Larry Kruzan on sat 4 sep 10
us!
Yes, sure - Don't look at the man behind the curtain..... (this may be a ba=
d
quote - didn't bother to look it up)
When you have a class of folks whose sole job is to stick their collective
noses into your business for the supposed good of the collective community =
-
soon all you will have left is the collective.
You may stick your head in the sand and correctly say that it doesn't apply
to me - right up to the point when the noseys tighten the rules more and
come and close down YOUR kiln for the PUBLIC good. Then, who will stand up
for you when there's nobody left to stand?=3D20
Or instead of making 10 posts here saying it does not matter - make one
email to your congressional leaders saying - it better not happen. Or it
will.
Yes, I do see governmental regulation as a cancer feeding on us all. After
all, for over a hundred years all governmental regs could fit on a smallish
book case - now we need a library - and only lawyers have a clue what is
there and only politicians have a clue what is being added. Geometric
progression of the worse sort.
Ever wonder about ticketing people for Jaywalking - there are piles of
lawyer generated regulations, all made to protect us from our own stupidity=
.
It is beyond my intention to explore the wisdom of doing away with such law=
s
and allow =3D22natural selection=3D22 to take place. Never the less, we =3D
attempt to
circumnavigate =3D22natural selection=3D22 by regulation.
I bought a new Plasma TV recently, there were 8 pages of warnings at the
beginning of the owner's manual - and 2 pages of instructions. One of the
warnings actually states that =3D22if the screen is broken, a person might =
cut
themselves on it=3D22, another warned =3D22that dropping the TV into a bath=
tub
containing water MAY pose an electrocution RISK=3D21=3D21=3D21 If you can d=
rop a =3D
60 inch
plasma TV into your bathtub (and want to) - two words - natural selection.
Talk about wasting trees=3D21 Do you want to clean up the environment, end =
=3D
THIS
stupidity.
So what does this have to do with us? Sooner or later, some nosy will decid=
e
that the little CO2 coming from YOUR kiln simply must be stopped or we are
all going to die a horrific death in a cesspool of pollution. After all,
it's their job to make sure YOU are not harming others.
Think not, don't do anything, we'll see who is right unless those of us wit=
h
our heads out of the sand can stop them. There is nothing as dangerous as a
politician working for =3D22the public good=3D22.
Larry Kruzan
Lost Creek Pottery
www.lostcreekpottery.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart =3D5Bmailto:Clayart=3D40LSV.CERAMICS.ORG=3D5D On Behalf Of Le=
e Love
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 9:34 PM
To: Clayart=3D40LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: EPA plans to regulate all sources of CO2, even small ones like =3D
us=3D21
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Randall Moody m>
wrote:
Do a news search on the National Federation of Independent Business.
They have an extremely slanted track record:
http://tinyurl.com/NFIBclayart
=3DA0 =3DA0They are simply using scare tactics not based on any facts.
--
=3DA0Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
--=3D20
--
=3DA0Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.15800)
http://www.pctools.com/
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D
Eric Hansen on sat 4 sep 10
us!
Michael: Is this the same Heritage Foundation you are citing as a "source" =
=3D
?
- h a n s e n -
Google results:
The Heritage Foundation
www.AskHeritage.org Become part of the conservative comeback.
Join Heritage Today.
Search Results
Conservative Policy Research and Analysis | The Heritage Foundation
Join Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and 684000 conservatives as a
Heritage Foundation member with your gift of $25 or more. Your
contribution will support ...
www.heritage.org/ - Cached - Similar
Issues
Health Care
Contact
Careers
Research
Events
About
First Principles
More results from heritage.org =3DBB
Research | The Heritage Foundation
Lectures given at Heritage Foundation events by prominent political
figures, academics, and issue experts from around the world.
Unfortunately, not all of ...
www.heritage.org/research - Cached
The Heritage Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Heritage Foundation is a conservative American think tank based in
Washington, D.C.. The foundation took a leading role in the
conservative movement ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation - Cached - Similar
Ask Heritage (Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh) - The Heritage ...
Aug 30, 2010 ... "In these consequential times, we need you, The
Heritage Foundation, and what you do, and the ideas you bring, and the
passion in which you ...
www.askheritage.org/ - Cached - Similar
The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog
Sep 3, 2010 ... Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research
and educational institution=3D97a think tank=3D97whose mission is to formul=
ate
and promote ...
blog.heritage.org/ - Cached - Similar
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Michael Wendt wrote:
> A few weeks ago, I received a notice from the National
> Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) that warned its
> members to contact their congressmen and representatives and
> voice our concerns about sweeping EPA restrictions that are
> planned for the near future that will apply to even single
> kilns and other small sources of CO2.
> Wood, gas and propane fired kilns would be required to meet
> EPA emission guidelines and would require an EPA permit to
> operate. Almost certainly, only EPA certified equipment
> would be allowed to operate in the US costing billions and
> further depressing our economy.
> For us, meeting the certification requirements would put us
> out of business since the emissions permits are notorious
> for often taking more than a year to obtain and you would no
> longer be allowed to operate any fuel kiln without one.
> Thankfully, the recession has temporarily delayed the
> implementation of these much stricter rules but not
> eliminated the threat.
>
> My position on this is that in aggregate, we, as potters ,
> emit so little CO2 as to mean nothing in the scheme of
> things. Wood firing is CO2 neutral since the trees burned
> are not fossil fuels and are renwable.
> Worse yet, making EPA rules stricter in the US merely sends
> the pollution to Korea, China, India or any other country
> hungry for jobs that is willing to allow CO2 releases in
> excess of EPA guidelines and they can do it since the EPA's
> power stops at the border.
> We all need to research this issue and become politically
> active even if it only amounts to writing to congress and
> explaining what such restrictions will do to our field.
> Here is an article to read if you care at all:
> http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/23/timing-is-everything-epa-delays-co2-r=
=3D
egulations/
>
> Regards,
> Michael Wendt
>
--=3D20
Eric Alan Hansen
Stonehouse Studio Pottery
Alexandria, Virginia
americanpotter.blogspot.com
thesuddenschool.blogspot.com
hansencookbook.blogspot.com
"To me, human life in all its forms, individual and aggregate, is a
perpetual wonder: the flora of the earth and sea is full of beauty and
of mystery which seeks science to understand; the fauna of land and
ocean is not less wonderful; the world which holds them both, and the
great universe that folds it in on everyside, are still more
wonderful, complex, and attractive to the contemplating mind." -
Theodore Parker, minister, transcendentalist, abolitionist (1810-1860)
Randall Moody on sat 4 sep 10
us!
Would it matter the source if this is true? Shady logic in attacking the
source rather than the topic.
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Eric Hansen
wrote:
> Michael: Is this the same Heritage Foundation you are citing as a "source=
=3D
"
> ?
> - h a n s e n -
> Google results:
>
>
> The Heritage Foundation
> www.AskHeritage.org Become part of the conservative comeback.
> Join Heritage Today.
> Search Results
> Conservative Policy Research and Analysis | The Heritage Foundation
> Join Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and 684000 conservatives as a
> Heritage Foundation member with your gift of $25 or more. Your
> contribution will support ...
> www.heritage.org/ - Cached - Similar
> Issues
> Health Care
> Contact
> Careers
> Research
> Events
> About
> First Principles
> More results from heritage.org =3DBB
> Research | The Heritage Foundation
> Lectures given at Heritage Foundation events by prominent political
> figures, academics, and issue experts from around the world.
> Unfortunately, not all of ...
> www.heritage.org/research - Cached
> The Heritage Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The Heritage Foundation is a conservative American think tank based in
> Washington, D.C.. The foundation took a leading role in the
> conservative movement ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation - Cached - Similar
> Ask Heritage (Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh) - The Heritage ...
> Aug 30, 2010 ... "In these consequential times, we need you, The
> Heritage Foundation, and what you do, and the ideas you bring, and the
> passion in which you ...
> www.askheritage.org/ - Cached - Similar
> The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog
> Sep 3, 2010 ... Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research
> and educational institution=3D97a think tank=3D97whose mission is to form=
ulat=3D
e
> and promote ...
> blog.heritage.org/ - Cached - Similar
>
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Michael Wendt wrote:
> > A few weeks ago, I received a notice from the National
> > Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) that warned its
> > members to contact their congressmen and representatives and
> > voice our concerns about sweeping EPA restrictions that are
> > planned for the near future that will apply to even single
> > kilns and other small sources of CO2.
> > Wood, gas and propane fired kilns would be required to meet
> > EPA emission guidelines and would require an EPA permit to
> > operate. Almost certainly, only EPA certified equipment
> > would be allowed to operate in the US costing billions and
> > further depressing our economy.
> > For us, meeting the certification requirements would put us
> > out of business since the emissions permits are notorious
> > for often taking more than a year to obtain and you would no
> > longer be allowed to operate any fuel kiln without one.
> > Thankfully, the recession has temporarily delayed the
> > implementation of these much stricter rules but not
> > eliminated the threat.
> >
> > My position on this is that in aggregate, we, as potters ,
> > emit so little CO2 as to mean nothing in the scheme of
> > things. Wood firing is CO2 neutral since the trees burned
> > are not fossil fuels and are renwable.
> > Worse yet, making EPA rules stricter in the US merely sends
> > the pollution to Korea, China, India or any other country
> > hungry for jobs that is willing to allow CO2 releases in
> > excess of EPA guidelines and they can do it since the EPA's
> > power stops at the border.
> > We all need to research this issue and become politically
> > active even if it only amounts to writing to congress and
> > explaining what such restrictions will do to our field.
> > Here is an article to read if you care at all:
> >
> http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/23/timing-is-everything-epa-delays-co2-r=
=3D
egulations/
> >
> > Regards,
> > Michael Wendt
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Eric Alan Hansen
> Stonehouse Studio Pottery
> Alexandria, Virginia
> americanpotter.blogspot.com
> thesuddenschool.blogspot.com
> hansencookbook.blogspot.com
> "To me, human life in all its forms, individual and aggregate, is a
> perpetual wonder: the flora of the earth and sea is full of beauty and
> of mystery which seeks science to understand; the fauna of land and
> ocean is not less wonderful; the world which holds them both, and the
> great universe that folds it in on everyside, are still more
> wonderful, complex, and attractive to the contemplating mind." -
> Theodore Parker, minister, transcendentalist, abolitionist (1810-1860)
>
--=3D20
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com/home.html
Randall Moody on sat 4 sep 10
us!
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Lee Love wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Randall Moody
> wrote:
> > Would it matter the source if this is true? Shady logic in attacking th=
=3D
e
> > source rather than the topic.
