Green Energy in Hammond oh my

Posts : 18

http://nwi.com/articles/2009/01/31/news/lake_county/docdc092982cd8b9ae88625754f00102115.txt

Green technology (wind, solar, bio, water,ect.) will expand not eliminate traditional energy productions needs, it will allow other undeveloped country to meet their countries energy needs by reducing cost constraints that keeps energy cost out of reach of others around world.
Future energy job market will also open other energy producing techniques; and they too will expand the energy market place further.
As far as up front cost; yes there is a up hill cost curves involved but with any new entry into the market place those cost come down as markets adjust to supply/ demand, needs verses wants; which will establishes a base cost to consumers.
As far as the pay off to home owners, small businessmen and women; picture pocketing 30, 40, and 50%, of the money you are now spending heating your home or office.
Let me put it this way “More people with more of their own hard earn dollars back in their pocket, that is something most consumers would gladly get behind; It would definitely stimulate our economy and put the U.S.A back in the energy ex-port game.On the flip side
Consumer spending has always been and will always be the back bone of any successful economy,reducing cost to American consumers is the key to any economic turn around.

http://nwi.com/articles/2009/01/31/news/lake_county/docdc092982cd8b9ae88625754f00102115.txt

Posts : 3993

I agree, but I have one question: During the trials and tribulations of your day,

Is there any way, any way, you can explain to me why

Our country is fighting in Iraq, spending the money to bring them democracy, while they share no profits from the oil they produce to rebuild their country? Why are we supplying, paying for everything, while they pocket the oil revenues? Just a thought.

It seems we are suffering trying to help other nations, giving out money we borrow to save "THEM". Yet, they have the revenue to self-sustain themselves, build schools, infrastracture, but we put our soldiers there in harms way, and we don't demand they pay for us helping them?

There is a line to be drawn, and it's not been drawn..and now we're heading for Afghanistan. Where in the world is there relief for us in the USA?

You can talk green in our faces all you want, but compare car emissions to what is being expended in the atmosphere in Iraq, Gaza, whatever. We're just a drop in the bucket if those other countries can't be educated enough to believe you can live a life instead of take a life. Non of this makes sense to me. We're the drop in the bucket unless the whole world joins us. We're all talk until then. We can do our part, but with all the bombs, the whatever, it's useless. The US and Canada can do everything right, but until the rest of the world participates, it's useless.

We can't even control the emissions from the steelmills in Northwest Indiana..and we expect GREEN to take place? The politicians dominate whether or not the EPA can step in, take the money away, and yet, make those people who can't afford modern day cars or fix their cars to pass emission tests, and yet we don't trust our water, we can't prevent flooding, all of it due to bureaucracy. Politicians that don't have to worry about anything but if their drivers show up with Limos and bodyguards.

So, who really cares about the world we live in? Only the ones that care about leaving enough behind to help their kids step up to the plate to replace their ideas and past down their legacy. That is all of what it's about.

The ordinary taxpayer worring about borrowing money for food, medicine, and how to get there, are the ones supporting the ones who were born with the silver spoon in their mouths. I know.. I know, because I saw two of them go down. Two I worked for. Private industry. I also worked for the gov't and quit cuz I didn't beieve in waste or their ethical ways. That was a bad move. I should have stayed and swallowed it, and next week would have had a life-time pension. But I went with my morales.

Nothing is going to take care of this country until they get rid of unnecessary, over the limit, politicians. Guess who hiring now days? The gov't. It doesn't take brains to get a job, either. You can now be a "Burris" and learn on the job training, such as when to stand up to speak, how the microphones work, and get crash courses from Obama's team. Geez, when I worked for the gov't I had to know what I needed to know at 22 years of age. This guy is 71? Did they have to bring a typewriter in for him?

Guest

Think not only green, but also self-sufficient.
With all the talk about plug-in hybrid vehicles (and they're on the way) we need to move away from reliance on centralized production facilities that can't handle the load and are vulnerable to attack, after all, where will the power for the new cars come from? Right now the only viable large scale production methods are fossil fuel (coal, oil, gas), nuclear, and hydro, all of which are not acceptable to various groups for various reasons. What does that leave? Not much.
Decentralized production by the consumers is the future and we need to get moving now, not when it's too late like with the intermodal rail yard.

