Mods - if "green" is considered political, just delete the thread
Everyone else - keep politics out and strictly to the subject at hands
What makes a company "green" in your opinion?
So Tiff and I are in South Beach right now (it is raining, 60 degrees, but at least we are under a cabana by the pool having overpriced drinks).
So at breakfast this morning, there was some serious business meeting going on next door. I won't get into specifics of the content, as it is a new product and IPO, and I dont even know the company, but know the product anyway.
The "inventor" was courting some investors.
He started talking about John Deere (the tractor company of course) and said they are a "green company"
How is a company Green that makes large diesel tractors that for the most part are involved in agriculture where pestacides, herbacides, etc. are dumped on the crop these tractors / farm implements were built to cultivate?
Now, I am sure their products are used at farms where this is not a practice, but where I live......it is not.
or
is being a "green company" have to do with your manufacturing aspect of how you dispose of waste, materials, etc etc.
I just can't see calling John Deere a "green" company considering what they build and what they are used for.
Discuss nicely.
They paint their tractors green. I don't see any way around it.
He was having the discussion on St. Patricks day. That right there makes it a 'green' company.
Envy
Quote from: cyrus buelton on March 17, 2010, 07:31:50 AM
is being a "green company" have to do with your manufacturing aspect of how you dispose of waste, materials, etc etc.
Yes
Quote from: MrIncredible on March 17, 2010, 07:37:39 AM
They paint their tractors green. I don't see any way around it.
This is very compelling though.
Quote from: Duck-Stew on March 17, 2010, 07:41:41 AM
He was having the discussion on St. Patricks day. That right there makes it a 'green' company.
Also compelling, but a little less so.
My company is green...because that's what color our logo is. :P
I think what you are saying is that despite whatever methods they may use to be ecologically friendly in producing their products, they are enabling bad practices. I guess that's a way of being indirectly ungreen (directly red?)
So, should they take credit for the theoretical use of their products in greener agriculture? Probably not. Should they take credit for the things they are doing to reduce waste in the process of building tractors, which would in the end reduce the total waste produced in getting carrots or wheat to market? I say yes - that's a net win for people that measure green-ness.
/green so I don't get pinched Slainte, y'all..
Ford adds a second turbo to the SHO and attaches the term ECO to it... eco boost
poof... instant environmentally friendly power [laugh]
Jeremy,
Yeah, I get what you are saying and feel that is why they call themselves "green" but really they aren't at all..........
building a large diesel combine isn't exactly green nor is the majority of the use for it.
Just a stupid made up term in my opinion unless from manufacturing to end use promotes environmentally green activities.
Quote from: cyrus buelton on March 17, 2010, 08:45:28 AM
Jeremy,
Yeah, I get what you are saying and feel that is why they call themselves "green" but really they aren't at all..........
building a large diesel combine isn't exactly green nor is the majority of the use for it.
Just a stupid made up term in my opinion unless from manufacturing to end use promotes environmentally green activities.
Perhaps we shouldn't farm then?
Quote from: cyrus buelton on March 17, 2010, 08:45:28 AM
Jeremy,
Yeah, I get what you are saying and feel that is why they call themselves "green" but really they aren't at all..........
building a large diesel combine isn't exactly green nor is the majority of the use for it.
Just a stupid made up term in my opinion unless from manufacturing to end use promotes environmentally green activities.
I view it as a company can control their aspect of the process, and do it as "green" or "earth-friendly" as possible. They can only control how they make their product, not how it is used.
Quote from: MrIncredible on March 17, 2010, 08:50:47 AM
Perhaps we shouldn't farm then?
Never said that.
I just said I don't know how you are a green company when your buyers are farmers who use un-green materials.
I really don't care to be honest, I just think it is silly to advertise yourself green when you damn well know your products end use is not used for that.
How does a green company make a farm implement specifically designed to dump pesticides and herbicides?
NOTE: I am not really all that green outside recycling at home. Therefore, my opinion on the use of chemicals in farming is fine. Gotta keep the produce free of bugs, weeds, and keep it growing.
Quote from: Triple J on March 17, 2010, 09:12:49 AM
I view it as a company can control their aspect of the process, and do it as "green" or "earth-friendly" as possible. They can only control how they make their product, not how it is used.
Yeah, I get that......but that implement they design and make to dump chemicals isn't exactly environmentally friendly.
I don't know. I just think it is pretty funny they consider themselves green when they make products not used in green activities.
So a company that makes recycled paper couldn't be considered green because some people choose to use excessive amounts and throw it in the trash?
Quote from: cyrus buelton on March 17, 2010, 09:31:37 AM
Yeah, I get that......but that implement they design and make to dump chemicals isn't exactly environmentally friendly.
I don't know. I just think it is pretty funny they consider themselves green when they make products not used in green activities.
The farmers who use the spraying implements can and do (though not as a majority) choose to spray liquid organic fertilizers instead of chemicals.
