacity toilets and low-flow shower controls, shower heads, and faucets.


----------



## Ditch (Mar 9, 2011)

Thanks Garza, I forgot about The mile Island, but that was 1979, do you think that it is safer now? I agree that this thread has gotten far off course, as a lot of them do. I'm not particularly promoting nuclear energy, just looking at what is available to us right now. Continuing to depend on foreign, unstable countries doesn't seem like our best bet.


----------



## bazz cargo (Mar 9, 2011)

> America is a very fuel hungry country. Solar is not feasible,


Reducing energy consumption through more efficient technology will make a big difference in the feasibility. 





> solar   requires that the energy be stored in batteries for the half of the time   that the sun isn't shining. The same applies to wind turbines, they  too  must store the power that is generated


All over capacity during productive times can be stored. Locally in houses by battery technology. Larger amounts could be stored as hydrogen. 



> Hydrogen  is coming, but probably not in our lifetimes as far as personal vehicles  go.


I have a car that runs on LPG. For a few hundred dollars it can be adapted to run on hydrogen. Tens of thousands of cars in Europe can do the same. ( The very first internal combustion engine ran on hydrogen long before gasoline was ever conceived ). 

The EU. have already passed standardization laws to do with the production, transportation and storage of hydrogen.



> I would like someone to tell me if there has ever been an incident with   nuclear power in this country, as I can't recall one. Russia in their  haste to produce it had the only incident that I can recall.



We Brits have renamed one nuclear power station three times to avoid leakage embarrassment. If every country in the world started to build nuclear power stations, would there be enough uranium to go around ?



> I worked in the petrochemical field for 20 years and know just how   costly it is to make usable fuel out of oil. The oil companies try to   appease the public, they make commercials about making clean fuel out of   algae and other products but they know that it isn't economically   feasible at this time. We are stuck with oil and our choice is to either   drill for our own using technology to reduce the risks, or continue to   depend on a very unstable region for the oil that we so badly need.



You have a depth of expertise that I can only be jealous about.
How long will it be before the economics make it imperative we change our ways ?
Already over here people are changing the way they drive.
Fuel is used for heating, the electricity that keeps my computer on and for food production.
We must be ahead of the curve on this one, or there will be widespread and catastrophic consequences. 
Some of us ( eco nutters ) are doing our little bit, but it  is very disheartening when we are swamped by the ' we want business as usual ' attitude that is so pervasive.

Please don't think I am being awkward for the sake of it. I have seen the oil tankers parked off the British coast, just waiting for the price of oil to rise enough to make a fortune. I have an acquaintance who was once an inspection engineer in the  nuclear power industry. I have applied for solar panels, and something that is called 'a feed in tariff. '

Maybe I'm a bit strange, or maybe I can see the writing on the wall a bit more clearly.


----------



## Ditch (Mar 9, 2011)

As a former firefighter, I personally would not want to respond to a wreck in which a hydrogen powered car is involved. Technology may advance, but the sheer size of the battery in electric cars is intimidating. You can't just throw batteries away as they are toxic waste, replacement cost is also a nightmare. They also have limited run time. while i was working there, Exxonmobil was putting a lot of money into stronger, more efficient batteries. The same applies for solar and wind right now, energy stored in a battery can't compete with the electricity produced by one dam and it is not a hazard to the environment.  dollar for dollar and pollution considered, you get a lot more bang for the buck from hydroelectric power.

LPG has been around for a while and emits less pollutants. Finding a station that supplies it could be a challenge. We are stuck overall with gasoline engines now by and large. They still haven't been able to make an electric engine that will haul an eighteen wheeler. Trains are amazing. No doubt about it, rail is a very fuel-efficient way to transport people  and stuff. The Association of American Railroads announced that in  2009, freight trains in the U.S. averaged 480 ton-miles-per-gallon. This  mean that a 1-ton car would have to get 480 MPG to match it, and a  2-ton SUV would need 240 MPG. And that would be just to move the  vehicles around, no other payload.

But, for the time being, overall, most of us are stuck with gasoline powered cars. This means we are dependent on oil. the choice we need to make is do we get our own, or continue to buy it from other countries who set the price. Every time their unstable area wobbles, we wince.

Another example of environmental stupidity is forcing those CFL light bulbs down our throats. even throwing them away puts mercury into our soil and water. If you accidentally break one, here is the cleanup procedure..



 *Before cleanup *
Have people and pets leave       the room.
Air out the room for 5-10       minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment.
Shut off the central forced       air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one.
Collect materials needed to       clean up broken bulb.
 
 

 *During cleanup *
Be thorough       in collecting broken glass and visible powder.
Place cleanup materials in       a sealable container.
 
 *After cleanup * 

Promptly place all bulb       debris and cleanup materials  outdoors in a trash container or protected       area until materials  can be disposed of properly. Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or        cleanup materials indoors.
If practical, continue       to air out the room where the  bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system       shut  off for several hours.
Add to this, they are all made in China. So we are losing more American jobs and using a product that increases pollution. They have to be recycled, see if you can find a recycling center and how many people do you think will go to the trouble? They will simply toss them into the trash and more mercury will wind up in our water and our fish. All of this to save a few dollars in electricity while Las Vegas can probably be seen from the next solar system, Nascar and all other race car drivers burn fuel for entertainment and empty school buses prowl every road while the line of parents dropping their little precious off at school all idle and it wraps around the block.