Posts : 312

I think the push for alternative fuel sources should be directed towards Hydrogen and whatever the price tag it is worth it

Posts : 18

I don’t pretend to have the answers as to why we intervene in different parts of the world but if we did nothing internationally it would shut down small democracies and world commerce within a few years; if that long.(my opinion only; yours might differ; as well as others:

What I have seen over the tenure of Democrat and Republican Presidents is that the United States has enter into very tangled agreements with world leaders that has caused us to deal with them from a very weak position, if we do not try to free ourselves from energy tyrants around the world it will be to our own detriment.

I agree that government is not the solution but with advancements in information sharing, bogging and search engines, we can be exposed to a lot of good information out there. I am an optimist and believe that with more information people armor up and they become more determine and push back against current political dogma.

As far as green technologies, we need to move forward; for our own sake. There are Americans all across this great land that are working on or testing and yes implementing green technology.
We don’t have to reinvent the wheel just go to your favorite search engine and look at what is happening with alternatives,we need to be smart about which ones work and which ones need further review.

:thanks:

Posts : 2214

I think that installing the windmills is a very good idea. It is also good to see that the city of Hammond hired an architect from Hammond for this project. Bill B made some good comments about the potential for adding solar panels and hot water heaters to homes. However, the only way to institute the type of change needed to create a greener future is for the state to adopt building codes which mandate energy efficiency into the design of new building and renovations. Hammond can also require that any new construction that the city undertakes are LEED (Leadership in Environment and Efficiency Design) certified. On the NWI boards, I had suggested that the new clubhouse at the Lost Marsh golf course be designed to LEED standards. From an environmental standpoint, the best solution to create a greener future is to design and build structures that use less energy.
Among the things that could have been incorporated into the Lost Marsh clubhouse but weren't, solar heat for hot water needs, solar panels for electrical needs, a windmill to generate power, geothermal heat pumps, high performance windows and super insulated walls. I would like to see board members spend less time adding comments to newspaper articles patting themselves on the back and more time educating themselves about how they can make the agencies they oversee more envoronmentally responsible.

Posts : 689

voter3 wrote:: I think the push for alternative fuel sources should be directed towards Hydrogen and whatever the price tag it is worth it

You are absolutely 100% right on the money! Hydrogen fuel cells would not only provide all of our energy needs, but provide a new source of water.

Posts : 689

Hydrogen Energy

Hydrogen is the simplest element. An atom of hydrogen consists of only one proton and one electron. It's also the most plentiful element in the universe. Despite its simplicity and abundance, hydrogen doesn't occur naturally as a gas on the Earth - it's always combined with other elements. Water, for example, is a combination of hydrogen and oxygen (H2O).

Hydrogen is also found in many organic compounds, notably the hydrocarbons that make up many of our fuels, such as gasoline, natural gas, methanol, and propane. Hydrogen can be separated from hydrocarbons through the application of heat - a process known as reforming. Currently, most hydrogen is made this way from natural gas. An electrical current can also be used to separate water into its components of oxygen and hydrogen. This process is known as electrolysis. Some algae and bacteria, using sunlight as their energy source, even give off hydrogen under certain conditions.
Hydrogen Energy: NASA uses hydrogen fuel to launch the space shuttles.

NASA uses hydrogen fuel to launch the space shuttles.

Hydrogen is high in energy, yet an engine that burns pure hydrogen produces almost no pollution. NASA has used liquid hydrogen since the 1970s to propel the space shuttle and other rockets into orbit. Hydrogen fuel cells power the shuttle's electrical systems, producing a clean byproduct - pure water, which the crew drinks.

A fuel cell combines hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity, heat, and water. Fuel cells are often compared to batteries. Both convert the energy produced by a chemical reaction into usable electric power. However, the fuel cell will produce electricity as long as fuel (hydrogen) is supplied, never losing its charge.

Fuel cells are a promising technology for use as a source of heat and electricity for buildings, and as an electrical power source for electric motors propelling vehicles. Fuel cells operate best on pure hydrogen. But fuels like natural gas, methanol, or even gasoline can be reformed to produce the hydrogen required for fuel cells. Some fuel cells even can be fueled directly with methanol, without using a reformer.