Does that change anything, or does majority rule?
I tend to agree with Triple J...
Quote from: Triple J on March 17, 2010, 09:12:49 AM
I view it as a company can control their aspect of the process, and do it as "green" or "earth-friendly" as possible. They can only control how they make their product, not how it is used.
Quote from: cyrus buelton on March 17, 2010, 09:31:37 AM
How does a green company make a farm implement specifically designed to dump pesticides and herbicides?
I would like to think that they have designed better method to spray the pesticides so farmers can use less of it. Trackers with smaller footprint that have less impact to the soil. Better design of plows to lessen the top soil loss to wind/rain, etc etc.
Auto makers have been trying to be green for awhile and their products are used specifically to burn fuel and pollute the air. They achieved it with more environmentall friendly methods/designs/material. And the final products are "less harmful" to the environment.
A client of ours here refused to bring more work back unless we became 'more green'. So, we put a bunch of water dispensers around instead of bottles waters, changed some light bulbs, etc . . . but nothing too nutso. Not sure what officially qualified a company to be 'green', but I would think in general for a company to be somewhat mindful of how much waste they compile ad how conscious of it they are.
One thing I remember reading a while back was about the Lucasfilm offices in the Letterman Digital Arts Center in the Presidio. The building was originally a hospital, and they ended up reusing 80% of the buildings materials for the new facility. I think it's pretty impressive they were able to do that, hopefully they're not overly smug about it.
(http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn124/sav858/south-park-smug-313.gif)
Quote from: cyrus buelton on March 17, 2010, 09:31:37 AM
I really don't care to be honest, I just think it is silly to advertise yourself green when you damn well know your products end use is not used for that.
sure you do. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted. But it was an opportunity to point out where someone else is wrong/stupid/etc.
Got to see some of the farms our local co-op uses for our granola crunchy liberal hippie organic veggies. Lots of big farm type equipment. Didn't look close enough to see the manufacturer and wasn't paying attention to color....but it doesn't get much "greener" than that.
But I'm with the crowd that thinks it's more about how something is produced and the circumstances around that than the use for the product.
And it's all marketing anyway so it's whatever the consumer believes.
Clearly they did not persuade you.
It's all nonsense.
My guess is that we exist to "pollute" and "destroy" our environment. Perhaps we are actually just setting it to it's ideal state for whatever dominate life form that is to replace us.
So everyone go out and burn a stack of tires tonight and look to the sky.
Quote from: lethe on March 17, 2010, 02:40:25 PM
It's all nonsense.
My guess is that we exist to "pollute" and "destroy" our environment. Perhaps we are actually just setting it to it's ideal state for whatever dominate life form that is to replace us.
So everyone go out and burn a stack of tires tonight and look to the sky.
with your a/c running [thumbsup]
Quote from: cyrus buelton on March 17, 2010, 07:31:50 AM
Mods - if "green" is considered political, just delete the thread
Everyone else - keep politics out and strictly to the subject at hands
What makes a company "green" in your opinion?
A discussion of "green" without a politics is like a day without sunshine.
The term "green" IS political.
It is all relative. A global tractor company can't have as little impact as a local bakery, but maybe compared to their competition or industry, they do meet more green criteria.
mitt
New York City has changed the color of it's apple from red to green. I guess we don't pollute any more [bang]
Back to John Deere. If they are following manufacturing processes and engineering principals that are beyond legal requirements and ahead of what most of their competition practices they are relatively "green".
Quote from: lethe on March 17, 2010, 02:40:25 PM
It's all nonsense.
My guess is that we exist to "pollute" and "destroy" our environment. Perhaps we are actually just setting it to it's ideal state for whatever dominate life form that is to replace us.
So everyone go out and burn a stack of tires tonight and look to the sky.
Dead-on......absolute "Green" practice would be to recognize that the human species itself is the "pollutant"
likewise an absolutely correct green company would cease commerce and shutter its doors with the employees inside and do a Heaven's Gate/Jonestown check-out
If you want to be a militant carbon footprint absolutist you are ethically compelled to eliminate yourself and all others within reach
I think it is all delusional since we have China cranking away on their side of the planet like Mordor picking up the slack for any country that thinks it is cleaning up the environment...
and then there's those pesky volcanoes spewing all sorts of gasses and matter into the atmosphere...the nerve!!....and cow farts killing the ozone layer!!!! oh dear God can't we put Beano in their feed???
Let's face it...Planet Earth is God's Comedy Channel and we are "The Human Show"....I know he/she/it is up there on the throne stamping its feet and slapping its legs and shaking its head in paroxysms of laughter
and we are sitting here sorting out plastic and metal....like polishing the deck rails on the Titanic as the species steams toward the ice
Who was it on TOB who had the "Humans Suck" tag line?
