European nations agree on offshore North Sea electric grid

[RandomGuy]

European legislators are placing a lot of hope on off shore wind farms Ministers from 10 European countries bordering the North Sea have agreed the construction of a new offshore electricity grid.

The grid will link countries across Europe and make it much easier for member states to trade energy.

It will also simplify the exploitation of the 140 Gigawatt offshore windfarm currently being planned in the North Sea.

Analysts say Europe needs offshore wind farms to meet emissions targets.

The Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the governments of the UK, Ireland, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.

The new grid would be used to connect European grids to a large offshore windfarm currently in planning for the North Sea. The project is part of a concerted effort by the European Union to live up to its emissions targets and integrate the energy infrastructure.

One such cooperation is already in place. Norway and the Netherlands use so-called "high-voltage direct-current" links to pump energy back and forth between the two countries.

Another project currently under consideration is Desertec. This proposal, launched by a German consortium is aimed at putting a large number of solar energy modules into North Africa. These are then connected to European electricity grids.

The North Sea grid is a highly ambitious project but could prove an important boost to countries whose location gives them an excess of solar or wind energy.

[boutons_deux]

China's dominating in solar panels,

Europe is going nuts going green,

while the USA is just nuts, dominated by carbon companies lying about global warming, oil depletion, CO2 pollution, and dominating the political class.

[TeyshaBlue]

China's dominating in solar panels,

Europe is going nuts going green,

while the USA is just nuts, dominated by carbon companies lying about global warming, oil depletion, CO2 pollution, and dominating the political class.

http://www.audioandanarchy.com/images/smilies/fack.png

[boutons_deux]

Can't refute, so post a smiley.

[Wild Cobra]

China's dominating in solar panels,

Europe is going nuts going green,

while the USA is just nuts, dominated by carbon companies lying about global warming, oil depletion, CO2 pollution, and dominating the political class.
The only people lying about global warming are those saying it's mostly anthropogenic, cause by CO2. Most of it is natural.

[RandomGuy]

The only people lying about global warming are those saying it's mostly anthropogenic, cause by CO2. Most of it is natural.

The only people lying about global warming are those saying it's mostly natural, not caused by CO2. Most of it is human-caused.

Wheee, that was fun.

[Wild Cobra]

The only people lying about global warming are those saying it's mostly natural, not caused by CO2. Most of it is human-caused.

Wheee, that was fun.
But you can only back that up with other people's answers, who don't show their methodology.

[TeyshaBlue]

Can't refute, so post a smiley.

How can I refute flawed summaries like that? The US is making a fair amount of headway in renewables. Of course, you can't see it.:rolleyes

You need to form your very own tautology club.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/honor_societies.png


But I will leave you with this:

http://images.angelpub.com/2010/05/3887/wind-power-rankings.jpg


Hey, keep arguing tho. You're just not very good at it.:lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

Oh and:

http://www.audioandanarchy.com/images/smilies/fack.png

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Oh and:

http://www.audioandanarchy.com/images/smilies/fack.png

Determining Russian role in this will allow us to see the real political angle. They are trying to inter link europe with them in regards to energy via the north sea. If russia is involved chalk up yet another victory for those fucks.

[CosmicCowboy]

Determining Russian role in this will allow us to see the real political angle. They are trying to inter link europe with them in regards to energy via the north sea. If russia is involved chalk up yet another victory for those fucks.

Russia won't get involved if they can't steal from it.

[RandomGuy]

Oh and:

http://www.audioandanarchy.com/images/smilies/fack.png

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1317

[RandomGuy]

Oh and:

http://www.audioandanarchy.com/images/smilies/fack.png

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1316

[TeyshaBlue]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1316

That's my fav...that and the Jesus facepalm.:toast.

[MannyIsGod]

The biggest problem I have with America is the per capita energy expenditure. Its insane how much energy we use.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The biggest problem I have with America is the per capita energy expenditure. Its insane how much energy we use.

