E-Mail to Congress:
EIN New says, "Fuel cell to provide clean power for downtown complex".
This is a deceptive announcement bordering on fraud.
The deception lies in the claims that "the building’s low energy use has carbon dioxide mitigating benefits equal to planting 180 acres of trees" and "the apartments will have 18 percent of the carbon footprint of a typical single-family home in Connecticut."
If the claimed energy saving results from improved heat insulation, the claim is legitimate, but the implication that most people will accept is that there is a reduction in carbon dioxide emission, which is not true. Carbon dioxide emission is insignificant from a geophysical viewpoint, but many people have grabbed this fad.
Fuel cells consume reactant from an external source, which must be replenished. Many combinations of fuels and oxidants are possible. A hydrogen fuel cell uses hydrogen as its fuel.
Other fuels include hydrocarbons and alcohols. If hydrogen is the source fuel, it is generated externally usually from electrochemical decomposition of water, which requires fossil fuels to generate the electricity. If methane is used directly in the fuel cell, its direct by-product of use is carbon dioxide.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Congress Must Control the Actions of the EPA
E-Mail to Congress:
Congress established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a watchdog organization to protect the American public from hazardous chemicals, particularly from intentional or accidental synthesis by private industry. It passed the control of the agency to the Administration, where such control resides at present.
Because of the resent Administration's political perspective with respect to global warming, the EPA has forsaken its responsibility for objective analysis of "hazardous chemical" control and has extended the interpretation of "hazard" beyond a reasonable level for political reasons. It has defined carbon dioxide as a hazardous gas in the atmosphere, on which there is no scientific basis to support this decision. It further plans to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing combustion of fossil fuels, which will decimate an already
fragile economy.
EPA's your baby. You set up,, and you should control it. If you don't you will be aiding and abetting further destruction of the US economy to establish a world order, which is the obvious intention of the Obama Administration. Reference: Chemical and Engineering News April 5, 2010, page 9.
Congress established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a watchdog organization to protect the American public from hazardous chemicals, particularly from intentional or accidental synthesis by private industry. It passed the control of the agency to the Administration, where such control resides at present.
Because of the resent Administration's political perspective with respect to global warming, the EPA has forsaken its responsibility for objective analysis of "hazardous chemical" control and has extended the interpretation of "hazard" beyond a reasonable level for political reasons. It has defined carbon dioxide as a hazardous gas in the atmosphere, on which there is no scientific basis to support this decision. It further plans to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing combustion of fossil fuels, which will decimate an already
fragile economy.
EPA's your baby. You set up,, and you should control it. If you don't you will be aiding and abetting further destruction of the US economy to establish a world order, which is the obvious intention of the Obama Administration. Reference: Chemical and Engineering News April 5, 2010, page 9.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Eliminating Use of Fossil Fuels Akin to Drinking Cyanide Laced Kool Aid
E-Mail to Congress:
The St. Petersburg Times says, "Grandparents, support clean energy for your grandchildren's sake". The article goes on to condemn carbon dioxide as an atmospheric pollutant, which can only be controlled by eliminating use of fossil fuels.
This is an emotional appeal to a ridiculous undertaking. There is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric pollutant.
The article reminds me of Rev. Jones convincing his followers to drink cyanide laced Kool Aid in Guyana.
The St. Petersburg Times says, "Grandparents, support clean energy for your grandchildren's sake". The article goes on to condemn carbon dioxide as an atmospheric pollutant, which can only be controlled by eliminating use of fossil fuels.
This is an emotional appeal to a ridiculous undertaking. There is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric pollutant.
The article reminds me of Rev. Jones convincing his followers to drink cyanide laced Kool Aid in Guyana.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Question the Motives of the National Academy of Sciences
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Climate-Change Study Points to Man's Role. The National Academy of Sciences, a group of elite American researchers that advises the U.S. government, issued an 869-page report reasserting mankind's role in altering the climate and calling for specific policy measures to help forestall undesirable effects. (wsj.com).
We need to know how many of these elite American are unobjectively devoted to science.
This would be a good project for one of your assistants. A suggested procedure would be to make a list of the elite researchers closely associated with preparation of the 869-page report. Each of those researchers should then be searched for receipt of private or government grants for their research and receipt of other funds for advising Congressmen or other political figures on the advantages of climate control.
Scientific organizations were previously devoted to the advancement of science. More recently with government research grants, the scientific organizations have become more political.
EIN News says, "Climate-Change Study Points to Man's Role. The National Academy of Sciences, a group of elite American researchers that advises the U.S. government, issued an 869-page report reasserting mankind's role in altering the climate and calling for specific policy measures to help forestall undesirable effects. (wsj.com).
We need to know how many of these elite American are unobjectively devoted to science.