Short of us cracking the world apart with sufficient destructive energy,,,,the planet will survive us and all our notions and conceits
Quote from: RAT900 on March 17, 2010, 10:54:38 PM
Dead-on......absolute "Green" practice would be to recognize that the human species itself is the "pollutant"
likewise an absolutely correct green company would cease commerce and shutter its doors with the employees inside and do a Heaven's Gate/Jonestown check-out
If you want to be a militant carbon footprint absolutist you are ethically compelled to eliminate yourself and all others within reach
I think it is all delusional since we have China cranking away on their side of the planet like Mordor picking up the slack for any country that thinks it is cleaning up the environment...
and then there's those pesky volcanoes spewing all sorts of gasses and matter into the atmosphere...the nerve!!....and cow farts killing the ozone layer!!!! oh dear God can't we put Beano in their feed???
Let's face it...Planet Earth is God's Comedy Channel and we are "The Human Show"....I know he/she/it is up there on the throne stamping its feet and slapping its legs and shaking its head in paroxysms of laughter
and we are sitting here sorting out plastic and metal....like polishing the deck rails on the Titanic as the species steams toward the ice
Who was it on TOB who had the "Humans Suck" tag line?
Short of us cracking the world apart with sufficient destructive energy,,,,the planet will survive us and all our notions and conceits
Even if we could manage to destroy our little ball of dirt, I fail to be impressed. In the grand scheme of the universe our little planet is really just as relatively insignificant as a dust bunny under your bed.
If it was even noticed it would be by some alien species somewhere that would just note down "Another failure in step 10 of the evolution of civilization, what a shame that 90% don't make it beyond that point" as our ashes get swept away in the solar wind.
Quote from: cyrus buelton on March 17, 2010, 09:31:37 AM
Never said that.
I just said I don't know how you are a green company when your buyers are farmers who use un-green materials.
I really don't care to be honest, I just think it is silly to advertise yourself green when you damn well know your products end use is not used for that.
How does a green company make a farm implement specifically designed to dump pesticides and herbicides?
NOTE: I am not really all that green outside recycling at home. Therefore, my opinion on the use of chemicals in farming is fine. Gotta keep the produce free of bugs, weeds, and keep it growing.
Yeah, I get that......but that implement they design and make to dump chemicals isn't exactly environmentally friendly.
I don't know. I just think it is pretty funny they consider themselves green when they make products not used in green activities.
I have a feeling it's more about their production practices.
....however, using your arguement, you should also know that their tractors are used to grow thousands of trees, manage wildlife habitats and forest in state/national parks. They are used in habitat restoration projects where they are trying to restore the land back to natural after years of being mined or where a dam has been for 50 years. Not saying they aren't used to spray pesticides...obviously they are, but that is not the ONLY thing they are used for.
Green is just a hype word, plain and simple. I learned a lot while I was at a large "green build" firm in Irvine for only 5 months. They had all sorts of spiffy little green things like a compost bin with worms for your biodegradable trash and corn-plastic utensils. They touted all the green stuff like recycled plastic name tags on the desks and eco friendly lights. They also got a lot of news about green conferences and whatnot.
At one green conference, an architectural firm did a presentation about their first "green" school that they built. It had enough solar panels to have net 0 electricity consumption as well as other spiffy green concepts. What was the result? Not only was it absurdly expensive, it used 50% more electricity than the old school did. Yup, it was more expensive and yet everyone still calls it a green school and a green project. Reality doesn't matter. It's all about what you sell yourself as.
I would wager that the dirty green diesels that John Deere puts out use less diesel fuels than they did several tears ago. They may even run them on biofuel.
As large a company as JD are they probaly use a lot of recycling in the their paperwork flow and I would bet they use a lot of post consumer paper.
Perhaps they have a green powered office with solar panels? I would think that they use recycled steels for there parts in fact I can tell you that they do. ESCO in Portland Oregon uses recycles steels of various types to make parts for John Deere. I have seen pallets of castings in their Shipping dept. Esco is a huge foundry in North west Portland. JD probaly uses recycled rubber for their tires and their electrical systems are probaly used copper wire resmelted. I know that they do not have to make exhaust stacks for quite a while because now that Buell is out of business, they can just use those mufflers. [laugh]
Green? I bey JD is more green than anyone here knows.
I work in a green job, in fact I have 2 green jobs. One is my work at a florists and the other is I am a gardener on 7 acres in Portland. I work with plants and flowers all day and am pretty much my own boss. I know what I need to do.
I get paid to work outside with plkants and wear sunglasses all day. My ride to work is on a super twisty road,I go to a job I love and get paid to do. Life is off the effing hook!
BGB
Quote from: erkishhorde on March 19, 2010, 07:41:18 AM
Green is just a hype word, plain and simple. I learned a lot while I was at a large "green build" firm in Irvine for only 5 months. They had all sorts of spiffy little green things like a compost bin with worms for your biodegradable trash and corn-plastic utensils. They touted all the green stuff like recycled plastic name tags on the desks and eco friendly lights. They also got a lot of news about green conferences and whatnot.