Yeah but its a dead end street politically. It will not ebb until the market forces demand to decrease. Hopefully some new abundant form of energy is discovered.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah but its a dead end street politically. It will not ebb until the market forces demand to decrease. Hopefully some new abundant form of energy is discovered.

The sun puts out more energy in two seconds than humanity has, thus far, ever used.

It would be possible, if a long-term project, to build massive solar power stations hundreds of miles across, using captured asteroid material, processed in orbiting facilities, and beam that power back to the planet. Solar power in space operates 24 hours a day.

[TeyshaBlue]

The sun puts out more energy in two seconds than humanity has, thus far, ever used.

It would be possible, if a long-term project, to build massive solar power stations hundreds of miles across, using captured asteroid material, processed in orbiting facilities, and beam that power back to the planet. Solar power in space operates 24 hours a day.

Yeah, plus it's a helluva way to make microwave popcorn!

Win/win!:lol

[Drachen]

That's my fav...that and the Jesus facepalm.:toast.

Jesus facepalm is far and away the best. I almost fell out of my chair when I saw it. Oh, and while I think that the US is making more headway in this area than is presently thought, but I would still like to see the graph above in a kwh/capita form. Plus, we need to fund the heck outta research so we aren't just buying Chinese solar panels.

[TeyshaBlue]

Jesus facepalm is far and away the best. I almost fell out of my chair when I saw it. Oh, and while I think that the US is making more headway in this area than is presently thought, but I would still like to see the graph above in a kwh/capita form. Plus, we need to fund the heck outta research so we aren't just buying Chinese solar panels.

Per capita's a toughie because so much depends on transmission infrastructure. I wonder if energy subscribers would be more revealing?

And agreed on emphasizing research funding..esp in Photovoltaics.

[Drachen]

Per capita's a toughie because so much depends on transmission infrastructure. I wonder if energy subscribers would be more revealing?

And agreed on emphasizing research funding..esp in Photovoltaics.

Yes, and to be clear, as far as per capita numbers, I was meaning kwh produced per capita as opposed as used. This is more to get an idea of where each country ranks on a level playing field.

Honestly (and I know I am shifting just a bit from my post above), I feel that the very first thing we should do would be to upgrade all of the transmission infrastructure first. I don't know the numbers, but if we can upgrade and lose 10% less in transmission, then this makes sense before adding more production. Adding more production without upgrading transmission capabilities means we are just losing more total output and spinning our wheels faster.

[boutons_deux]

"upgrade all of the transmission infrastructure first."

America is bankrupt, and Americans want a free lunch infrastructure, anyway.

Somehow, they figure public schools, sewers, water, electricity, police, fire, roads, bridges are already over-paid for and need no maintenance or expansion.

[TeyshaBlue]

*sigh* Yes, boutons. Thank you so much for your enlightened post.:rolleyes

[Drachen]

"upgrade all of the transmission infrastructure first."

America is bankrupt, and Americans want a free lunch infrastructure, anyway.

Somehow, they figure public schools, sewers, water, electricity, police, fire, roads, bridges are already over-paid for and need no maintenance or expansion.

Maybe if the VRWC, Oilcos and the MIC would quit flexing their corrupt muscles and lining the pockets of our "elected" officials then we could get rid of the two unfunded wars and focus our attention on projects which would end our over reliance on fossil fuels. It doesn't matter though, this country is DEAD while the rich are filling their accounts with the blood of the poor!!!!




(how was that? probably not angry or hyperbolic enough was it?

[MannyIsGod]

Per capita's a toughie because so much depends on transmission infrastructure. I wonder if energy subscribers would be more revealing?

And agreed on emphasizing research funding..esp in Photovoltaics.

Our transmission infrastructure is so spread out because we as Americans love to be spread out. Its a luxury issue that raises our per capita usage in many ways but especially increased transportation costs and transmission loss.

As energy gets more expensive it hurts us more than it hurts any other country on the planet. That is something that we should have been extremely candid about.

EDIT: Decentralization of our cities has been fueled by real estate developers. Why build upwards when I can sell you this new development instead? The "American dream" where every family owns a home in subrbia has played a big role as well.