In the future, hydrogen could also join electricity as an important energy carrier. An energy carrier moves and delivers energy in a usable form to consumers. Renewable energy sources, like the sun and wind, can't produce energy all the time. But they could, for example, produce electric energy and hydrogen, which can be stored until it's needed. Hydrogen can also be transported (like electricity) to locations where it is needed.

Posts : 2214

The goal of any hot water system is to provide hot water on demand whenever it is needed. Thus, solar hot water systems also incorporate hot water tanks to supplement solar heat.

Posts : 689

sparks wrote:: The goal of any hot water system is to provide hot water on demand whenever it is needed. Thus, solar hot water systems also incorporate hot water tanks to supplement solar heat.

In the first place, if there are any environmentalists in this area, they will put the k-bosh on this entire project. Windmills in a migratory haven for birds and wildlife have priority over an experiment, which is exactly what this is. A $100,000 project to provide lighting for two toilet rooms. Not worth it. IF a windfarm was to be seriously considered, it should be constructed in the middle of Lake Michigan, build on a manmade island, where it's impact is negligible, and would take full advantage of any wind.

Posts : 2214

No, the hot water heater is added to most solar hot water heating systems to heat water when demand or darkness create conditions where the hot water being produced by the solar system is not hot enough to meet the user's needs.

Posts : 689

sparks wrote:: No, the hot water heater is added to most solar hot water heating systems to heat water when demand or darkness create conditions where the hot water being produced by the solar system is not hot enough to meet the user's needs.

OK, last time. There is NO SUCH THING as a hot water heater. It's a WATER HEATER!!!!!

Posts : 3993

I agree with the most intelligent poster, most informed poster and most educated: BWG.

Guest

Hydrogen will never catch on, because of the famous disaster in New Jersey involving hydrogen and a blimp

Posts : 2214

mike3775 wrote:: Hydrogen will never catch on, because of the famous disaster in New Jersey involving hydrogen and a blimp

Cars that use hydrogen cells have sensors that shut them down if they detect hydrogen leaks. I don't believe safety issues would stop them from being built. Hydrogen powered vehicles aren't a viable option at present because of the cost of the fuel cells and the lack of a nationwide refueling stations.

Guest

When I lived in California in 1998 Sparks, they wanted to use hydrogen and all the commercials against it showed the Hindenberg over and over, and guess what, people didn't care if they were safe, they think Hindenberg and all support is lost.

Hydrogen will never catch on, because even today, the people against it still use the hindenberg as a main reason to be against it, and even if it is proven safe, so was the Hindenberg. You know the Hindenberg was the only one to go up the way it did, and it killed the Blimps as a cross Atlantic means.

Posts : 2214

mike3775 wrote:: When I lived in California in 1998 Sparks, they wanted to use hydrogen and all the commercials against it showed the Hindenberg over and over, and guess what, people didn't care if they were safe, they think Hindenberg and all support is lost.

Hydrogen will never catch on, because even today, the people against it still use the hindenberg as a main reason to be against it, and even if it is proven safe, so was the Hindenberg. You know the Hindenberg was the only one to go up the way it did, and it killed the Blimps as a cross Atlantic means.

I understand your point. The same tactic has stalled the construction of any new nuclear power plants in this country. The news coverage about the Three Mile Island malfunction was nothing more than a media circus.
The fact is not one single member of the public has ever been hurt or killed by an accident involving radioactivity in any of our nuclear power plants.

Posts : 3520

Hydrogen won't catch on 'cause it still sucks as an alternative:

Quote :: More than 95 percent of U.S. hydrogen is made from natural gas, so running a car on hydrogen doesn't reduce net carbon dioxide emissions compared with a hybrid like the Prius running on gasoline. Okay, you say, can't hydrogen be made from carbon-free sources of power, like wind energy or nuclear? Sure, but so can electricity for electric cars. And this gets to the heart of why hydrogen cars would be the last car you would ever want to buy: they are wildly inefficient compared with electric cars.