At one green conference, an architectural firm did a presentation about their first "green" school that they built. It had enough solar panels to have net 0 electricity consumption as well as other spiffy green concepts. What was the result? Not only was it absurdly expensive, it used 50% more electricity than the old school did. Yup, it was more expensive and yet everyone still calls it a green school and a green project. Reality doesn't matter. It's all about what you sell yourself as.
How does cost negate green?
and
if it is consumption 0 with it's solor panals, why does it matter what its increased consumption rate is?
Quote from: lethe on March 17, 2010, 02:40:25 PM
It's all nonsense.
My guess is that we exist to "pollute" and "destroy" our environment. Perhaps we are actually just setting it to it's ideal state for whatever dominate life form that is to replace us.
So everyone go out and burn a stack of tires tonight and look to the sky.
We are hear to eat the sandwich.
Joe Rogan's Theory on Life and People (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyc12-neTjM&feature=fvw#normal)
[laugh] [laugh] Rogan is a funny mothermake the beast with two backser.
Quote from: Mother on March 23, 2010, 08:43:22 PM
How does cost negate green?
and
if it is consumption 0 with it's solor panals, why does it matter what its increased consumption rate is?
Cost does not negate green. However, the point is that "green" at any cost is not reasonable.
Zero consumption? Obviously the school consumed electricity. What else would the solar panels be for other than the generation of electricity for consumption.
I suspect what Erik meant to write was that the design was intended that the school would consume zero electricity from the "grid" whereas in reality its "grid" consumption went up 50% instead of going down 100% as promised.
Remember, you can't store electricity for grid use (or personal use). We don't have battery technology to store the levels of electricity needed to run buildings.
So, for every solar, wind, or whathaveyou alternative form of electricity you must have traditional grid sources online AT THE SAME TIME to take up the slack with it rains or the winds die down. Otherwise the power would just go off. You may be drawing power from a windmill out in the valley, but there's a coal plant somewhere still generating equal energy to step in when needed. Just because you don't use that traditional energy doesn't mean that it's not being made, and more importantly, it doesn't mean that coal is not being burned at the usual rate.
Alternative sources of electricity for the grid are a scam.
Quote from: NorDog on March 24, 2010, 05:11:40 AM
<snip>
Alternative sources of electricity for the grid are a scam.
I assume you have documentation to support that gross generalization. ;D
The only reason that coal or oil fired plant is still running is that no one has made the investment in enough equipment to support alternative energy.
Power generation is about profit...
if you catch my drift.
Quote from: ducpainter on March 24, 2010, 06:27:32 AM
I assume you have documentation to support that gross generalization. ;D
The only reason that coal or oil fired plant is still running is that no one has made the investment in enough equipment to support alternative energy.
Power generation is about profit...
if you catch my drift.
Well, yeah, of course it's about profit.
No one has made the nvestment in enough equipment to support alternative energy? Not so sure about that.
The problem is with the equipment needed to make alternative energy viable. That equipment, simply put, would be giant batteries to store the alternatively generated power so that there's no interruption in service when the alternative source quits generating due to the limits of the source; i.e. no wind, no sun.
The grid needs constant power, alternative sources do not, can not, provide that.
Find a battery technology sufficient to store enough electricity to run cities, and the situation changes. But even then there would be questions of diminishing returns and environmental impact of batteries of such scale (if indeed they are ever technnically possible to begin with, which I doubt).
Quote from: NorDog on March 24, 2010, 07:04:57 AM
Well, yeah, of course it's about profit.
No one has made the nvestment in enough equipment to support alternative energy? Not so sure about that.
The problem is with the equipment needed to make alternative energy viable. That equipment, simply put, would be giant batteries to store the alternatively generated power so that there's no interruption in service when the alternative source quits generating due to the limits of the source; i.e. no wind, no sun.
The grid needs constant power, alternative sources do not, can not, provide that.
Find a battery technology sufficient to store enough electricity to run cities, and the situation changes. But even then there would be questions of diminishing returns and environmental impact of batteries of such scale (if indeed they are ever technnically possible to begin with, which I doubt).
10 years ago I was a millwright at the UMCDF
one of my responsibilities was the Uninterupted Power Supply...battery room
it could run the entire weapons depot for 45 minutes at max capacity
you wouldnt need batteries to run cities, just buildings when you switch from one source to another
and that tech already exists
...just not economically
:-\
What's UMCDF?
Quote from: NorDog on March 24, 2010, 07:28:42 AM
What's UMCDF?
Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility
"you wouldnt need batteries to run cities, just buildings when you switch from one source to another"
I don't know what this means. Can you explain? Are you saying that each building needs its own Uniterrupted Power Supply?
Quote from: NorDog on March 24, 2010, 05:11:40 AM
Alternative sources of electricity for the grid are a scam.
We can't exactly not change the way we do things, so I'm not sure why we wouldn't at least try alternatives, however more complex/difficult they seem.