This would be a good project for one of your assistants. A suggested procedure would be to make a list of the elite researchers closely associated with preparation of the 869-page report. Each of those researchers should then be searched for receipt of private or government grants for their research and receipt of other funds for advising Congressmen or other political figures on the advantages of climate control.
Scientific organizations were previously devoted to the advancement of science. More recently with government research grants, the scientific organizations have become more political.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Kill the Kerry/Lieberman Climate Bill Now
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Senate Gets a Climate and Energy Bill, Modified by a Gulf Spill That Still Grows. The long delayed and much amended Senate plan to deal with global warming and energy was unveiled to considerable fanfare but uncertain prospects. After nearly eight months of negotiations with lawmakers and interest groups, Senators John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, produced a 987-page bill that tries to limit climate-altering emissions, reduce oil imports and create millions of new energy-related jobs. (nytimes.com)".
I strongly suggest that you not only vote against this bill if it ever comes to the floor, but that you now complain, protest, object, criticize, murmur, grumble, deplore, lament, whine, bewail repine, gripe, rail, remonstrate, and bellyache against it to a degree that all of your associates in the house understand the ridiculous nature of the proposal.
The major points of objection are:
1. The bill likely includes controls on emissions of carbon dioxide, which have NOT been proven detrimental to climate change. In addition, laboratory data show that carbon dioxide is not significantly more reflective to heat transfer, and increase of temperatures on the Earth's surface, than other atmospheric gases.
2. Any bill which has 987 pages has many things to hide, which is the purpose of its large volume. Another example is the healthcare bill. Conversely, the new immigrant control law in Arizona required only 10 pages.
3. Reduction of oil imports is a prophecy. My prophecy is that such a law will not reduce oil imports, unless the bill contains restrictions directly controlling import volume. Many millions of cars and trucks depend upon oil for their operation. That technology has been developed over a period of 100 years and will not be easily changed. The recent catastrophe of the oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico also has its ancillary effect that states adjacent to large bodies of water now consider eliminating the possibility of oil drilling off their coasts.
4. The law will not create millions of new PRODUCTIVE energy-related jobs. Jobs must always be looked at from a productive quality viewpoint. If I have a job digging holes and then filling them in, I make no productive contribution in the operation. Since it is a job, for which I am paid, the people paying me must have some productive operation, on which to obtain the money to pay me. If they do not, the whole system, falls into decline.
I may now have a job producing diesel for a consuming public and that operation is productive for low-cost transportation of goods. If I switch to a job involving production of electricity by wind energy, the job has not increased, and the results of my work are considerably less productive than if I had remained in my diesel job.
EIN News says, "Senate Gets a Climate and Energy Bill, Modified by a Gulf Spill That Still Grows. The long delayed and much amended Senate plan to deal with global warming and energy was unveiled to considerable fanfare but uncertain prospects. After nearly eight months of negotiations with lawmakers and interest groups, Senators John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, produced a 987-page bill that tries to limit climate-altering emissions, reduce oil imports and create millions of new energy-related jobs. (nytimes.com)".
I strongly suggest that you not only vote against this bill if it ever comes to the floor, but that you now complain, protest, object, criticize, murmur, grumble, deplore, lament, whine, bewail repine, gripe, rail, remonstrate, and bellyache against it to a degree that all of your associates in the house understand the ridiculous nature of the proposal.
The major points of objection are:
1. The bill likely includes controls on emissions of carbon dioxide, which have NOT been proven detrimental to climate change. In addition, laboratory data show that carbon dioxide is not significantly more reflective to heat transfer, and increase of temperatures on the Earth's surface, than other atmospheric gases.
2. Any bill which has 987 pages has many things to hide, which is the purpose of its large volume. Another example is the healthcare bill. Conversely, the new immigrant control law in Arizona required only 10 pages.
3. Reduction of oil imports is a prophecy. My prophecy is that such a law will not reduce oil imports, unless the bill contains restrictions directly controlling import volume. Many millions of cars and trucks depend upon oil for their operation. That technology has been developed over a period of 100 years and will not be easily changed. The recent catastrophe of the oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico also has its ancillary effect that states adjacent to large bodies of water now consider eliminating the possibility of oil drilling off their coasts.
4. The law will not create millions of new PRODUCTIVE energy-related jobs. Jobs must always be looked at from a productive quality viewpoint. If I have a job digging holes and then filling them in, I make no productive contribution in the operation. Since it is a job, for which I am paid, the people paying me must have some productive operation, on which to obtain the money to pay me. If they do not, the whole system, falls into decline.
I may now have a job producing diesel for a consuming public and that operation is productive for low-cost transportation of goods. If I switch to a job involving production of electricity by wind energy, the job has not increased, and the results of my work are considerably less productive than if I had remained in my diesel job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