You know, basically the same forces that have caused our recent economic trouble. Pretty amazing how many things it can fuck up. Although to be fair the decentralization has been happening since Henry Ford's nice little vehicle came around.

[TeyshaBlue]

Our transmission infrastructure is so spread out because we as Americans love to be spread out. Its a luxury issue that raises our per capita usage in many ways but especially increased transportation costs and transmission loss.

As energy gets more expensive it hurts us more than it hurts any other country on the planet. That is something that we should have been extremely candid about.

Agreed....Our lack of urbanization is a huge issue for this country. At other times, it was a strength. We, as a country, failed miserably to plan accordingly.


*edit*

Thoughtful edit, Manny. One can argue the American Dream was born well before the advent of real estate developers tho...hell it was practically codified by "Go West, Young Man."

[TeyshaBlue]

Maybe if the VRWC, Oilcos and the MIC would quit flexing their corrupt muscles and lining the pockets of our "elected" officials then we could get rid of the two unfunded wars and focus our attention on projects which would end our over reliance on fossil fuels. It doesn't matter though, this country is DEAD while the rich are filling their accounts with the blood of the poor!!!!




(how was that? probably not angry or hyperbolic enough was it?

You get a +10 for style points. However, missing was the odd misspelling.:toast

[boutons_deux]

"failed miserably to plan accordingly"

so now you're FOR a federal govt central demographic planner?

230M "urban" and 70M "rural"

How is this a failure? USA urbanization continues at about 1.3%/year, which is probably asymptotic, ie, what we have in urban/rural split is probably what we'll always have.

Electric transmission grid is sparse because urban centers are sparse. The USA is comparatively, effectively EMPTY, SPARSE vs, eg, Europe.

Rural electric and telephone cooperatives are of course socialism, redistributing/confiscating urban tax dollars to rural areas, but, shhh, don't tell all those gun-totin, socialist-hatin red-state hicks living out in the sticks.

[boutons_deux]

*sigh* Yes, boutons. Thank you so much for your enlightened post.:rolleyes

Thank you. You're one of few who sincerely appreciate my enlightening contributions.

For rest, it's Pearls Before Swine.

[TeyshaBlue]

"failed miserably to plan accordingly"

so now you're FOR a federal govt central demographic planner?

230M "urban" and 70M "rural"

How is this a failure? USA urbanization continues at about 1.3%/year, which is probably asymptotic, ie, what we have in urban/rural split is probably what we'll always have.

Electric transmission grid is sparse because urban centers are sparse. The USA is comparatively, effectively EMPTY, SPARSE vs, eg, Europe.

Rural electric and telephone cooperatives are of course socialism, redistributing/confiscating urban tax dollars to rural areas, but, shhh, don't tell all those gun-totin, socialist-hatin red-state hicks living out in the sticks.

What are you babbling about now? Just trying to figure out a way to work another, tired, "red-state/bubba-gun/hick" statement in again? It's uber effective when you do it every...fucking...post.:rolleyes
Infrastructure is one of the absolute legitimate duties of the Fed.

[MannyIsGod]

Agreed....Our lack of urbanization is a huge issue for this country. At other times, it was a strength. We, as a country, failed miserably to plan accordingly.


*edit*

Thoughtful edit, Manny. One can argue the American Dream was born well before the advent of real estate developers tho...hell it was practically codified by "Go West, Young Man."

Oh sure. I think its unrealistic and stupid to expect all of America to remain empty. I just think the decentralization of cities is what really hurts. Unlike places in New England and the Mid Atlantic that developed prior to automobiles, cities such as San Antonio and Los Angeles are complete urban sprawl nightmares that require much more energy (per capita).

I'm biased when I look at this because even for non practical reasons I hate suburbia, I hate the generic shopping centers, and I basically hate the complete lack of original personality you see in almost all modern cookie cutter development.

[boutons_deux]

Infrastructure is one of the absolute legitimate duties of the Fed.

so, bubba, why is Texas running its own electric grid, and multi-state regions run their own grids?

and why is the grid so terribly run down and creaky?