Quote from: ducpainter on March 24, 2010, 06:27:32 AM
I assume you have documentation to support that gross generalization. ;D
The only reason that coal or oil fired plant is still running is that no one has made the investment in enough equipment to support alternative energy.
Power generation is about profit...
if you catch my drift.
The answer to getting rid of the coal fired and oil plants is very simple:
Nuclear Energy is where it is at.
We put people on the moon.
We can take satellite images from miles and miles above the earth to see the time on your wrist watch.
I think we can figure out a place to store spent fuel rods.
I am a large proponent of Nuclear Energy.
Chlorophyll
Quote from: cyrus buelton on March 24, 2010, 08:27:58 AM
I think we can figure out a place to store spent fuel rods.
We already have...that's the easy part.
The hard part is getting everyone to go along with the decision.
Quote from: Triple J on March 24, 2010, 09:18:06 AM
We already have...that's the easy part.
The hard part is getting everyone to go along with the decision.
Colorado?
Quote from: Triple J on March 24, 2010, 09:18:06 AM
We already have...that's the easy part.
The hard part is getting everyone to go along with the decision.
Guessing out west somewhere in a dry desert land buried in some sort of concrete pool?
I won't address your second comment because it will get me in trouble.
But seriously, it's a big problem.
I think Yucca Mountain in Nevada was designated as the site.
Nevada kept saying no, and then the decision was made to house it there by others. Nevada missed out on money IMO by fighting it.
Neighboring states don't want the waste rolling through their cities on railcars due to fears of an accident.
Hell, send the things into space. To borrow from a very old Pink Floyd song, "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun."
Quote from: MrIncredible on March 24, 2010, 09:18:45 AM
Colorado?
negative
Quote from: cyrus buelton on March 24, 2010, 09:35:05 AM
Guessing out west somewhere in a dry desert land buried in some sort of concrete pool?
Yes, and no. Yucca Mtn. is out west, in the desert, and is perfect geologically speaking. Also consider it is on the test site which is pretty f'ed up already. No one will ever live there, or use water from below (WAY below) there. No concrete pool though...sealed vaults inside a tunnel.
And I heard of a joint hydro/nuclear plant somewhere here in the states.
Here's how it works.
Nuclear plants need to run at a certain speed or temp or whatever they do for maximum efficiency.
Problem is at night when demand drops off dramatically.
They keep the plant running by pumping water from one reservoir uphill to another reservoir.
During the day, water is released through turbines to make supplemental energy.
Rinse and repeat daily.
Quote from: Ghostly Pip on March 24, 2010, 08:58:00 AM
Chlorophyll
Don't you mean Borophyll?
[laugh] [laugh] [laugh]
I'm here to LEARN EVERYONE!
Quote from: Randimus Maximus on March 24, 2010, 09:39:19 AM
Neighboring states don't want the waste rolling through their cities on railcars due to fears of an accident.
Another problem of mine.
We can fly a drone air craft in the Hindu Kush mountains from Washington DC and pin point fire ordinance into an object.
But we can't make some carrying container that if involved in an accident can't withstand impact?
again..........doesn't make sense.
Quote from: NorDog on March 24, 2010, 09:40:55 AM
Hell, send the things into space. To borrow from a very old Pink Floyd song, "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun."
I've said that for years. I guess the problem is what happens when the rocket fails? Also, the waste still has to be carried as close as feasible to the equator for lunch...so the same transport problems that have Yucca Mtn. all screwed up.
Quote from: Randimus Maximus on March 24, 2010, 09:42:04 AM
And I heard of a joint hydro/nuclear plant somewhere here in the states.
Here's how it works.
Nuclear plants need to run at a certain speed or temp or whatever they do for maximum efficiency.
Problem is at night when demand drops off dramatically.
They keep the plant running by pumping water from one reservoir uphill to another reservoir.
During the day, water is released through turbines to make supplemental energy.
Rinse and repeat daily.
Shaver Lake in the southern Sierra Nevada Mtns. currently does that...minus the nuclear option. They just pump it back when power to do so is available and cheap.
Quote from: NorDog on March 24, 2010, 07:04:57 AM
Find a battery technology sufficient to store enough electricity to run cities, and the situation changes. But even then there would be questions of diminishing returns and environmental impact of batteries of such scale (if indeed they are ever technnically possible to begin with, which I doubt).
If there is water, we have the ability. http://www.fact-index.com/l/lu/ludington_pumped_water_plant.html (http://www.fact-index.com/l/lu/ludington_pumped_water_plant.html)
"The Ludington pumped water plant is a hydroelectric plant and reservoir in Ludington, Michigan. It consists of a reservoir 110 feet deep, 2.5 miles long, and one mile wide which holds 27 billion gallons of water. The reservoir is located on the banks of Lake Michigan. The powerplant consists of six reversible turbines that can generate 1872 Mw of electricity.