>
> Certainly the source is important, especially when no facts related to
> small businesses were supplied. They are frighting the little guy
> about things that will have no affect on them.
>
> --
> Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
> http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
>
> =3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
> the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
>
Either it is true or it isn't your bias notwithstanding.
--=3D20
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com/home.html
steve graber on sat 4 sep 10
us!
like the article states there is likely to be a cut off level below which s=
=3D
mall =3D0Amanufacturers will not be affected.=3DC2=3DA0 however everyone sh=
ould r=3D
ead up on this and =3D0Aif interested spam your local politicians to make s=
ur=3D
e a cut off level is above =3D0Apottery needs.=3DC2=3DA0 don't poo-poo the =
idea!=3D
=3DC2=3DA0 spamming those guys really does work!=3DC2=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0A=3D0Ah=
ere in califor=3D
nia there is an automatic waiver for AQMD (EPA) regulations for =3D0Aany=3D=
C2=3D
=3DA0kiln producing at a rate below 1 million BTU's.=3DC2=3DA0 my kiln at 1=
0 typi=3D
cal =3D0A77,000 BTU's (70 cubic footer) runs at 770,000 BTU's.=3DC2=3DA0 ~ =
well b=3D
elow the limit.=3DC2=3DA0 =3D0Amy current town never heard of the AQMD rule=
when =3D
i told them and i didn't have =3D0Ato fuss with it. =3DC2=3DA0but my prior =
town d=3D
id and i got an easy waiver from AQMD there =3D0Aon a kiln.=3DC2=3DA0 the A=
QMD al=3D
so stated to me they especially know about pottery and =3D0Aconsider it to =
be=3D
very benign.=3DC2=3DA0 however if i was even using a smaller kiln to do =
=3D0Abro=3D
nze sculpture they might be more inclined to review my application before =
=3D
=3D0Agiving up a waiver.=3DC2=3DA0 they do not like metal working so much i=
t seem=3D
s....=3DC2=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0A=3D0Asorry i'm weak at thermodynamics anymore but=
pulling o=3D
ut of my butt i think most =3D0Awood fire kilns are below that 1 million BT=
U =3D
level.=3DC2=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0A=3D0Ahowever areas that are concerned about fire=
place smok=3D
e (san fransico, denver, =3D0Aetc) still might become a bigger issue before=
a=3D
ny EPA people.=3DC2=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0A=3D0Ai was glad our local AQMD was even =
aware of p=3D
ottery details and kilns and hope i =3D0Adidn't just meet an odd ball clerk=
.=3D
=3DC2=3DA0 he showed me their own documentation =3D0Aspecific to pottery wh=
en i g=3D
ot my waiver.=3DC2=3DA0 this was about 1995.=3DC2=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0A=3D0Ai dou=
bt wood fire k=3D
ilns are releasing 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year.=3DC2=3DA0 =3D0Atha=
t sure=3D
is a lot of wood!=3DC2=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0ASteve Graber, Graber's Pottery, Inc=
=3D0AClarem=3D
ont, California USA=3D0AThe Steve Tool - for awesome texture on pots! =3D0A=
www.=3D
graberspottery.com steve@graberspottery.com =3D0A=3D0A=3D0AOn Laguna Clay's=
websi=3D
te=3D0Ahttp://www.lagunaclay.com/blogs/ =3D0A=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A> Here is =
an article t=3D
o read if you care at all:=3D0A>http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/23/timing-=
is=3D
-everything-epa-delays-co2-regulations/=3D0A>/=3D0A> =3D0A=3D0Aan exerp:=3D=
C2=3DA0 ""Th=3D
e EPA is proposing a =3DE2=3D80=3D9Ctailoring rule=3DE2=3D80=3D9D that woul=
d amend the =3D
CAA so =3D0Athat only entities that emit 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equi=
va=3D
lent per year =3D0Awould be affected. But even the 25,000 ton threshold is =
su=3D
bject to change said =3D0AJackson: =3DE2=3D80=3D9CI expect the threshold fo=
r permit=3D
ting will be substantially higher =3D0Athan the 25,000-ton limit that EPA o=
ri=3D
ginally proposed.=3DE2=3D80=3D9D These regulations for =3D0Athe largest of =
emitters=3D
are expected to take place between the latter half of =3D0A2011 and 2013. =
=3D
=3D0A=3D0ASmaller entities would be exempt from carbon dioxide regulations =
=3DE2=3D
=3D80=3D93 for now. =3D0ASchools, farms, restaurants, hospitals, apartment =
comple=3D
xes, churches, and =3D0Aanything with a motor=3DE2=3D80=3D93from motor vehi=
cles to =3D
lawnmowers, jet skis, and leaf =3D0Ablowers=3DE2=3D80=3D93could be subject =
to regul=3D
ations ""=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A
Lee Love on sat 4 sep 10
us!
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Randall Moody wr=
=3D
ote:
> Would it matter the source if this is true? Shady logic in attacking the
> source rather than the topic.
Certainly the source is important, especially when no facts related to
small businesses were supplied. They are frighting the little guy
about things that will have no affect on them.
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Lee Love on sat 4 sep 10
us!
Looks like it won't effect most potters. The proposed regulations
would affect businesses that emit over 250 tonnes of carbon dioxide
annually. About 1,000,000 business.
When I search for the National Federation of Independent Business
(NFIB), I found that their last project was attempting to defeat
National Health Care. So, they have a political axe to grind.
--
=3DA0Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Lee Love on sat 4 sep 10
us!
I am looking and cannot find data on the Clean Air Act and small
businesses. I'll keep searching.
--
=3DA0Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Anita Rickenberg on sat 4 sep 10
us!
If the new regulations you're referring to are the proposed rules on the
clean air act for greenhouse gas emissions, it applies to "new and modified
factories, industrial boilers and power plants" or that "any large new or
modified industrial source in their neighborhoods will be as clean as
possible". To read the source document, go to:
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/
Anita
Steve Slatin on sat 4 sep 10
us!
Michael --
The Clean Air Act applies to facilities that emit
hundreds of tons of pollution per year. I can't
imagine that your kiln comes close to that.
If the NFIB is telling you that your small operation
would be controlled by the EPA, they're just plain
lying.
Steve Slatin --
--- On Fri, 9/3/10, Michael Wendt wrote:
> From: Michael Wendt
> Subject: EPA plans to regulate all sources of CO2, even small ones like u=
s!
> To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 11:47 PM
> A few weeks ago, I received a notice
> from the National
> Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) that warned its
> members to contact their congressmen and representatives
> and
> voice our concerns about sweeping EPA restrictions that
> are
> planned for the near future that will apply to even single
> kilns and other small sources of CO2.
> Wood, gas and propane fired kilns would be required to
> meet
> EPA emission guidelines and would require an EPA permit to
> operate. Almost certainly, only EPA certified equipment
> would be allowed to operate in the US costing billions and
> further depressing our economy.
James Freeman on sat 4 sep 10
us!
Michael...
Two things:
First, and admittedly as an aside, the idea that oil and gas are
fossil fuels is not settled science by any stretch. It is not even
scientific theory, but merely hypothesis (Science-speak for "educated
guess", while "theory" is science-speak for an educated guess which
has made accurate predictions and is supported by repeatable
experimentation. When we say "scientific fact", we really mean
"theory with a high degree of certainty".). The biogenic hypothesis,
the idea that oil derives from biological sources, dates from the
1500s. The abiogenic hypothesis is much newer, dating, I believe,
from the 1800s. It is mathematically, chemically, and physically
consistent, and from my reading explains more of the observable data
than does the biogenic hypothesis. And before we start a debate about
geology that none of us are qualified to wage, I suggest that anyone
interested set aside their preconceptions for a moment and do a bit of
reading before making up their minds. A google search on "abiogenic
hypothesis", or "abiogenic petroleum hypothesis" should yield a decent
start on both sides of the argument.
Second, and to your point, I respectfully offer that if any of the
various cap-and-tax schemes are enacted, the fact that you can no
longer fire your kiln will be the least of your problems. If we
unilaterally impose such restrictions on ourselves, it is essentially
"game over". We will have committed ritual suicide, and EVERYTHING,
not just kiln firing, will transfer to China, India, Russia, and the
rest of the world where such restrictions will not exist.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice.=3DA0 I
should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Michael Wendt wrote:
> A few weeks ago, I received a notice from the National
> Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) that warned its
> members to contact their congressmen and representatives and
> voice our concerns about sweeping EPA restrictions that are
> planned for the near future that will apply to even single
> kilns and other small sources of CO2.
> Wood, gas and propane fired kilns would be required to meet
> EPA emission guidelines and would require an EPA permit to
> operate. Almost certainly, only EPA certified equipment
> would be allowed to operate in the US costing billions and
> further depressing our economy.
> For us, meeting the certification requirements would put us
> out of business since the emissions permits are notorious
> for often taking more than a year to obtain and you would no
> longer be allowed to operate any fuel kiln without one.
> Thankfully, the recession has temporarily delayed the
> implementation of these much stricter rules but not
> eliminated the threat.
>
> My position on this is that in aggregate, we, as potters ,
> emit so little CO2 as to mean nothing in the scheme of
> things. Wood firing is CO2 neutral since the trees burned
> are not fossil fuels and are renwable.
> Worse yet, making EPA rules stricter in the US merely sends
> the pollution to Korea, China, India or any other country
> hungry for jobs that is willing to allow CO2 releases in
> excess of EPA guidelines and they can do it since the EPA's
> power stops at the border.
> We all need to research this issue and become politically
> active even if it only amounts to writing to congress and
> explaining what such restrictions will do to our field.
> Here is an article to read if you care at all:
> http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/23/timing-is-everything-epa-delays-co2-r=
=3D
egulations/
>
> Regards,
> Michael Wendt
>
Michael Wendt on sun 5 sep 10
us!
Steve,
There was a wood stove manufacturer here in Lewiston, Idaho
when I first started doing pottery. (KnightGard Stoves)
After the EPA issued its rule requiring all wood stoves to
be certified to meet EPA emission guidelines, they lacked
the capital to obtain the certification and went out of
business. They didn't sell nationally, only in the local
market.
Cars and small engines like those used on lawn mowers are
already going to be required to be EPA certified.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm
The assertion from the NFIB was that the EPA, by means of
the certification route could greatly expand its regulatory
influence
The EPA can issue similar rules for any small fuel burning
appliance (read kiln here since it is part of that group of
devices) and achieve defacto regulation without the need to
specifically target us for regulation.
I built my own kilns. The cost of obtaining emission
compliance certification would be prohibitive. I doubt they
are worried that I will go out of business. I know they are
not trying to hurt us but if this came to pass, they would
hurt us deeply.