Because nobody wants to pay. It's free lunch time, all the time.

We know from dubys's FERC, that it's toothless, politicized lap dog to the energy industry. Enron and El Paso, anyone?

[TeyshaBlue]

so, bubba, why is Texas running its own electric grid, and multi-state regions run their own grids?

and why is the grid so terribly run down and creaky?

Because nobody wants to pay. It's free lunch time, all the time.

We know from dubay's FERC, that it's toothless, politicized lap dog to the energy industry. Enron and El Paso, anyone?

So bubba, who are you arguing with now? Oh, I see. Another dubya shot. What ever gets you through the night, bubba.

I maintain that infrastructure is a legitimate function of the Federal Govt. I didn't say they are doing or have done a bang up job of it re: electrical transmission.

[RandomGuy]

Thank you. You're one of few who sincerely appreciate my enlightening contributions.

For rest, it's Pearls Before Swine.

My favorite comic strip. :toast

[RandomGuy]

Oh sure. I think its unrealistic and stupid to expect all of America to remain empty. I just think the decentralization of cities is what really hurts. Unlike places in New England and the Mid Atlantic that developed prior to automobiles, cities such as San Antonio and Los Angeles are complete urban sprawl nightmares that require much more energy (per capita).

I'm biased when I look at this because even for non practical reasons I hate suburbia, I hate the generic shopping centers, and I basically hate the complete lack of original personality you see in almost all modern cookie cutter development.

I dunno, when I was looking around on transportation topics for something I ran across an interesting article that says mass transit isn't all that more efficient than individual cars, simply due to the fact that they don't always run at full capacity. It made me think. Probably a topic worth reading a bit more, to be sure. I would like to see a solid study on it before really committing a lot of $$$.

[MannyIsGod]

I dunno, when I was looking around on transportation topics for something I ran across an interesting article that says mass transit isn't all that more efficient than individual cars, simply due to the fact that they don't always run at full capacity. It made me think. Probably a topic worth reading a bit more, to be sure. I would like to see a solid study on it before really committing a lot of $$$.

I'd like to see the context but I can bet the study was done in American cities. I'd be shocked if that was the case in places such as Mexico City, Asian cities, or European cities.

[RandomGuy]

I'd like to see the context but I can bet the study was done in American cities. I'd be shocked if that was the case in places such as Mexico City, Asian cities, or European cities.

I was kind of taken aback, as they did talk about the heavy subsidies that European countries give rail transit.

It was good to read something that contradicted my own established thinking.

One could argue, quite validly, that we heavily subsidize car traffic through the building and maintenance of roads capable of handling large numbers of vehicles.

It is a much more complex problem than it might seem on the surface. One of the reasons I like studying it. :)

(goes off to see if he can find the paper/website)

[MannyIsGod]

We absolutely subsidize automobile traffic here. Big roads my make money in the long run, but there is no way in hell the network of smaller roads can be dubbed anything but subsidized.

There are other examples as well (ie military protection of our oil supply).

However, that argument is completely forgotten in the mass transit debate. In any event, I'd like to see the study if you can find it. Mass Transit in the US always requires subsidy except in places like New York but I'd like to see the context of their conclusion.

[RandomGuy]

Probably the best, most straightforward is one of my favs, The Straight Dope

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2917/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy


On the face of it, then, transit currently offers no energy advantage over cars except in the handful of cities with heavy rail — and not all of those. (Chicago's an outlier.) Estimates of auto efficiency vary depending on how many passengers you assume they're carrying, so I won't say transit is an energy loser. Instead I'll agree with O'Toole: from an energy perspective, transit vs. cars is pretty much a wash.

So what's the basis for the claim in the 2007 APTA study that transit use saves gasoline? The key word is gasoline — or more broadly, petroleum. Rail transit commonly runs on electricity; relatively little electricity is generated using oil. If all passengers in electric transit vehicles had to ride in cars, we'd use a lot more gasoline. No claim is made about energy use overall.