Electric cars--and plug-in hybrid cars--have an enormous advantage over hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in utilizing low-carbon electricity. That is because of the inherent inefficiency of the entire hydrogen fueling process, from generating the hydrogen with that electricity to transporting this diffuse gas long distances, getting the hydrogen in the car, and then running it through a fuel cell--all for the purpose of converting the hydrogen back into electricity to drive the same exact electric motor you'll find in an electric car.

The total power-plant-to-wheels efficiency with which a hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle is likely to utilize low-carbon electricity is 20 to 25 percent--and the process requires purchasing several expensive pieces of hardware, including the electrolyzer and delivery infrastructure. The total efficiency of simply charging an onboard battery with the original low-carbon electricity, and then discharging the battery to run the electric motor in an electric car or plug-in, however, is 75 to 80 percent. That is, an electric car will travel three to four times farther on a kilowatt-hour of renewable or nuclear power than a hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle will.

Posts : 1545

We are in complete agreement about hydrogen as a discrete fuel. However, there is new hydrogen hybrid technology on the horizon.

Guest

sparks wrote:

mike3775 wrote:: When I lived in California in 1998 Sparks, they wanted to use hydrogen and all the commercials against it showed the Hindenberg over and over, and guess what, people didn't care if they were safe, they think Hindenberg and all support is lost.

Hydrogen will never catch on, because even today, the people against it still use the hindenberg as a main reason to be against it, and even if it is proven safe, so was the Hindenberg. You know the Hindenberg was the only one to go up the way it did, and it killed the Blimps as a cross Atlantic means.

I understand your point. The same tactic has stalled the construction of any new nuclear power plants in this country. The news coverage about the Three Mile Island malfunction was nothing more than a media circus.
The fact is not one single member of the public has ever been hurt or killed by an accident involving radioactivity in any of our nuclear power plants.

True on that. That put nuclear on life support int he US, but Chernobyl not only yanked the plug out of the socket, but pulled the power lines feeding that outlet as well.

I'm all for the new generation nuke plants that the rest of the world has been building(pebble style). The long rods are gone now, replaced by pebbles of uranium that are raised and lowered into a pool of water.

And like Heretic also pointed out, Hydrogen is poor, but those issues will never be brought up really, because of the Hindenberg disaster.

Electric cars have made vast improvements over the years, but when you have to plug it in to charge, thats where people have issues with, especially if they live in a place that has on street parking, no one wants to drag an extension cord across the yard to plug in the car

I am all for vehicles that do not need to use gas, just unfortunately, there is no real alternative right now, and there probably will not be for at least another 20 years or so, because of the price involved

Posts : 2214

Mike,
Toyota,GM and Chrysler all plan on selling electric cars in 2010 with Ford to follow in 2011. The Chinese are also planning an all electric vehicle to be sold here within two years.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/business/11electric.html?em

Guest

Gm recently announced they are putting the plant for the batteries(or engine) for the Volt on hold Sparks

Does not bode well for the GM version of the electric car

Posts : 2214

mike3775 wrote:: Gm recently announced they are putting the plant for the batteries(or engine) for the Volt on hold Sparks

Does not bode well for the GM version of the electric car

Mike, GM is delaying the construction of a plant in Flint that makes electric motors for the Volt. GM already has a plant in Austria that produces those motors. They are going to introduce the Volt in 2010.

Guest

sparks wrote:

mike3775 wrote:: Gm recently announced they are putting the plant for the batteries(or engine) for the Volt on hold Sparks

Does not bode well for the GM version of the electric car

Mike, GM is delaying the construction of a plant in Flint that makes electric motors for the Volt. GM already has a plant in Austria that produces
those motors. They are going to introduce the Volt in 2010.

Whats wrong with what you just posted Sparks?

A big 3 US AUTOMAKER getting an engine from Austria!!!

So much for GM being an AMERICAN company. Buy GM, send your cash to Austria.

Posts : 689

I can't believe you people equating hydrogen fuel cells with the Hindenburg!
Ever watch the History Channel?

» Hammond’s, Energy future.
» Hammond/Hammond Schools: Try Arguing with This....
» rda comes through for hammond
» SOS in Hammond on BLT OH MY!!!!!
» What do you want Hammond to be?