By the way, why would the NFIB deliberately "lie" to its
membership. Doing that would be the end of the organization.
Regards,
Michael Wendt
Steve wrote:
Michael --
The Clean Air Act applies to facilities that emit
hundreds of tons of pollution per year. I can't
imagine that your kiln comes close to that.
If the NFIB is telling you that your small operation
would be controlled by the EPA, they're just plain
lying.
Steve Slatin --
Lee Love on sun 5 sep 10
us!
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Anita Rickenberg wrote=
=3D
:
> possible". =3DA0To read the source document, go to:
> http://www.epa.gov/nsr/
Thanks Anita. It basically comes down to paying the actual cost of
fossil fuels. I would be willing to pay my share, even though I fall
below the radar and won't have to comply.
Actually, I pay extra for windpower. You can pay a bit more an get
all your electricity from windpower. I may do that for the studio.
You can get Proposed Rules on Clean Air Act Permitting for Greenhouse
Gas Emissions fact sheet here:
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/actions.html#aug10
--
=3DA0Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Lee Love on sun 5 sep 10
us!
*Note: I never write for the folks who have their minds made up
already. I am writing for the vast majority of the folks who never
post, so they can explore the issue on their own.*
The problem has been, that we haven't been paying for the real cost
of petrochemicals. If you have an outhouse or septic tank (though a
septic tank requires paying someone to empty), maybe you are not
familiar with the way things in the city.
On my utility bill, I am not only billed for the clean water I
use, but also the dirty water I dispose of using the city sewer
system. We also have to pay for our solid waste disposal, but are
credited for the recycling we do.
With petrochemicals, we have only been playing for the refined
oil and gasoline we use, but not the waste product pumped into the
communal atmosphere. Our atmosphere is a sort of commons that is
used by everybody on the planet.
Paying only for the subsidized oil, gas and gasoline means we are
not accounting for the burden it is placing upon the atmosphere.
Some folks like the free market approach of Cap and Trade. It would
make better sense to have a carbon tax at the point of purchase. You
can read the carbon tax here: http://www.carbontax.org/
You can read
There isn't any free lunch. Mother Nature is a harsh
accountant. We need to stop putting the burden of this issue on our
grandkids and their grandkids. Otherwise, they'll look back at us and
think we were pitifully foolish and selfish.
--=3D20
--
=3DA0Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Lee Love on sun 5 sep 10
us!
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Michael Wendt wrote:
> By the way, why would the NFIB deliberately "lie" to its
> membership. Doing that would be the end of the organization.
Using fear to control them. The NFIB told similar lies about health
care reform.
Michael, did you see the figures shared or read the actual
proposals? It is not applicable to small business and is only
applied to the largest 1,000 corporations.
Get the fact sheet.
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/actions.html#aug10
Certain folks are more prone to reacting to fear:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR200809180=
=3D
2265.html
--
=3DA0Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Tony Ferguson on sun 5 sep 10
us!
Take a look here and at the referenced articles regarding Co2:
http://www.infowars.com/german-government-advisor-proposes-personal-co2-bud=
=3D
get-for-everyone-on-planet/
Tony
--- On Sat, 9/4/10, Randall Moody wrote:
From: Randall Moody
Subject: Re: EPA plans to regulate all sources of CO2, even small ones like=
=3D
us!
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Date: Saturday, September 4, 2010, 3:54 PM
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Lee Love wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Randall Moody
> wrote:
> > Would it matter the source if this is true? Shady logic in attacking th=
=3D
e
> > source rather than the topic.
>
> Certainly the source is important, especially when no facts related to
> small businesses were supplied.=3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 They are frighting t=
he littl=3D
e guy
> about things that will have no affect on them.
>
> --
>=3DC2=3DA0 Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
> http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
>
> =3DE2=3D80=3D9CObserve the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim =
them. =3D
Feel
> the artistry moving through and be silent.=3DE2=3D80=3D9D --Rumi
>
Either it is true or it isn't your bias notwithstanding.
--=3D20
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com/home.html
=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A
Lee Love on sun 5 sep 10
us!
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Dannon Rhudy wrote:
> No, Lee. =3DA0Not if that's a collective "you".
Excel has a program and "we" (not the Queen's "We", but those of us
living in Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota or Wisconsin,) can chose
to get part or all of our electric power from our windmills.
> Windpower generates less than 1% of the power used in the US
Minnesota ranks first in the country with more than 7 percent of the
State's power coming from wind energy. The full annual rankings report
for year-end 2009 is available: American Wind Energy Association
Annual Rankings Report
http://www.awea.org/reports/Annual_Market_Report_Press_Release_Teaser.pdf
For a small premium you can choose how much renewable energy you would
like to use by purchasing 100 kWh blocks or choosing 100% Windsource.
For more than a decade, Xcel Energy has played a pivotal role in the
commercialization and advancement of wind energy. Launched in 1998,
our Windsource program has grown to be the largest voluntary
green-energy program in the United States in terms of customer
participation, according to the U.S. Department of Energy=3D92s National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Windsource has held this spot for
six consecutive years. Through the program, customers can specify that
part or all of their electricity be generated by the wind. If you are
an Xcel Energy electricity customer in Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota
or Wisconsin, you can purchase Windsource wind power for your home or
business. Everybody will be getting their energy this way, these
States are simply leading the way.
You can read more about Windsource here:
http://www.xcelenergy.com/Minnesota/Residential/RenewableEnergy/Windsource_=
=3D
/Pages/WindSource.aspx
We also have the first Capital complex that is powered by
sustainable energy. You can read about it here:
http://www.ever-greenenergy.com/clients/cogeneration.html
--
We have a program through Xcel,
=3DA0Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Dannon Rhudy on sun 5 sep 10
us!
Lee said:
Actually, I pay extra for windpower. You can pay a bit more an get
all your electricity from windpower.........
No, Lee. Not if that's a collective "you". Windpower generates
less than 1% of the power used in the US, and it is subsidized.
By all tax payers, whether they use it or not, or want to or not.
If we all paid "a bit extra" that would not make us able to use
windpower. There's not enough of it, and there's not enough
generators to MAKE enough of it, and even subsidizing the
generators with public monies will not make enough places to put
enough generators to make enough power...etc, etc, etc.
Not happening any time soon.
regards
Dannon Rhudy
Bob Seele on sun 5 sep 10
us!
On Sep 4, 2010, at 11:35 PM, Larry Kruzan wrote:
There is nothing as dangerous as a politician working for "the public
good".
Larry,
Your email is 100 % on.
You just needed to include bureaucrat with politician.
They are totally unresponsably to any one.
bs
James Freeman on sun 5 sep 10
us!
Steve...
Respectfully, your reply has little to do with anything I said.
From what little I (or likely you) understand of any sulphur caps (and
fully recognizing that they are COMPLETELY irrelevant to anything we
are discussing here), I would argue that removing sulphur from
effluent is a far different thing that taxing all combustion. And
please don't regale me with cut and paste stuff about sulphur
regulations, because a) I don't care, and b) it is not relevant.
Also, You do not know a thing about me, so I am wondering how you know
what I am like, and whom amongst your purported critics of ancient
sulphur regulations are "like me".
My fears are based on the guarantee that the cost of everything will
go up quite significantly. The president of the United States said,
in his own voice, that under his cap and trade plan electricity prices
will necessarily skyrocket. Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3DHlTxGHn4sH4 . This increase in energy
costs will not be limited to electricity, but to anything that uses
combustion. Since energy is a major input in almost every product,
those massive increases in cost will drive up the cost of everything.
Most economists I have read believe energy costs will quadruple to
quintuple, but we can stop at "skyrocket" if you wish.
Lastly, it was not I who offered that we will not be able to fire our
kilns. I merely stated my opinion that such will be the least of our
problems. I also defy you to point out anything political in my post,
any place where I denigrated anyone for not using such terms as
hypothesis (reminding someone that a statement is a hypothesis rather
than a fact or a theory is not denigration), or anyplace where I even
implied that anyone's economic projection, including my own, is a
fact.
Are you always this bitter, or do you just save it up to unload on me?
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice.=3DA0 I
should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Steve Slatin wrote=
=3D
:
> James --
>
> Now this is just plain funny.
>
>> Second, and to your point, I respectfully offer that if any
>> of the
>> various cap-and-tax schemes are enacted, the fact that you
>> can no
>> longer fire your kiln will be the least of your
>> problems. =3DA0If we
>> unilaterally impose such restrictions on ourselves, it is
>> essentially
>> "game over".
>
>
> What is the basis for considering this particular bit of your
> personal political preference a certainty? =3DA0I mean, adding the
> word "respectfully" doesn't provide any additional information,
> the allegation "you can no longer fire your kiln" is beyond
> uncertain and well into completely improbable, and your
> dystopian conclusion is without evidence.
>
> In your reply, please explain why the sulpher tax and cap
> from the 1990 Clean Air amendments worked so well, and didn't
> lead to the disaster that people like you said it would,
> why the carbon taxes already partially or completely in
> effect in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands,
> Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK, etc. have
> not already crashed their economies, and why you somehow
> think that having gasoline, diesel, and natural gas subject
> to taxation in the US already would be made suddenly so much
> different in result if coal and so on were also subject to
> a tax, thus creating a nationwide 'carbon tax.'
>
> Also explain why an offsetting tadx on imports made in
> non-carbon tax zones would be somehow insufficient to
> overcome the imputed economic loss to the nation using
> a carbon cap and tax.
>
> Don't forget to show your work in the blue book!
>
>
> Or is it just OK for you to present anything you like
> as a 'fact' while you denigrate others for not using
> terms such as "hypothesis?"
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve Slatin --
>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 9/4/10, James Freeman wrote:
>
>> It is not even
>> scientific theory, but merely hypothesis (Science-speak for
>> "educated
>> guess", while "theory" is science-speak for an educated
>> guess which
>> has made accurate predictions and is supported by
>> repeatable
>> experimentation.=3DA0 When we say "scientific fact", we
>> really mean
>> "theory with a high degree of certainty".).=3DA0 The
>> biogenic hypothesis,
>> the idea that oil derives from biological sources, dates
>> from the
>> 1500s.=3DA0 The abiogenic hypothesis is much newer,
>> dating, I believe,
>> from the 1800s.=3DA0 It is mathematically, chemically, and
>> physically
>> consistent, and from my reading explains more of the
>> observable data
>> than does the biogenic hypothesis.=3DA0 And before we
>> start a debate about
>> geology that none of us are qualified to wage, I suggest
>> that anyone
>> interested set aside their preconceptions for a moment and
>> do a bit of
>> reading before making up their minds.=3DA0 A google search
>> on "abiogenic
>> hypothesis", or "abiogenic petroleum hypothesis" should
>> yield a decent
>> start on both sides of the argument.