Is this a silly distinction? No, and it's here we get to the heart of the matter. The real issue isn't energy efficiency or foreign oil dependence. The fundamental problem is that petroleum is sure to be scarcer in coming decades and alternative energy sources will have to be developed. Many of the obvious ones (wind, solar, nuclear) are best suited to producing electricity. Transit electrification is well understood. Electric cars, not so much. Will we all be scooting around town in high-tech golf carts in 20 years? Maybe. But don't count on cruising at 80 miles per hour in your battery-powered SUV.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html
http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/smart-takes/without-ridership-public-transit-fails-at-energy-efficiency/12623/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation

Personally, I think the average US city just doesn't have the density currently to make mass transit a runaway winner.

That will change as oil gets more and more expsensive, relative to alternatives. Again, I point back to Mr. Adam's quote at the beginning of this post.

We will be forced to change our habits/methods of transit by sheer economic reality.

[RandomGuy]

Note:

To expand a bit on Cecil Adam's point about "Transit electrification" many trolley systems use electrical power. Distributed photovoltaic would be an excellent way to provide this, and the energy recovery from braking is also a big plus in my book.

[boutons_deux]

so a regional/light rail electric train/underground with 2000 passengers uses same energy that 2000 people in 2000 cars?

[Drachen]

so a regional/light rail electric train/underground with 2000 passengers uses same energy that 2000 people in 2000 cars?

No the point is that due to lack of uptake, a regional/light rail electric train/underground with the capacity for 2000 uses about the same amount of energy per passenger as 2000 cars.

[CosmicCowboy]

I dunno, when I was looking around on transportation topics for something I ran across an interesting article that says mass transit isn't all that more efficient than individual cars, simply due to the fact that they don't always run at full capacity. It made me think. Probably a topic worth reading a bit more, to be sure. I would like to see a solid study on it before really committing a lot of $$$.

My business is downtown and I have virtually empty VIA buses driving by at least every five minutes. THATS fucking efficient.

[MannyIsGod]

RG I've pretty much been arguing that the population density we have in this country's cities makes us use more energy. I think what you linked backs that up.

[TeyshaBlue]

Probably the best, most straightforward is one of my favs, The Straight Dope

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2917/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy



http://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html
http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/smart-takes/without-ridership-public-transit-fails-at-energy-efficiency/12623/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation

Personally, I think the average US city just doesn't have the density currently to make mass transit a runaway winner.

That will change as oil gets more and more expsensive, relative to alternatives. Again, I point back to Mr. Adam's quote at the beginning of this post.

We will be forced to change our habits/methods of transit by sheer economic reality.

Wow...great post, RG. The conclusion is as counter-intuitive as can be! The distinction between petroleum and electric is telling. Thanks for the post, amigo.:toast

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah, plus it's a helluva way to make microwave popcorn!

Win/win!:lol
Why not the use the witricity effect instead? Give the world free power.

[RandomGuy]

My business is downtown and I have virtually empty VIA buses driving by at least every five minutes. THATS fucking efficient.


RG I've pretty much been arguing that the population density we have in this country's cities makes us use more energy. I think what you linked backs that up.

As energy gets more expensive, it will cost more to commute. This will put pressure on people to collectively live closer to work. The upshot is that roads will not get more crowded, but also that city cores will become more "built up" and dense.

Some cities, Austin especially, have put a lot of effort into building dense within existing urban areas over building out ala Houston, this trend will increase due to the economics of energy, since, as you point out Manny, we are fairly inefficient in moving people around.

As CC noted, buses lose a lot of effeciency due to having to run nearly empty. This will change with the increases in density.

If I had money to invest in real estate speculation, I would buy land in run-down areas near urban centers. We are already seeing the beginning of the process of build out in East Austin that I know of, with poorer people being bought out by people wanting to live closer to work. I think that is indicative of a wider and continuing trend we will see increasingly over the next 20 years.

Money in real estate used to be made by anticipating where a city will grow outward first and buying up farmland. That, like everything, will change.

[Wild Cobra]

As density increases, places for children decline, and we end up with more troubled children, gangs, crime, etc.