At night, during low demand for electricity, the pumps force water 363 feet uphill from the lake into the reservoir. The plant takes advantage of the natural steep sand dune landform of eastern Lake Michigan. During periods of peak demand water is released to generate power. Electrical generation can begin within 2 minutes.
This process helps level the load of coal-fired power plants on the grid. It also replaces the need to build natural gas peak power plants used only during high demand."
Big 'ol battery.
Back on topic - Green Labels.
There is absolutely no regulatory authority about the use of "green" like there is for "organic" or "USDA prime." Buyer beware. Anybody can label themselves green for any reason.
Quote from: cyrus buelton on March 24, 2010, 09:43:55 AM
But we can't make some carrying container that if involved in an accident can't withstand impact?
We can and have.
Problem is convincing people again.
See a trend? ;D In most projects the engineering is the easy part. :)
Quote from: angler on March 24, 2010, 09:45:34 AM
If there is water, we have the ability. http://www.fact-index.com/l/lu/ludington_pumped_water_plant.html (http://www.fact-index.com/l/lu/ludington_pumped_water_plant.html)
"The Ludington pumped water plant is a hydroelectric plant and reservoir in Ludington, Michigan. It consists of a reservoir 110 feet deep, 2.5 miles long, and one mile wide which holds 27 billion gallons of water. The reservoir is located on the banks of Lake Michigan. The powerplant consists of six reversible turbines that can generate 1872 Mw of electricity.
At night, during low demand for electricity, the pumps force water 363 feet uphill from the lake into the reservoir. The plant takes advantage of the natural steep sand dune landform of eastern Lake Michigan. During periods of peak demand water is released to generate power. Electrical generation can begin within 2 minutes.
Where does the power come from the pump the water up into the reservoir?
Quote from: NorDog on March 24, 2010, 09:49:28 AM
Where does the power come from the pump the water up into the reservoir?
Coal fired plants. But the juice could come from anywhere. Point is, it is an energy storage facility. Pump when the wind blows, drain when it doesn't. I have no idea what the efficiency is. If you put one in AZ, the efficiency would be less because you would be loosing a lot to evaporation.
I wonder how many windmills it takes to pump 27 billion gallons of water up a 363 foot hill.
Quote from: cyrus buelton on March 24, 2010, 09:43:55 AM
Don't you mean Borophyll?
[laugh] [laugh] [laugh]
No... Chlorophyll. The thing that makes plants green. ;D
Quote from: NorDog on March 24, 2010, 07:41:57 AM
"you wouldnt need batteries to run cities, just buildings when you switch from one source to another"
I don't know what this means. Can you explain? Are you saying that each building needs its own Uniterrupted Power Supply?
yep, pretty much
as to storing spend nuclear fuel
that process is called vitrification
and it exists already as well
http://www.srs.gov/general/programs/solidification/index.htm (http://www.srs.gov/general/programs/solidification/index.htm)
Quote from: cyrus buelton on March 24, 2010, 09:43:55 AM
Another problem of mine.
We can fly a drone air craft in the Hindu Kush mountains from Washington DC and pin point fire ordinance into an object.
But we can't make some carrying container that if involved in an accident can't withstand impact?
again..........doesn't make sense.
We have.... for over 20 years:
Train Crash Test @ 160km/h (99.4 Miles) into 50 tonne Metal Block (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3iRu71PGDA&feature=related#)
Rocket Powered Train Inpact Test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_JhruRobRI#normal)
Two words: Bloom Box
Google it.
Quote from: rgramjet on March 24, 2010, 05:32:58 PM
Two words: Bloom Box
Google it.
That was a really interesting 60 Minutes piece! [thumbsup] Cool technology.
Quote from: Mother on March 24, 2010, 04:32:36 PM
as to storing spend nuclear fuel
that process is called vitrification
and it exists already as well
http://www.srs.gov/general/programs/solidification/index.htm (http://www.srs.gov/general/programs/solidification/index.htm)
Still have to put it somewhere.
Kind of off the subject of a green company:
One major problems with our grid is the inefficiency of the transport of the power once it's produced. If we could invent some form of transport that is more efficient we wouldn't need to produce as much power to begin with.
Can't remember off the top of my head, but I think we loose almost half of the energy produced once it is transported over line more than 100 miles. I'm sure those aren't the exact numbers, but I do remember being amazed at them when I read about it. I think they are trying to drop the temps of the lines to make them more efficient. But that in turn takes more power, negating the whole thing.
On subject:
"Green" is a marketing term imo. Companies I look up to use as little resources as possible to produce whatever their product is. Hell I have a "biodegradable" plastic cup that I got from Burgerville in portland in my compost pile. Damn thing has been there over a year and you could pull it out, wash it and use it again. So far it doesn't seem very biodegradable to me.