>>
>> Second, and to your point, I respectfully offer that if any
>> of the
>> various cap-and-tax schemes are enacted, the fact that you
>> can no
>> longer fire your kiln will be the least of your
>> problems.=3DA0 If we
>> unilaterally impose such restrictions on ourselves, it is
>> essentially
>> "game over".=3DA0 We will have committed ritual suicide,
>> and EVERYTHING,
>> not just kiln firing, will transfer to China, India,
>> Russia, and the
>> rest of the world where such restrictions will not exist.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Steve Slatin on sun 5 sep 10
us!
James --
Now this is just plain funny.
> Second, and to your point, I respectfully offer that if any
> of the
> various cap-and-tax schemes are enacted, the fact that you
> can no
> longer fire your kiln will be the least of your
> problems. If we
> unilaterally impose such restrictions on ourselves, it is
> essentially
> "game over". =3D20
What is the basis for considering this particular bit of your
personal political preference a certainty? I mean, adding the
word "respectfully" doesn't provide any additional information,
the allegation "you can no longer fire your kiln" is beyond
uncertain and well into completely improbable, and your=3D20
dystopian conclusion is without evidence.
In your reply, please explain why the sulpher tax and cap
from the 1990 Clean Air amendments worked so well, and didn't
lead to the disaster that people like you said it would,
why the carbon taxes already partially or completely in
effect in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands,=3D20
Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK, etc. have=3D20
not already crashed their economies, and why you somehow
think that having gasoline, diesel, and natural gas subject
to taxation in the US already would be made suddenly so much
different in result if coal and so on were also subject to
a tax, thus creating a nationwide 'carbon tax.'
Also explain why an offsetting tadx on imports made in
non-carbon tax zones would be somehow insufficient to
overcome the imputed economic loss to the nation using
a carbon cap and tax.
Don't forget to show your work in the blue book!=3D20
Or is it just OK for you to present anything you like=3D20
as a 'fact' while you denigrate others for not using=3D20
terms such as "hypothesis?"
Steve Slatin --=3D20
--- On Sat, 9/4/10, James Freeman wrote:
> It is not even
> scientific theory, but merely hypothesis (Science-speak for
> "educated
> guess", while "theory" is science-speak for an educated
> guess which
> has made accurate predictions and is supported by
> repeatable
> experimentation.=3DA0 When we say "scientific fact", we
> really mean
> "theory with a high degree of certainty".).=3DA0 The
> biogenic hypothesis,
> the idea that oil derives from biological sources, dates
> from the
> 1500s.=3DA0 The abiogenic hypothesis is much newer,
> dating, I believe,
> from the 1800s.=3DA0 It is mathematically, chemically, and
> physically
> consistent, and from my reading explains more of the
> observable data
> than does the biogenic hypothesis.=3DA0 And before we
> start a debate about
> geology that none of us are qualified to wage, I suggest
> that anyone
> interested set aside their preconceptions for a moment and
> do a bit of
> reading before making up their minds.=3DA0 A google search
> on "abiogenic
> hypothesis", or "abiogenic petroleum hypothesis" should
> yield a decent
> start on both sides of the argument.
>=3D20
> Second, and to your point, I respectfully offer that if any
> of the
> various cap-and-tax schemes are enacted, the fact that you
> can no
> longer fire your kiln will be the least of your
> problems.=3DA0 If we
> unilaterally impose such restrictions on ourselves, it is
> essentially
> "game over".=3DA0 We will have committed ritual suicide,
> and EVERYTHING,
> not just kiln firing, will transfer to China, India,
> Russia, and the
> rest of the world where such restrictions will not exist.
>=3D20
=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A
Eric Hansen on mon 6 sep 10
us!
Guys: NFIB was not linked to the "Heritage Foundation"; sorry about that.
I located this generalized opinion piece consisting of "what ifs" and
"maybes": http://www.nfib.com/legal-center/compliance-resource-center/compl=
=3D
iance-resource-item?cmsid=3D3D51777
I mean, they are engaged in a lawsuit against the EPA, I doubt they
possess too much "objectivity"
Do you have any actual fact about what the EPA is proposing other than
these kind of sketchy sentences or paragraphs?
This is my second post asking for facts and not just dreck - is that
too much to ask?
- h a n s e n
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Michael Wendt wrote:
> Steve,
> There was a wood stove manufacturer here in Lewiston, Idaho
> when I first started doing pottery. (KnightGard Stoves)
> After the EPA issued its rule requiring all wood stoves to
> be certified to meet EPA emission guidelines, they lacked
> the capital to obtain the certification and went out of
> business. They didn't sell nationally, only in the local
> market.
> Cars and small engines like those used on lawn mowers are
> already going to be required to be EPA certified.
> http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm
> The assertion from the NFIB was that the EPA, by means of
> the certification route could greatly expand its regulatory
> influence
> The EPA can issue similar rules for any small fuel burning
> appliance (read kiln here since it is part of that group of
> devices) =3DA0and achieve defacto regulation without the need to
> specifically target us for regulation.
> I built my own kilns. The cost of obtaining emission
> compliance certification would be prohibitive. I doubt they
> are worried that I will go out of business. I know they are
> not trying to hurt us but if this came to pass, they would
> hurt us deeply.
>
> By the way, why would the NFIB deliberately "lie" to its
> membership. Doing that would be the end of the organization.
> Regards,
> Michael Wendt
>
> Steve wrote:
> Michael --
>
> The Clean Air Act applies to facilities that emit
> hundreds of tons of pollution per year. =3DA0I can't
> imagine that your kiln comes close to that.
>
> If the NFIB is telling you that your small operation
> would be controlled by the EPA, they're just plain
> lying.
>
> Steve Slatin --
>
--=3D20
Eric Alan Hansen
Stonehouse Studio Pottery
Alexandria, Virginia
americanpotter.blogspot.com
thesuddenschool.blogspot.com
hansencookbook.blogspot.com
"To me, human life in all its forms, individual and aggregate, is a
perpetual wonder: the flora of the earth and sea is full of beauty and
of mystery which seeks science to understand; the fauna of land and
ocean is not less wonderful; the world which holds them both, and the
great universe that folds it in on everyside, are still more
wonderful, complex, and attractive to the contemplating mind." -
Theodore Parker, minister, transcendentalist, abolitionist (1810-1860)
marci Boskie's Mama =3D^..^=3D on mon 6 sep 10
us!
> Lee Love wrote:
> Actually, I pay extra for windpower. You can pay a bit more an get
>all your electricity from windpower. I may do that for the studio.
Actually , Im curious about this: Unless you have a windmill in
your back yard with your house directly wired to it, how do you
figure the electric company separates the electricity coming into
your house as " generated from wind" vs. " Generated from all that
other bad stuff thats gonna doom the planet"?
As far as Im able to deduce, it ALL goes into the same electrical
grid so how does the electric company deliver only windpower to you
and "whatever" to your neighbor?
.... Like pouring apple juice and orange juice together into a
pitcher and then deciding you only want to drink the apple juice.
marci the curious china painter
Brian Haviland on mon 6 sep 10
us!
Lee wrote:=3D20
*Note: =3DC2=3DA0 I never write for the folks who have their minds made up=
=3D20
already. =3DC2=3DA0I am writing for the vast majority of the folks who neve=
r=3D20
post, so they can explore the issue on their own.*=3D20
Thanks Lee,=3D20
=3DC2=3DA0The hardest part for some is just keeping an open mind to=3D20
allow the information they hear or read to meld with their opinions and to =
=3D
expand=3D20
or even ebb away at what they believe to be correct. I am working at openin=
=3D
g minds=3D20
here in my community to use Methane Gases created by "OUR" waste. My brothe=
=3D
r=3D20
works for a company that produces methane pumping stations for landfills=3D=
20
and they use the pumps to send gas to torches to flame off the gas so it wi=
=3D
ll=3D20
have less impact on the ozone layer. What a waste of fuel and to have no go=
=3D
od=3D20
come from it such as agricultural use or like energy exchange down in North=
=3D
Carolina=3D20
uses it to fire glory holes and potters kilns. The local electricity suppli=
=3D
er spent money on trying to=3D20
convert it to electrical energy but when they saw no profit from the proces=
=3D
s they have=3D20
thrown in the towel. How profit minded they are. No thought at all about th=
=3D
e future=3D20
generations to come. It's all about profit for them.=3DC2=3DA0It saddens me=
tha=3D
t with all the talk on=3D20
global warming that their narrow mindedness will only make matters worse. A=
=3D
s I use propane=3D20
I feel am no better then them as my carbon footprint grows. That is why I a=
=3D
m trying to get started=3DC2=3DA0=3D20
in a new direction=3DC2=3DA0with my uses of fossil fuels. I even ride a bik=
e mo=3D
re often then drive=3DC2=3DA0but that=3D20
makes hauling the clay that I buy look like a monumental task when that is =
=3D
about a 100 mile round=3D20
trip.=3D20
Brian Haviland=3D20
Haviland Stone Pottery=3D20
allow the information they hear or read to meld with their opinions and to =
=3D
expand=3D20
or even ebb away at what they believe to be correct. I am working at openin=
=3D
g minds=3D20
here in my community to use Methane Gases created by "OUR" waste. My brothe=
=3D
r=3D20
works for a company that produces methane pumping stations for landfills=3D=
20
and they use the pumps to send gas to torches to flame off the gas so it wi=
=3D
ll=3D20
have less impact on the ozone layer. What a waste of fuel and to have no go=
=3D
od=3D20
come from it such as agricultural use or like energy exchange down in North=
=3D
Carolina=3D20
uses it to fire glory holes and potters kilns. The local electricity suppli=
=3D
er spent money on trying to=3D20
convert it to electrical energy but when they saw no profit from the proces=
=3D
s they have=3D20
thrown in the towel. How profit minded they are. No thought at all about th=
=3D
e future=3D20
generations to come. It's all about profit for them.=3DC2=3DA0It saddens me=
tha=3D
t with all the talk on=3D20
global warming that their narrow mindedness will only make matters worse. A=
=3D
s I use propane=3D20
I feel am no better then them as my carbon footprint grows. That is why I a=
=3D
m trying to get started=3DC2=3DA0=3D20
in a new direction=3DC2=3DA0with my uses of fossil fuels. I even ride a bik=
e mo=3D
re often then drive=3DC2=3DA0but that=3D20
makes hauling the clay that I buy look like a monumental task when that is =
=3D
about a 100 mile round=3D20
trip.=3D20
Brian Haviland=3D20
Haviland Stone Pottery=3D20
Robert Harris on mon 6 sep 10
us!