We need more cities perhaps. Not more density.

[RandomGuy]

One other striking thing I noted during my reading was how efficient small motorcycles or bicycles are.

Encourage density and usage of those two modes of transportation, and you can spend money on things other than replacing cars every few years. THAT process uses up massive amounts of energy.

Moving away from importing a lot of cars would also have the twofold effect of making our trade imbalance much smaller. Less imported oil and less imported cars.

The Chinese used to have this model, but have moved to cars with no real emission controls. Every day they add tens of thousands of new drivers.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/images/2008/01/24/beijing_smog.jpg(that is not fog, folks)

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/images/2008/01/24/beijing_smog.jpg(that is not fog, folks)
Cameras see what the human eye doesn't. Without the right filters, you capture images and effects not seen by the naked eye.

I'll bet that it is a humid day, and the camera is capturing the greenhouse effect, or there is enough ultraviolet scattering in the humidity to look that way.

Ever take the same photo, minutes apart, with and without UV filters?

Where was that picture taken anyway? If it really is what the eye sees, it must be someplace like Asia. I have talked about them burning coal without adequate pollution controls.

[RandomGuy]

As density increases, places for children decline, and we end up with more troubled children, gangs, crime, etc.

We need more cities perhaps. Not more density.

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID43585/images/DebbieDownerRachaelDratch.jpg

Good urban planning includes places for children. Parks, playgrounds, museums.

City planners who work for government (gasp) know to include stuff like this, although Austin's build up seems to have been targeted at people without kids, i.e. hipsters/retirees.

[Drachen]

One other striking thing I noted during my reading was how efficient small motorcycles or bicycles are.

Encourage density and usage of those two modes of transportation, and you can spend money on things other than replacing cars every few years. THAT process uses up massive amounts of energy.

Moving away from importing a lot of cars would also have the twofold effect of making our trade imbalance much smaller. Less imported oil and less imported cars.

The Chinese used to have this model, but have moved to cars with no real emission controls. Every day they add tens of thousands of new drivers.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/images/2008/01/24/beijing_smog.jpg(that is not fog, folks)

I love my motorcycles... and as to the first article you posted, I see no reason that motorcycles are not a valid commuter for suburbia, especially in a southern city like san antonio.

[Wild Cobra]

Good urban planning includes places for children. Parks, playgrounds, museums.

City planners who work for government (gasp) know to include stuff like this, although Austin's build up seems to have been targeted at people without kids, i.e. hipsters/retirees.
But how many kids have a park they can walk to, that their parents will let them go to alone?

Planning on paper is not the same as real life.

[TeyshaBlue]

I love my motorcycles... and as to the first article you posted, I see no reason that motorcycles are not a valid commuter for suburbia, especially in a southern city like san antonio.

I'm a bike guy, but riding on I635 up here in DFW is vehicular suicide.:depressed

[RandomGuy]

Cameras see what the human eye doesn't. Without the right filters, you capture images and effects not seen by the naked eye.

I'll bet that it is a humid day, and the camera is capturing the greenhouse effect, or there is enough ultraviolet scattering in the humidity to look that way.

Ever take the same photo, minutes apart, with and without UV filters?

Where was that picture taken anyway?

Check the URL, it is Beijing apparently.

Or

http://vort.org/media/images/smog_over_tienanmen.png

click here to get a google image search for "chinese smog pictures" (http://www.google.com/images?q=picture+chinese+smog&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=96b-TMT6BYH7lwfT4r27CA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=2&ved=0CCcQsAQwAQ&biw=1198&bih=692)

or

Know that the most polluted cities on earth are all in China, and probably places you haven't heard of. I can provide ample links to this, if you want.

It is very bad.


Pollution May Cancel Out China's Economic Growth (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12638591)


Much has been made of China's dazzling economic growth, but when the negative effects of China's pollution are factored in, the growth rate is less impressive.

The Chinese government has calculated that the effects of pollution wiped out $67 billion, or 3 percent of the nation's GDP, in 2004.