Quote from: Triple J on March 24, 2010, 05:59:06 PM
Still have to put it somewhere.
no
it's magically safe after glassification
we will put it in everyones homes
I hate this
<hangs head and deep sigh>
I have to agree with Jud
the only real "solution" is nuclear
and nordog is right about the unrealistic scam of "green" energy
by the time you build all the windtowers, wave generators, solorpanels, dams, etc etc, build a UPS for every building, all the switchgear and monitoring systems and subswystems for power switching when one source depletes and design a protocol to make it all work...even with a coal fire back up...it is economically unrealistic without a radical shift in current planetary wide politics and priorities.
maybe if we were the Federation and operated under the prime directive...
Let's continue this 'jack, shall we.
What many have been arguing in favor of for years is decentralizing power production. We have very efficient fuel cell technology. The Japanese and other Asian countries use it on a wide scale. All you need is water and natural gas and you have your own fuel cell. This is time tested technology. No transport loss. No more maintenance than your current furnace. You produce what you need. I've said this before but I know people that power their off the grid compounds, errr I mean ranches, with this type of technology.
I also agree nuclear is a viable alternative, but sheeple are so darn scared of it. You will see MUCH more nuclear and very soon. On the East Coast very few people realize how close they actually live to some nuclear facility that has never had an accident affecting the citizenry outside the plant.
Back on topic.
BEWARE of all labels - organic, green, sustainable, etc. - especially those not certified by a third, non-gov't party. Please see recent stink over organic labels where the USDA was pretty much handing them out to any farmer that smelled like patchouli......
I have done a ton of research in the use of green labels for seafood. In theory they work to fix "dirty" seafood. In practice, they rarely do ("dolphin safe" tuna is an exception). Trouble is, with the wide proliferation of these "green" labels, people quit paying attention. Soon these labels will be the equivalent of "NOW with a 30% shinier label" type marketing claptrap.
I think the best short term solution will be thorium nuclear power. Much safer than the current, less long term storage problems.
wired article about it:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/ (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/)
Quote from: angler on March 24, 2010, 09:45:34 AM
<snip>
Back on topic - Green Labels.
There is absolutely no regulatory authority about the use of "green" like there is for "organic" or "USDA prime." Buyer beware. Anybody can label themselves green for any reason.
You're incorrect on the organic thing.
The only term regulated is 'certified organic'...and even that might not be what you think.
Quote from: ducpainter on March 27, 2010, 01:21:55 PM
You're incorrect on the organic thing.
The only term regulated is 'certified organic'...and even that might not be what you think.
Hairs.....your splitting them. ;)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/USDA_organic_seal.svg/125px-USDA_organic_seal.svg.png)
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop)
This authority is supported by the National Organic Program (NOP), created in 2002 based on the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act. The certification is a process, not part of the label. As you see above, the label only says "USDA Organic." Actually, producers can use whatever label they want, but if they use any of the regulated words, they have to meet certain standards. NOP does not accredit producers directly but uses a number of private accrediting agents.
Organic Foods Production Act - http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5060370&acct=nopgeninfo (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5060370&acct=nopgeninfo) If you read the law, the law regulates the use of all sorts of terms including but not limited to; certified organic, organically produced, organic plan, organic, 100% organic etc.
"Labeling standards are based on the percentage of organic ingredients in a product. Products labeled "100 percent organic" must contain only organically produced ingredients. Products labeled "organic" must consist of at least 95 percent organically produced ingredients. Products meeting the requirements for "100 percent organic" and "organic" may display the USDA Organic seal. " (source = http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004443&acct=nopgeninfo (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004443&acct=nopgeninfo))
Organic Foods Production Act - http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5060370&acct=nopgeninfo (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5060370&acct=nopgeninfo)
I just got a new laptop, and one of the dozen stickers plastered on the top side said "Green Screen LED technology".
Then, you flip the laptop over, and on the bottom, there is a sticker that says "Do not dispose of in landfill, screen contains mercury"
[bang] [bang]
mitt
Quote from: angler on March 27, 2010, 01:54:44 PM
Hairs.....your splitting them. ;)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/USDA_organic_seal.svg/125px-USDA_organic_seal.svg.png)
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop)
This authority is supported by the National Organic Program (NOP), created in 2002 based on the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act. The certification is a process, not part of the label. As you see above, the label only says "USDA Organic." Actually, producers can use whatever label they want, but if they use any of the regulated words, they have to meet certain standards. NOP does not accredit producers directly but uses a number of private accrediting agents.
Organic Foods Production Act - http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5060370&acct=nopgeninfo (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5060370&acct=nopgeninfo) If you read the law, the law regulates the use of all sorts of terms including but not limited to; certified organic, organically produced, organic plan, organic, 100% organic etc.
"Labeling standards are based on the percentage of organic ingredients in a product. Products labeled "100 percent organic" must contain only organically produced ingredients. Products labeled "organic" must consist of at least 95 percent organically produced ingredients. Products meeting the requirements for "100 percent organic" and "organic" may display the USDA Organic seal. " (source = http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004443&acct=nopgeninfo (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004443&acct=nopgeninfo))
Organic Foods Production Act - http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5060370&acct=nopgeninfo (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5060370&acct=nopgeninfo)
I cannot comment on most of your post without breaking the rules. ;D
I used to be a certified organic grower in NH...
until the federal program was initiated.