Actually I have to retract one part of my statement. According to the
US Energy Information Administration website Tennessee generated
electricity as follows (in 2008)
Coal - 63%
Nuclear - 29.8%
Hydroelectric - 6.2%
plus a few other bits and pieces.
This is not particularly up to date as TVA contracted to buy power
from windfarms in 2009. However my source, a Tennessee native, was
apparently convinced into thinking more of the TVA electricity came
from hydropower than it does.
FYI
In 2008 (again not up to date, but comparable to the above) Michigan's
power sources were as follows.
60.74% Coal
27.38% Nuclear
8.35% Gas
1.18% - Hydroelectric
0.114% WIND
0.4% Petroleum
If the 7% figure you quote is accurate, I'm amazed that they have
managed to add that much wind generation capability in just 4 years.
However I suspect that the 7% figure is the amount of wind power
divided by the amount used by homes, ie excluding commercial use. In
other words you've probably been brainwashed too.
My figures are from this US government site.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sprdshts.html
look at the
"1990 - 2008 Net Generation by State by Type of Producer by Energy
Source (EIA-906)"
spreadsheet.
Very interesting reading.
If you really want to live in an eco-friendly (for electricity
generation) state live in Idaho.
78.2% - Hydroelectric
14.2% - Natural Gas
3.8% - Wood
1.7% - Wind
0.7% - Geothermal.
Washington does pretty well too. Of course we won't talk about how
much land the Grand Coolee dam flooded.
Anyway as I say, interesting reading.
Robert
Robert Harris on mon 6 sep 10
us!
Lee - to add to Marci's sensible post :
Not only that, but, by definition, they can only sell 7% of the
electricity they make (your numbers) as windpower.
So if, all of a sudden, most people wanted to pay extra (assuming
personal power consumption, as opposed to commercial power is a
significant number) they would not be able to.
Frankly you would be better off moving to Tennessee, as I am sure
Vince Pitelka will tell you, where most of the electricity generated
is by hydroelectric power (TVA).
In addition there is no such thing as "free power".There are
environmental problems with most power sources.
Hydroelectric power requires large dams, which flood large areas (see
the furore over the large Chinese HEP project). Large numbers of wind
turbines seriously affect wind patterns and local climate, not to
mention the noise pollution - see the Scottish windpower problems.
Nuclear power - clean up problems at the end of it's life (accidents
such as 3 mile island or Chernobyl are almost non-existent these
days).
Geothermal power is one of the friendliest, but this is only economic
(and practical) in places like Iceland. Direct solar power requires
large unused tracts of land with reliable sunshine.
In addition most "alternative" sources of energy cannot deliver
reliable amounts of power. They are dependent on wind blowing, rain
falling or the sun shining. The electricity companies do not have the
technology or infrastructure to store (stockpile) large amounts of
energy in order to meet demand when the wind isn't blowing. We need
petrochemical power plants to smooth out the supply.
Additionally (and maybe the electrical engineers can help me with the
numbers on this one) it is impractical to deliver electrical energy
far away from the source. Every mile that electricity travels down a
wire (even at extremely high voltages/low current) energy is lost. I
can guarantee you, that if you live any distance from the wind
turbines you are only metaphorically receiving wind power. The
electricity you are actually getting "piped" to your house is probably
generated by the nearest power plant. This is the reason that everyone
gets excited by superconductors - they do not lose electrical energy
as heat.
There are many many problems with alternative power - until you can
solve these practical problems you cannot just wish away electricity
generated by petrochemicals.
Incidentally the French generate nearly 80% of their electricity from
nuclear power. I'm sure they'd love to see US industry hampered by a
carbon cap. Nuclear power obviously has significant clean-up issues at
the end of it's life, but it doesn't produce any greenhouse gases!
Robert
Lee Love on mon 6 sep 10
us!
Brian, it makes sense to capture methane from waste products.
It takes a few forward thinking creative types to lead the
shift from petrochemicals. The lemmings will follow when they see
the profit in it. Addictions are difficult to break.
--
=3DA0Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Lee Love on mon 6 sep 10
us!
We can't solve our current energy and pollution problems with the
same thinking that got us into them. On the plains, windpower
makes sense. Hydroelectric makes sense in Tennessee. In the
desert, solar power makes the best sense. Renewable energy can also
come from cellulosic ethanol.
I was glad to hear about the lithium battery plant being built in
Holland Michigan:
http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2010/03/lg_chem_to_bu=
=3D
ild_1st_north_ame.html
In Japan, the had a solar panel subsidy that only ran for
about 10 years. But now, many new homes have them. They even have
ceramic roof tiles with solar cells built in. It is very difficult
to see them on the south side of the house. I've heard, they are
starting up the solar subsidies again. If we had these programs, we
wouldn't be behind China and Japan in these areas.
Supporting these technologies, factories for windmills, solar
cells, new battery technology, is a good way to renew the rust belt
and places like Louisiana.
But the most important thing we can do is conserve. It is
the single thing can can best impact our fuel usage. A carbon tax
would help with this. It is a way to be responsible for the full
cost of petrochemicals. We are at the end of the industrial "free
lunch.' We have to take responsibility for future generations.
--
=3DA0Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Larry Kruzan on mon 6 sep 10
us!
Hi Marci - You called it right, if it comes from the grid in the US, it
comes from coal, natural gas, oil or a minuscule amount from wind or nukes.
Unlike more civilized countries of the world (joke) we cannot use clean
power that truly IS clean and economically useful - nuclear power. Japan,
France, Russia and most other developed countries can use it, but the
scaredy pants whackos that you find opposing anything more mentally
challenging than rubbing two sticks together will be there with their signs=
,
sticks and rocks.
If we are "gonna save the planet", just how big must a windmill "in the bac=
k
yard" be needed to power a fair size electric kiln, all the other things we
just are not going to give up, like hot water for bathing (Europeans have I
know but geesh!), plus plugging in your $40,000 electric car (that will go
all of 40 miles on new batteries - how many carbon credits to replace THESE=
?
Or build them in the first place - oh, I forgot, we paid for it), don't
forget powering the computers, TVs, Stereos, heat and air conditioning too.
Imagine what happens if you are firing the electric kiln and the wind
dies.....Oops, back to the old nasty, carbon crusted grid - that works.
Perhaps before we all jump up and dump out all that has built OUR
civilization we should stop thinking on an emotional level and analyze just
what we will be throwing out with the babies bath water.
Stop listening to actors that become politicians or politicians that become
actors - even if they have a Nobel Prize (shows what that's worth anymore)
and start to listen to people who really know what they are talking about.
Listen to the people who make these things work - one hint, it's NOT the
government, it's the businesses that built and maintain the grid. They will
tell you that they need the ability to build power plants but they are bein=
g
throttled by misguided governmental intervention that prefers low output
Wind Power over highly efficient nuclear power.
Before anyone wrongly points out that wind power is cheap - please take a
look at the accounting on which these false numbers are based. They ALWAYS
leave out the cost of the land that is occupied by the wind mill, only
listing the lease fee since the family farmer gets to "keep" the land they
can no longer farm, but they are paid "rent" that never will equal the true
value of the land. They always leave out the cost of running the output to
the grid, they always leave out the value of the FOOD that would have been
produced on the farm ground that is being gobbled up in this foolish quest,
they always leave out the carbon footprint generated during the production
of the wind mill, of the construction of the new wind "Farm". They always
skip the comparison of the price per kilowatt when EVERY cost is included -
including the cost per kilowatt in square acreage.
What?? The short of it is you can generate "X" numbers of kilowatts per
square acre of solar panels, windmills, fossil fuel plant or nuke plant. Th=
e
cost per acre becomes a factor in the price of producing each kilowatt. Lik=
e
I said before, each acre occupied by a wind mill in our state used to be a
family farm producing food, green plants absorbing CO2 replaced by gleaming
white wind mills, all heavily subsidized by tax dollars. How many square
miles of wind mills does it take to replace one highly safe and efficient
nuke plant? That's YOUR homework assignment but it's a lot of square miles
of ugliness.
I will tell you that the least efficient way to produce electricity is sola=
r
and right behind it is wind power. Every honest engineer or scientist knows
these facts but sadly too many are more worried about being PC and lack
enough backbone to stand.
All this is a area I worked in for some time and once was considered to kno=
w
what I was talking about. I am now several years from those days but the
logic is not dimmed by age. There is no free lunch. It you generate "x" ton=
s
of carbon to build a wind mill farm that big enough to replace one nuke
plant, and you generate "X" tons of carbon to build said nuke plant - which
will leave you a place to live? Kilowatt for kilowatt - remember the food
from the farm was YOUR supper.
Larry Kruzan
Lost Creek Pottery
www.lostcreekpottery.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of marci Boskie's
Mama =3D^..^=3D
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 10:20 AM
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: EPA plans to regulate all sources of CO2, even small ones like
us!
> Lee Love wrote:
> Actually, I pay extra for windpower. You can pay a bit more an get
>all your electricity from windpower. I may do that for the studio.
Actually , Im curious about this: Unless you have a windmill in
your back yard with your house directly wired to it, how do you
figure the electric company separates the electricity coming into
your house as " generated from wind" vs. " Generated from all that
other bad stuff thats gonna doom the planet"?
As far as Im able to deduce, it ALL goes into the same electrical
grid so how does the electric company deliver only windpower to you
and "whatever" to your neighbor?
.... Like pouring apple juice and orange juice together into a
pitcher and then deciding you only want to drink the apple juice.
marci the curious china painter
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.15810)
http://www.pctools.com/
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Patty on mon 6 sep 10
us!
And in the state of Hawaii, Lanai and parts of Molokai have reached the
limit of wind and solar power that the power grid can handle. The solar
array on Lanai (owned by Rupert Murdoch) is running at 1/2 power. Plans ar=
e
to run cable from the wind farms and solar on the two islands to Oahu. The
Maui wind farm keeps chugging along and they are building a power plant
using wave energy.
Patty Kaliher
Larry Andre on mon 6 sep 10
us!
I understand the desire for clean energy. Think for a moment, how much area
of the desert must be covered by solar panels, the footprint on the
environment, the pristine desert trampled by solar people (it takes about 5=
0
sq miles of solar or wind to equal the power generated by one nuclear
plant). The same holds true for wind power, it kills birds and animals, it
is ugly, noisy, and uses up a lot of land space. Wave power would make larg=
e
areas of ocean not accessible because of security issues. Natural gas is
clean, nuclear is the cleanest, oil helps support countries that would like
to kill us. All have short comings. Just think of the carbon footprint in
the manufacture of the solar panels in China with their poor environmental
record and human rights abuses. Solar and Wind are ugly, and like the
Kennedy family nobody wants them in their backyard, so everyone says lets
kill off the desert and place them in their backyard. Not a good answer.