----------



## bazz cargo (Mar 9, 2011)

> As a former firefighter, I personally would not want to respond  to a wreck in which a hydrogen powered car is involved.



Good news, the EU spec on hydrogen containment is strong enough to withstand Most wrecks.
Also if there is a leak, hydrogen is lighter than air, so it doesn't  pool and become a fire risk, and if there is a puncture, and the gas is  ignited, because there is no carbon in it, the flame jet heat is so  localised you can stand within a few inches of it. It is non toxic, and  non corrosive.

If you want to power a big train, then how about a gas turbine engine.  If they can lift a fifty ton air plane off the ground, they should have  the muscle for a train.

Dam's are a good way to produce electricity, but it still puts big  business in charge of the  bills, and there is nothing like a monopoly  to make sure we all pay through the nose.

We are not going to move away from oil without hitting problems, but we  have had a hundred years of oil, and it still creates a whole heap of  problems.

I have discovered LED lighting. Go on, it's good for you. 
Bazz


----------



## Ditch (Mar 9, 2011)

I worked on a unit that used hydrogen as a fuel to refine wax into a  food grade product. At 1,800 pounds of pressure per square inch, even  with industrial standard, accidents do happen. flanges separate, hoses  rupture, then you have direct flame impingement on the containment  vessel, if the relief valve fails or the vessel is on it's side, you  will have an explosion and a major one. All you have to do is Google  "hydrogen explosion" to see industrial and delivery accidents. Nothing  made by man is foolproof.

A train engine uses very little fuel to turn a powerful electric  generator, mush more efficient than any turbine. Like it or not, big  business will always be the ones who sell us the power as it takes an  enormous amount of money to produce energy.

The only thing I don't like about LED lights is I like a dimmer to set the mood at times, and you can't dim LED or CFL lights.


----------



## Guy Faukes (Mar 9, 2011)

Well Ditch, you can buy more efficient incandescent lights for those times you want to "get your freak on", hehe.

BTW, your supposed to hand your CFLs off to your local hardware store, not throw them away. 

Every power source, be it fossil fuel, solar power, wind, dams, hydrogen, LPG, significantly damages the environment one way or another. Conservation is only real "green" method, which unfortunately contradicts the methods of our modern economy. 
I wonder if the question isn't so much how are we supposed to save the environment, but how are we supposed to properly run our economies more efficiently and sustainably?


----------



## Ditch (Mar 10, 2011)

Ever heard of Spurger, Texas? We don't even have a population sign. If an armadillo is struck on the highway it is the talk of the town. If I walked into the one hardware store Mott's and handed them a CFL light bulb, they would look at me like I was crazy, then throw it into the trash. 

At least we are better of than we were years ago. Our water is actually cleaner in places but still you can't support a population of millions of people without leaving a carbon footprint. We can take some comfort in knowing that this life is just a fleeting moment in eternity. Hopefully we will leave the place a little better than we found it for our grand kids.


----------



## alanmt (Mar 10, 2011)

armadillo is very tasty


----------



## Guy Faukes (Mar 10, 2011)

It really is alanmt. Nothing beats sitting around, eating a couple of  grilled amardillos. Just want to eat a whole one right now.

Yeah, I get the small town sentiment and how people chat about nothing if there's nothing to talk about... although not as scaled down... we have a population sign. But, if you want to be more greener, you can just use the more efficient  incandescents. For the most part, I think most people don't live out in the boonies are bound to  have some cooperating hardware store nearby (even some mom and pop stores take  'em).

It is true that a dominating species tends blanche out the local environment, but heck, it's a balancing act, right?
Right now, we have to start laying down groundwork for more efficient and responsible practices and not wait around until !@#$ hits the fan to take action.


----------



## bazz cargo (Mar 10, 2011)

Hi Ditch,


> Nothing  made by man is foolproof.


Absolutely.
You are quite right, hydrogen is dangerous stuff, and it will bite you on the backside quite spectacularly, but gasoline is also dangerous, and we have no intention of banning it. I believe the balance between an ever decreasing amount of oil, and the shortage of caves to go and live in, means we will have to find some kind of different fuel to keep us in the splendour we are accustomed too. Of all the choices available, hydrogen seems to be the most practicable.



> The only thing I don't like about LED lights is I like a dimmer to set the mood at times, and you can't dim LED or CFL lights.


We over here, can buy dimmers that work with fluorescent tubes, I don't know if they will work with LED's, but don't mix LED's and CFL's on the same switch, it wrecks them. 

Could armadillo farming be the way to secure the food supply? The nearest thing we have to those thick skinned creatures  are estate agents.


----------



## Ditch (Mar 15, 2011)

YouTube - Rep Don Young Urges Producing American Energy & Opening ANWR


----------