Take that as you will. ;)
Quote from: ducpainter on March 27, 2010, 02:02:45 PM
I cannot comment on most of your post without breaking the rules. ;D
I used to be a certified organic grower in NH...
until the federal program was initiated.
Take that as you will. ;)
We are both correct. You say tomatoes, I say tomatoes (not as funny written down). That was my point. I don't doubt that the man had a problem with you calling yourself a "certified organic grower." The law regulates the production of inputs to other processes and the production of final consumer goods. It regulates what you can call yourself as a producer; certified organic grower or organic producer or other terms. It also regulates the label you can place on your product. As far as the label used on your product, you cannot use the words 100% organic or organic (referring to the ENTIRE product) or use the USDA label unless you have at least 95% organically produced (another regulated term) product therein.
Quote from: angler on March 27, 2010, 02:12:16 PM
We are both correct. You say tomatoes, I say tomatoes (not as funny written down). That was my point. I don't doubt that the man had a problem with you calling yourself a "certified organic grower." The law regulates the production of inputs to other processes and the production of final consumer goods. It regulates what you can call yourself as a producer; certified organic grower or organic producer or other terms. It also regulates the label you can place on your product. As far as the label used on your product, you cannot use the words 100% organic or organic (referring to the ENTIRE product) or use the USDA label unless you have at least 95% organically produced (another regulated term) product therein.
You misunderstand I believe.
The NH program was far more stringent than the federal regs and easily fell within the guidelines. I left the program because the standards as written now do not provide truly organic food to the consumer.
If I grow something now I can call it organic and have less pesticides (yes the federal program allows that) than a comparable USDA product may have.
The Green term, in my opinion, is a Public Relations Term. It really doesn't mean anything. At least not yet. And John Deere sells tools. That's it. They have no control over who uses what for what. If you manufacture weapons, is it your fault when someone shoots someone else? What about baseball bats, if someone caves someone elses head in, are you at fault?
Organic means more expensive, smaller, nastier fruit, fruit and vegetables with bugs in it, and hippies.
Joe Rogan sucks.
Quote from: Preisker on March 28, 2010, 08:55:47 AM
The Green term, in my opinion, is a Public Relations Term. It really doesn't mean anything. At least not yet. And John Deere sells tools. That's it. They have no control over who uses what for what. If you manufacture weapons, is it your fault when someone shoots someone else? What about baseball bats, if someone caves someone elses head in, are you at fault?
Organic means more expensive, smaller, nastier fruit, fruit and vegetables with bugs in it, and hippies.
Joe Rogan sucks.
Monsanto man eh?
No, not particularly. Go to Current.com for the anti Monsanto threads.
Quote from: Preisker on March 29, 2010, 04:40:37 PM
No, not particularly. Go to Current.com for the anti Monsanto threads.
I don't care to.
You seem to want to bash organic food and hippies though.
Isn't there a forum somewhere for that?
Quote from: ducpainter on March 30, 2010, 03:23:53 AM
You seem to want to bash organic food and hippies though.
You say that like its a Bad thing??
;D
Quote from: ducpainter on March 30, 2010, 03:23:53 AM
I don't care to.
You seem to want to bash organic food and hippies though.
Isn't there a forum somewhere for that?
Probably, but screw them....
the real problem in the modern era is the unchecked proliferation of those farking stripe-shirted Mimes
Quote from: RAT900 on March 30, 2010, 03:47:31 AM
Probably, but screw them....
the real problem in the modern era is the unchecked proliferation of those farking stripe-shirted Mimes
I know one of those guys...
you'd like him.
Quote from: ducpainter on March 30, 2010, 04:01:02 AM
I know one of those guys...
you'd like him.
I do maintain a standing "exception clause" w/r/t humans....but it is a time consuming process to invoke it
Quote from: RAT900 on March 30, 2010, 04:30:02 AM
I do maintain a standing "exception clause" w/r/t humans....but it is a time consuming process to invoke it
gross generalizations can be problematic
hence the exception clause...
unfortunately the human species tends to confirm, more often than it surprises
but that pours into the glass half-full or half-empty question...
or better posed "what is the inherent nature of man?"
The inherent nature of man...
shelter/warmth/food/water/mate
by whatever means necessary
The nature of man? That is a profoundly philosophical and theological question, the answers to which can be many and contentious.
I would venture here that man is primarily a rational, yet flawed, being with an immortal destiny.
Oh, and to borrow from the bard, a piece of work.
Quote from: Mother on March 30, 2010, 06:10:59 AM
The inherent nature of man...
shelter/warmth/food/water/mate
by whatever means necessary
you forgot destroy. Sometimes it's a tool to achieve the above but sometimes it's just because it's our nature and nothing more.