Much worse is for politicians to tax the use of energy. Why, he asks?
Because they will be flush with money they will use for their pet projects,
all while screwing the average American. When politicians get their hands o=
n
money it is like my daughters with my credit card. Keep the money away from
politicians. Use private industry to solve the problems. Larry
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Lee Love"
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 4:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: EPA plans to regulate all sources of CO2, even small ones like
us!
> We can't solve our current energy and pollution problems with the
> same thinking that got us into them. On the plains, windpower
> makes sense. Hydroelectric makes sense in Tennessee. In the
> desert, solar power makes the best sense. Renewable energy can also
> come from cellulosic ethanol.
>
> I was glad to hear about the lithium battery plant being built in
> Holland Michigan:
>
> http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2010/03/lg_chem_to_=
build_1st_north_ame.html
>
> In Japan, the had a solar panel subsidy that only ran for
> about 10 years. But now, many new homes have them. They even have
> ceramic roof tiles with solar cells built in. It is very difficult
> to see them on the south side of the house. I've heard, they are
> starting up the solar subsidies again. If we had these programs, we
> wouldn't be behind China and Japan in these areas.
>
> Supporting these technologies, factories for windmills, solar
> cells, new battery technology, is a good way to renew the rust belt
> and places like Louisiana.
>
> But the most important thing we can do is conserve. It is
> the single thing can can best impact our fuel usage. A carbon tax
> would help with this. It is a way to be responsible for the full
> cost of petrochemicals. We are at the end of the industrial "free
> lunch.' We have to take responsibility for future generations.
>
>
>
> --
> Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
> http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
>
> "Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
> the artistry moving through and be silent." --Rumi
Eric Hansen on tue 7 sep 10
us!
p.s. I find it amusing how you reply to everyone except the person who
calls you out on presenting the facts.
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 5:56 AM, Eric Hansen
wrote:
> Last call: I see no evidence that the EPA is planning to regulate as
> suggested anytime in the near future. All the rest of the wrangling
> over "green energy" is not relevant since I don't think they are going
> to do anything. If you want to explore cleaner energy you will
> probably have to do this on your own, without the govt's help.
> h a n s e n
>
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Eric Hansen
> wrote:
>> Guys: NFIB was not linked to the "Heritage Foundation"; sorry about that=
=3D
.
>>
>> I located this generalized opinion piece consisting of "what ifs" and
>> "maybes": http://www.nfib.com/legal-center/compliance-resource-center/co=
=3D
mpliance-resource-item?cmsid=3D3D51777
>>
>> I mean, they are engaged in a lawsuit against the EPA, I doubt they
>> possess too much "objectivity"
>>
>> Do you have any actual fact about what the EPA is proposing other than
>> these kind of sketchy sentences or paragraphs?
>>
>> This is my second post asking for facts and not just dreck - is that
>> too much to ask?
>> - h a n s e n
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Michael Wendt wrote=
=3D
:
>>> Steve,
>>> There was a wood stove manufacturer here in Lewiston, Idaho
>>> when I first started doing pottery. (KnightGard Stoves)
>>> After the EPA issued its rule requiring all wood stoves to
>>> be certified to meet EPA emission guidelines, they lacked
>>> the capital to obtain the certification and went out of
>>> business. They didn't sell nationally, only in the local
>>> market.
>>> Cars and small engines like those used on lawn mowers are
>>> already going to be required to be EPA certified.
>>> http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm
>>> The assertion from the NFIB was that the EPA, by means of
>>> the certification route could greatly expand its regulatory
>>> influence
>>> The EPA can issue similar rules for any small fuel burning
>>> appliance (read kiln here since it is part of that group of
>>> devices) =3DA0and achieve defacto regulation without the need to
>>> specifically target us for regulation.
>>> I built my own kilns. The cost of obtaining emission
>>> compliance certification would be prohibitive. I doubt they
>>> are worried that I will go out of business. I know they are
>>> not trying to hurt us but if this came to pass, they would
>>> hurt us deeply.
>>>
>>> By the way, why would the NFIB deliberately "lie" to its
>>> membership. Doing that would be the end of the organization.
>>> Regards,
>>> Michael Wendt
>>>
>>> Steve wrote:
>>> Michael --
>>>
>>> The Clean Air Act applies to facilities that emit
>>> hundreds of tons of pollution per year. =3DA0I can't
>>> imagine that your kiln comes close to that.
>>>
>>> If the NFIB is telling you that your small operation
>>> would be controlled by the EPA, they're just plain
>>> lying.
>>>
>>> Steve Slatin --
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Eric Alan Hansen
>> Stonehouse Studio Pottery
>> Alexandria, Virginia
>> americanpotter.blogspot.com
>> thesuddenschool.blogspot.com
>> hansencookbook.blogspot.com
>> "To me, human life in all its forms, individual and aggregate, is a
>> perpetual wonder: the flora of the earth and sea is full of beauty and
>> of mystery which seeks science to understand; the fauna of land and
>> ocean is not less wonderful; the world which holds them both, and the
>> great universe that folds it in on everyside, are still more
>> wonderful, complex, and attractive to the contemplating mind." -
>> Theodore Parker, minister, transcendentalist, abolitionist (1810-1860)
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Eric Alan Hansen
> Stonehouse Studio Pottery
> Alexandria, Virginia
> americanpotter.blogspot.com
> thesuddenschool.blogspot.com
> hansencookbook.blogspot.com
> "To me, human life in all its forms, individual and aggregate, is a
> perpetual wonder: the flora of the earth and sea is full of beauty and
> of mystery which seeks science to understand; the fauna of land and
> ocean is not less wonderful; the world which holds them both, and the
> great universe that folds it in on everyside, are still more
> wonderful, complex, and attractive to the contemplating mind." -
> Theodore Parker, minister, transcendentalist, abolitionist (1810-1860)
>
--=3D20
Eric Alan Hansen
Stonehouse Studio Pottery
Alexandria, Virginia
americanpotter.blogspot.com
thesuddenschool.blogspot.com
hansencookbook.blogspot.com
"To me, human life in all its forms, individual and aggregate, is a
perpetual wonder: the flora of the earth and sea is full of beauty and
of mystery which seeks science to understand; the fauna of land and
ocean is not less wonderful; the world which holds them both, and the
great universe that folds it in on everyside, are still more
wonderful, complex, and attractive to the contemplating mind." -
Theodore Parker, minister, transcendentalist, abolitionist (1810-1860)
Eric Hansen on tue 7 sep 10
us!
Last call: I see no evidence that the EPA is planning to regulate as
suggested anytime in the near future. All the rest of the wrangling
over "green energy" is not relevant since I don't think they are going
to do anything. If you want to explore cleaner energy you will
probably have to do this on your own, without the govt's help.
h a n s e n
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Eric Hansen
wrote:
> Guys: NFIB was not linked to the "Heritage Foundation"; sorry about that.
>
> I located this generalized opinion piece consisting of "what ifs" and
> "maybes": http://www.nfib.com/legal-center/compliance-resource-center/com=
=3D
pliance-resource-item?cmsid=3D3D51777
>
> I mean, they are engaged in a lawsuit against the EPA, I doubt they
> possess too much "objectivity"
>
> Do you have any actual fact about what the EPA is proposing other than
> these kind of sketchy sentences or paragraphs?
>
> This is my second post asking for facts and not just dreck - is that
> too much to ask?
> - h a n s e n
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Michael Wendt wrote:
>> Steve,
>> There was a wood stove manufacturer here in Lewiston, Idaho
>> when I first started doing pottery. (KnightGard Stoves)
>> After the EPA issued its rule requiring all wood stoves to
>> be certified to meet EPA emission guidelines, they lacked
>> the capital to obtain the certification and went out of
>> business. They didn't sell nationally, only in the local
>> market.
>> Cars and small engines like those used on lawn mowers are
>> already going to be required to be EPA certified.
>> http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm
>> The assertion from the NFIB was that the EPA, by means of
>> the certification route could greatly expand its regulatory
>> influence
>> The EPA can issue similar rules for any small fuel burning
>> appliance (read kiln here since it is part of that group of
>> devices) =3DA0and achieve defacto regulation without the need to
>> specifically target us for regulation.
>> I built my own kilns. The cost of obtaining emission
>> compliance certification would be prohibitive. I doubt they
>> are worried that I will go out of business. I know they are
>> not trying to hurt us but if this came to pass, they would
>> hurt us deeply.
>>
>> By the way, why would the NFIB deliberately "lie" to its
>> membership. Doing that would be the end of the organization.
>> Regards,
>> Michael Wendt
>>
>> Steve wrote:
>> Michael --
>>
>> The Clean Air Act applies to facilities that emit
>> hundreds of tons of pollution per year. =3DA0I can't
>> imagine that your kiln comes close to that.
>>
>> If the NFIB is telling you that your small operation
>> would be controlled by the EPA, they're just plain
>> lying.
>>
>> Steve Slatin --
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Eric Alan Hansen
> Stonehouse Studio Pottery
> Alexandria, Virginia
> americanpotter.blogspot.com
> thesuddenschool.blogspot.com
> hansencookbook.blogspot.com
> "To me, human life in all its forms, individual and aggregate, is a
> perpetual wonder: the flora of the earth and sea is full of beauty and
> of mystery which seeks science to understand; the fauna of land and
> ocean is not less wonderful; the world which holds them both, and the
> great universe that folds it in on everyside, are still more
> wonderful, complex, and attractive to the contemplating mind." -
> Theodore Parker, minister, transcendentalist, abolitionist (1810-1860)
>
--=3D20
Eric Alan Hansen
Stonehouse Studio Pottery
Alexandria, Virginia
americanpotter.blogspot.com
thesuddenschool.blogspot.com
hansencookbook.blogspot.com
"To me, human life in all its forms, individual and aggregate, is a
perpetual wonder: the flora of the earth and sea is full of beauty and
of mystery which seeks science to understand; the fauna of land and
ocean is not less wonderful; the world which holds them both, and the
great universe that folds it in on everyside, are still more
wonderful, complex, and attractive to the contemplating mind." -
Theodore Parker, minister, transcendentalist, abolitionist (1810-1860)
Robert Harris on tue 7 sep 10
us!
And even if we covered large tracts of the Mojave that still wouldn't
help people in NY. You need to get the electricity there and without
(room temperature) superconductors it just isn't feasible.
Plus we need base load generators =3D3D nuclear, coal, gas or oil and peak
power generators which can be switched on and off at will. None of the
renewable energy sources are reliable enough to fully power the grid.
For all those that think we need to "do something" I suggest that you
write to your congressmen and demand more investment in science or tax
rebates for those companies that do so. The total budget for the NIH
(the largest research funding entity in the US) is only $30bn, peanuts
when compared to just about anything else the US spends money on. The
budget for physicists (and new power) is even less.
Robert
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Larry Andre
wrote:
> I understand the desire for clean energy. Think for a moment, how much ar=
=3D
ea
> of the desert must be covered by solar panels, the footprint on the
> environment, the pristine desert trampled by solar people (it takes about=
=3D
50
> sq miles of solar or wind to equal the power generated by one nuclear
> plant). The same holds true for wind power, it kills birds and animals, i=
=3D
t
> is ugly, noisy, and uses up a lot of land space. Wave power would make la=
=3D
rge
> areas of ocean not accessible because of security issues. Natural gas is
> clean, nuclear is the cleanest, oil helps support countries that would li=
=3D
ke
> to kill us. All have short comings. Just think of the carbon footprint in
> the manufacture of the solar panels in China with their poor environmenta=
=3D
l
> record and human rights abuses. Solar and Wind are ugly, and like the
> Kennedy family nobody wants them in their backyard, so everyone says lets
> kill off the desert and place them in their backyard. Not a good answer.
> Much worse is for politicians to tax the use of energy. Why, he asks?
> Because they will be flush with money they will use for their pet project=
=3D
s,
> all while screwing the average American. When politicians get their hands=
=3D
on
> money it is like my daughters with my credit card. Keep the money away fr=
=3D
om
> politicians. Use private industry to solve the problems. Larry
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Lee Love"
> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 4:53 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: EPA plans to regulate all sources of CO2, even small ones li=
=3D
ke
> us!
>
>> =3DA0We can't solve our current energy and pollution problems with the
>> same thinking that got us into them. =3DA0 =3DA0 On the plains, windpowe=
r
>> makes sense. =3DA0 Hydroelectric makes sense in Tennessee. =3DA0 In the
>> desert, solar power makes the best sense. =3DA0Renewable energy can also
>> come from cellulosic =3DA0ethanol.
>>
>> I was glad to hear about the lithium battery plant being built in
>> Holland Michigan:
>>
>>
>> http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2010/03/lg_chem_to=
=3D
_build_1st_north_ame.html
>>
>> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0In Japan, the had a solar panel subsi=
dy that only=3D
ran for
>> about 10 years. =3DA0 But now, many new homes have them. =3DA0 They even=
hav=3D
e
>> ceramic roof tiles with solar cells built in. =3DA0 It is very difficult
>> to see them on the south side of the house. =3DA0 I've heard, they are
>> starting up the solar subsidies again. =3DA0 If we had these programs, w=
e
>> wouldn't be behind China and Japan in these areas.
>>
>> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Supporting these technologies, factories for windmills=
, sola=3D
r
>> cells, new battery technology, is a good way to renew the rust belt
>> and places like Louisiana.
>>
>> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 But the most important thing we can do is conserve. =
=3DA0 It i=3D
s
>> the single thing can can best impact our fuel usage. =3DA0 =3DA0A carbon=
tax
>> would help with this. =3DA0 =3DA0It is a way to be responsible for the f=
ull
>> cost of petrochemicals. =3DA0We are at the end of the industrial "free
>> lunch.' =3DA0 We have to take responsibility for future generations.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> =3DA0Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
>> http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
>>
>> =3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Fee=
l
>> the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
>
--=3D20
----------------------------------------------------------
jonathan byler on tue 7 sep 10
us!
there are groups that do this every day, and their membership grows.
that is what happens when sheeple don't do their own fact checking.
happens on the left, the right, and in the middle. people with a
political ax to grind, are going to grind it, regardless of the facts.
there is a big fact out there for all to know, however, and that is
that there are other ways out there to make energy, but the people who
stand to loose the most if we do so are the oil and gas industry. the
single most profitable industrial sector of all time. tell me they
aren't going to fight in anyway that they can to keep their hegemony
over the energy sector and our economy?
this isn't about global warming, although in a way it is. it is about
energy independence, reducing pollution (thereby increasing the health
and productivity of the population), and bringing jobs to OUR economy
instead of sending money to people we don't get along with.
if everyone had a kiln (like everyone has a fireplace) we might need
to worry about this stuff. but as noted, we are chump change in the
grand scheme of things, and no one cares about the couple thousand
pottery kilns in this country that run once a month or maybe once a
week at best. they regulate small engines and woodstoves because they
have traditionally produced inordinate amounts of pollutants and just
about EVERYONE has one (or both or multiples of both) and uses them.
don't buy into the fear mongering, for that is all this is.
On Sep 5, 2010, at 2:54 AM, Michael Wendt wrote:
>
>
> By the way, why would the NFIB deliberately "lie" to its
> membership. Doing that would be the end of the organization.
> Regards,
> Michael Wendt
>
Larry Andre on tue 7 sep 10
us!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm
What happens in the generation of energy is a fact of life. I know it is no=
t
PC to discuss the shortcomings of wind and solar because they are fad of th=
e
day. There are major problems that must be overcome if these sources of
energy production are to be of long term value to our nation and the world.
Since both sources of energy are so new and the technology is unproven for
the long term. It is not known how long the solar panels will last, or how
long the windmills will be in service before the cost to maintain is higher
than the energy generated. Since both are new technology by comparison of
the standard methods of generation the long term results whether good or ba=
d
are not known. We do know the effects of coal, gas, oil, hydro, geothermal,
and nuclear. To determine the cost effectiveness as well as the energy
efficiency of these various forms of energy is as simple as an Excel spread
sheet. Time always tells the truth, we can speculate, emote, and
prognosticate the effects but "time will tell the truth". Larry
Wind turbines taking toll on birds of prey
By John Ritter, USA TODAY
ALTAMONT PASS, Calif. - The big turbines that stretch for miles along these
rolling, grassy hills have churned out clean, renewable electricity for two
decades in one of the nation's first big wind-power projects.
SeaWest Windpower wind turbine generators stand near Tracy,=
Calif.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Patty"
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 6:42 PM
To:
Subject: RE: EPA plans to regulate all sources of CO2, even small ones like
us!
> Larry,
>
> Please give me a source for the wind turbines killing birds. To my
> knowledge a dead bird has never been found in the vicinity of the Maui
> wind
> farm. My own turbine has never killed a bird. I watch the Nene (geese)
> and
> egrets fly around the turbine and between the waving tree branches daily.
> They seem to sense the air turbulence and the noise. About once a week a
> small bird flies into my window and falls stunned on the deck. Later the=
y
> are gone on their way. (no cat on the property). Glass buildings
> certainly
> are a hazard.
>
> Patty Kaliher
>
>
jonathan byler on tue 7 sep 10
us!
and if that particular source (the heritage foundation) told me that =3D20
the sky were blue, I would go outside and check for myself. not to be =3D2=
0=3D
trusted. they are shills for rich people and big business, something =3D20=
=3D
that most potters and artists are not.
On Sep 4, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Lee Love wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Randall Moody =3D
> > wrote:
>> Would it matter the source if this is true? Shady logic in =3D20
>> attacking the
>> source rather than the topic.
>
> Certainly the source is important, especially when no facts related to
> small businesses were supplied. They are frighting the little guy
> about things that will have no affect on them.
>
> --
> Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
> http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
>
> =3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. =3D
Feel
> the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
jonathan byler on tue 7 sep 10
us!
when did the german government ever decide what we get to do here?
never last time I checked.
On Sep 5, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Tony Ferguson wrote:
> Take a look here and at the referenced articles regarding Co2:
>
> http://www.infowars.com/german-government-advisor-proposes-personal-co2-b=
udget-for-everyone-on-planet/
>
> Tony
>
Larry Andre on tue 7 sep 10
us!
I realize it is not popular to speak of fossil fuels as being clean but
natural gas is the cleanest. Producing water vapor and co2 as the
by-products of combustion. All energy sources have negative aspects. The
production of solar cells deals with many chemicals, and health issues, for
the most part fabricated in countries with little or no environmental
restrictions. Wind power kills thousands of birds, the noise of the whap
whap whap of the blades is noise pollution, the need to construct
transmission lines will trample wilderness areas, the problems are of a
grand nature. Large 50 sq mile tracts of desert paved over for solar, let
alone the water needed to keep the glass for the panels clean. Problems,
problems, problems that must be resolved for alternate forms of energy to b=
e
cost effective. For us or politicians to say "just do it" in regards to
alternate energy is a pipe dream. Since there is always one group or anothe=
r
that wants to protect a mouse, or insect or bird that will use the courts t=
o
stop further action. When one tramples the desert it takes generations to
recover since it is so dry and since there is very little rain recovers
slowly. The problem is these issues have become emotional issues, pretty
much devoid of logic, making resolution nearly impossible. The entire
nuclear issue is based upon emotions specifically "fear". All the
suggestions are valid but not all are practical based upon our ability to
implement the technology. Larry
--------------------------------------------------
From: "gayle bair"
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 8:28 AM
To:
Subject: Re: EPA plans to regulate all sources of CO2, even small ones like
us!
> Larry,
> If you think natural gas is clean please do some research on the procedur=
e
> to extract it
> and/or view the documentary called "Gasland".
> Gayle Bair
> Bainbridge Island WA
> Tucson AZ
> gayle@claybair.com
> www.claybair.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Larry Andre wrote:
>
>> I understand the desire for clean energy. Think for a moment, how much
>> area
>> of the desert must be covered by solar panels, the footprint on the
>> environment, the pristine desert trampled by solar people (it takes abou=
t
>> 50
>> sq miles of solar or wind to equal the power generated by one nuclear
>> plant). The same holds true for wind power, it kills birds and animals,
>> it
>> is ugly, noisy, and uses up a lot of land space. Wave power would make
>> large
>> areas of ocean not accessible because of security issues. Natural gas is
>> clean, nuclear is the cleanest, oil helps support countries that would
>> like
>> to kill us. All have short comings. Just think of the carbon footprint i=
n
>> the manufacture of the solar panels in China with their poor
>> environmental
>> record and human rights abuses. Solar and Wind are ugly, and like the
>> Kennedy family nobody wants them in their backyard, so everyone says let=
s
>> kill off the desert and place them in their backyard. Not a good answer.
>> Much worse is for politicians to tax the use of energy. Why, he asks?
>> Because they will be flush with money they will use for their pet
>> projects,
>> all while screwing the average American. When politicians get their hand=
s
>> on
>> money it is like my daughters with my credit card. Keep the money away
>> from
>> politicians. Use private industry to solve the problems. Larry
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Lee Love"
>> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 4:53 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: EPA plans to regulate all sources of CO2, even small ones
>> like
>> us!
>>
>>> We can't solve our current energy and pollution problems with the
>>> same thinking that got us into them. On the plains, windpower
>>> makes sense. Hydroelectric makes sense in Tennessee. In the
>>> desert, solar power makes the best sense. Renewable energy can also
>>> come from cellulosic ethanol.
>>>
>>> I was glad to hear about the lithium battery plant being built in
>>> Holland Michigan:
>>>
>>> http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2010/03/lg_chem_t=
o_build_1st_north_ame.html
>>>
>>> In Japan, the had a solar panel subsidy that only ran for
>>> about 10 years. But now, many new homes have them. They even have
>>> ceramic roof tiles with solar cells built in. It is very difficult
>>> to see them on the south side of the house. I've heard, they are
>>> starting up the solar subsidies again. If we had these programs, we
>>> wouldn't be behind China and Japan in these areas.
>>>
>>> Supporting these technologies, factories for windmills, solar
>>> cells, new battery technology, is a good way to renew the rust belt
>>> and places like Louisiana.
>>>
>>> But the most important thing we can do is conserve. It is
>>> the single thing can can best impact our fuel usage. A carbon tax
>>> would help with this. It is a way to be responsible for the full
>>> cost of petrochemicals. We are at the end of the industrial "free
>>> lunch.' We have to take responsibility for future generations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
>>> http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> "Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
>>> the artistry moving through and be silent." --Rumi
>
Lee Love on tue 7 sep 10
us!
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Larry Andre
wrote:
> I realize it is not popular to speak of fossil fuels as being clean but
> natural gas is the cleanest. Producing water vapor and co2 as the
It is an interim fuel.
> . Wind power kills thousands of birds,
Audubon is working with wind energy organizations to help make the
best placement of the turbines.
http://www.nationalwind.org/issues/wildlife.aspx
> whap whap of the blades is noise pollution,
This can be dealt with in evolving technology.
>he need to construct
> transmission lines will trample wilderness area
They are less invasive than gas lines. How can you argue for
natural gaslines and against powerlines?
Certainly, we have cellulosic ethanol and co-generation like
in the engergy plant in St. Paul. It uses waste wood to make
electricity and steam. Steam is used for both heating and cooling.
We will never solve our energy problems with the same kind
of thinking that caused them. What does it threaten people to
think about alternatives to petrochemicals? It is astounding,
actually. Missing link thinking!
--
=3DA0Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
gayle bair on tue 7 sep 10
us!
Larry my point is the method currently used across the country to access =
=3D
natural gas is very dangerous.
Here's a few articles
=3D
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/06/fracking-in-pennsylvan=
=3D
ia-201006
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/02/fracking/?hpt=3D3DC1
You might find the dual result of turning on your faucet to get a drink =3D
of water and heating it up at the same time a bit disturbing if you =3D
place a flame to the gas also coming out of your faucet. The aquifers =3D
are being contaminated by the toxic chemicals pumped during the =3D
frac'ing/fracking procedure. See: =3D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing=3D20
Gayle Bair
Bainbridge Island WA
Tucson AZ
gayle@claybair.com
www.claybair.com
On Sep 7, 2010, at 11:56 AM, =3D
wrote:
> I realize it is not popular to speak of fossil fuels as being clean =3D
but natural gas is the cleanest. Producing water vapor and co2 as the =3D
by-products of combustion. All energy sources have negative aspects. The =
=3D
production of solar cells deals with many chemicals, and health issues, =3D
for the most part fabricated in countries with little or no =3D
environmental restrictions. Wind power kills thousands of birds, the =3D
noise of the whap whap whap of the blades is noise pollution, the need =3D
to construct transmission lines will trample wilderness areas, the =3D
problems are of a grand nature. Large 50 sq mile tracts of desert paved =3D
over for solar, let alone the water needed to keep the glass for the =3D
panels clean. Problems, problems, problems that must be resolved for =3D
alternate forms of energy to be cost effective. For us or politicians to =
=3D
say "just do it" in regards to alternate energy is a pipe dream. Since =3D
there is always one group or another that wants to protect a mouse, or =3D
insect or bird that will use the courts to stop further action. When one =
=3D
tramples the desert it takes generations to recover since it is so dry =3D
and since there is very little rain recovers slowly. The problem is =3D
these issues have become emotional issues, pretty much devoid of logic, =3D
making resolution nearly impossible. The entire nuclear issue is based =3D
upon emotions specifically "fear". All the suggestions are valid but not =
=3D
all are practical based upon our ability to implement the technology. =3D
Larry
>=3D20
>=3D20
>=3D20
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "gayle bair"
> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 8:28 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: EPA plans to regulate all sources of CO2, even small ones =
=3D
like us!
>=3D20
>> Larry,
>> If you think natural gas is clean please do some research on the =3D
procedure to extract it
>> and/or view the documentary called "Gasland".
>> Gayle Bair
>> Bainbridge Island WA
>> Tucson AZ
>> gayle@claybair.com
>> www.claybair.com
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
>> On Sep 6, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Larry Andre wrote:
>>=3D20
>>> I understand the desire for clean energy. Think for a moment, how =3D
much area
>>> of the desert must be covered by solar panels, the footprint on the
>>> environment, the pristine desert trampled by solar people (it takes =3D
about 50
>>> sq miles of solar or wind to equal the power generated by one =3D
nuclear
>>> plant). The same holds true for wind power, it kills birds and =3D
animals, it
>>> is ugly, noisy, and uses up a lot of land space. Wave power would =3D
make large
>>> areas of ocean not accessible because of security issues. Natural =3D
gas is
>>> clean, nuclear is the cleanest, oil helps support countries that =3D
would like
>>> to kill us. All have short comings. Just think of the carbon =3D
footprint in
>>> the manufacture of the solar panels in China with their poor =3D
environmental
>>> record and human rights abuses. Solar and Wind are ugly, and like =3D
the
>>> Kennedy family nobody wants them in their backyard, so everyone says =
=3D
lets
>>> kill off the desert and place them in their backyard. Not a good =3D
answer.
>>> Much worse is for politicians to tax the use of energy. Why, he =3D
asks?
>>> Because they will be flush with money they will use for their pet =3D
projects,
>>> all while screwing the average American. When politicians get their =3D
hands on
>>> money it is like my daughters with my credit card. Keep the money =3D
away from
>>> politicians. Use private industry to solve the problems. Larry
>>>=3D20
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: "Lee Love"
>>> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 4:53 PM
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: EPA plans to regulate all sources of CO2, even small =3D
ones like
>>> us!
>>>=3D20
>>>> We can't solve our current energy and pollution problems with the
>>>> same thinking that got us into them. On the plains, windpower
>>>> makes sense. Hydroelectric makes sense in Tennessee. In the
>>>> desert, solar power makes the best sense. Renewable energy can =3D
also
>>>> come from cellulosic ethanol.
>>>>=3D20
>>>> I was glad to hear about the lithium battery plant being built in
>>>> Holland Michigan:
>>>>=3D20
>>>> =3D
http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2010/03/lg_chem_to_b=
=3D
uild_1st_north_ame.html
>>>>=3D20
>>>> In Japan, the had a solar panel subsidy that only ran for
>>>> about 10 years. But now, many new homes have them. They even =3D
have
>>>> ceramic roof tiles with solar cells built in. It is very =3D
difficult
>>>> to see them on the south side of the house. I've heard, they are
>>>> starting up the solar subsidies again. If we had these programs, =3D
we
>>>> wouldn't be behind China and Japan in these areas.
>>>>=3D20
>>>> Supporting these technologies, factories for windmills, solar
>>>> cells, new battery technology, is a good way to renew the rust belt
>>>> and places like Louisiana.
>>>>=3D20
>>>> But the most important thing we can do is conserve. It is
>>>> the single thing can can best impact our fuel usage. A carbon =3D
tax
>>>> would help with this. It is a way to be responsible for the full
>>>> cost of petrochemicals. We are at the end of the industrial "free
>>>> lunch.' We have to take responsibility for future generations.
>>>>=3D20
>>>>=3D20
>>>>=3D20
>>>> --
>>>> Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
>>>> http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
>>>>=3D20
>>>> =3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. =
=3D
Feel
>>>> the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
>=3D20
Lee Love on wed 8 sep 10
us!
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 3:22 PM, gayle bair wrote:
> Larry my point is the method currently used across the country to access =
=3D
natural gas is very dangerous.
> Here's =3DA0a few articles
> http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/06/fracking-in-pennsylva=
=3D
nia-201006
> http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/02/fracking/?hpt=3D3DC1
Every potter that fires a gas kiln knows the dangers of natural and
propane gas. We've had unoccupied houses in the neighborhood blow up,
after having the copper tubing taken out of them.
We drive around with tanks of gasoline strapped under our cars.
very explosive. We simply are more at ease with hazards we have
always lived with.
--
=3DA0Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Eric Hansen on wed 8 sep 10
us!
Thanks Jonathan: One of the stated rules of the internet is that when
a topic flames put of control, they start pointing the finger at
"Nazis"
Actually there is a new generation of solar collector coming out, I
wonder??? Sure you can fire pots with wind, water, solar, etc. - even
do reduction
h a n s e n
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:10 PM, jonathan byler wrote:
> when did the german government ever decide what we get to do here?
> never last time I checked.
>
>
> On Sep 5, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Tony Ferguson wrote:
>
>> Take a look here and at the referenced articles regarding Co2:
>>
>>
>> http://www.infowars.com/german-government-advisor-proposes-personal-co2-=
budget-for-everyone-on-planet/
>>
>> Tony
>>
>
--
Eric Alan Hansen
Stonehouse Studio Pottery
Alexandria, Virginia
americanpotter.blogspot.com
thesuddenschool.blogspot.com
hansencookbook.blogspot.com
"To me, human life in all its forms, individual and aggregate, is a
perpetual wonder: the flora of the earth and sea is full of beauty and
of mystery which seeks science to understand; the fauna of land and
ocean is not less wonderful; the world which holds them both, and the
great universe that folds it in on everyside, are still more
wonderful, complex, and attractive to the contemplating mind." -
Theodore Parker, minister, transcendentalist, abolitionist (1810-1860)
| |
|