The World Bank calculates that pollution costs China about 5.8 percent of GDP every year.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/06/eveningnews/main2895653.shtml


A total of 16 of the world’s top 20 most polluted cities are in china. No. 1 on the World Bank list is Linfen City in Shanxi Province, China.

The province, which is known for its coal industry, stood out on the list.

A Chinese watchdog group, in a separate list, included two other Shanxi cities: Yangquan and Datong. Others included: Shizuishan in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, Sanmenxia in Henan Province, Jinchang in Gansu Province, Shijiazhuang in Hebei Province, Xianyang in Shaanxi Province, Zhuzhou in Hunan Province and Luoyang in Henan Province.

Beijing is listed at number 28 out of 113 on the Chinese list.

It may be a trick of the camera for any given picture, but en masse, they probably are more accurate than one might think.


http://www.arthurshall.com/images/2007_images/smog.jpg

[RandomGuy]

But how many kids have a park they can walk to, that their parents will let them go to alone?

Planning on paper is not the same as real life.

Planning for pedestrian/bicycle friendly places does indeed take place on paper. :lol

Kids have been living in cities as long as there has been cities.

At some point you have to figure that kids can take care of themselves, and worrying over every minute of their lives is silly. But that is a whole other conversation. :p:

[Drachen]

I'm a bike guy, but riding on I635 up here in DFW is vehicular suicide.:depressed

This is where the superior agility of bikes comes in handy. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Check the URL, it is Beijing apparently.

.
.
.
.
.

It may be a trick of the camera for any given picture, but en masse, they probably are more accurate than one might think.


http://www.arthurshall.com/images/2007_images/smog.jpg
Yes, I agree they are close to real life shots. The camera will still add some hazing without proper filtering. You can get hazing on film that is completely invisible/clear to the naked eyes.

That said, haven't I pointed out the pollution issue/black carbon from Asia as the primary culprit to the melting if ice in the northern hemisphere?

You see that level of smog in the less advanced countries. Not in the USA. We have people wanting to harm our economy with carbon credits when it's other nations that need to clean up their act. Mexico city is also really bad.

[Wild Cobra]

Planning for pedestrian/bicycle friendly places does indeed take place on paper. :lol

That's not what I menat. I mean the reality of planning seldom is achieved.


Kids have been living in cities as long as there has been cities.

Yes, but there ised to be haouses with yard, not apartments that want kids to stay off the little grass there is.

Years ago, I lived in Beaverton, OR, real near the city center. We has a three bedroom house on a nice lot. A large field behind the house. The whole area is now nothing but apartments.


At some point you have to figure that kids can take care of themselves, and worrying over every minute of their lives is silly. But that is a whole other conversation. :p:

yes, it is. My point stands that kids cannot play like the did years ago. Increasing population density is not a good thing for kids. Anyone interesting in fostering good behavior in children knows a large area to play in is a necessity.

[RandomGuy]

You see that level of smog in the less advanced countries. Not in the USA. We have people wanting to harm our economy with carbon credits when it's other nations that need to clean up their act. Mexico city is also really bad.

1) Smog is not carbon, generally. It is a mix of stuff, as you already know.

2) The US has the highest per capita carbon emissions of any major industrialized country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_ capita

Carbon credits won't harm the economy, it will help it. I can, and have already made the case for that.

[RandomGuy]

Increasing population density is not a good thing for kids.

Prove it.

I want something better than your 99.99999% certainty, I want something that corroborates that statement even mildly.

[Wild Cobra]

1) Smog is not carbon, generally. It is a mix of stuff, as you already know.

2) The US has the highest per capita carbon emissions of any major industrialized country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_ capita

Carbon credits won't harm the economy, it will help it. I can, and have already made the case for that.
Smog in the USA no. CO2, yes, but it is invisible, and not a component of smog.

How is taxing most energy related usage helping this nation? Do you realize the cost effect that will have with supply and demand forces? Prices rise sharply as supply diminishes, then the poor are left without.

[Wild Cobra]

Prove it.

I want something better than your 99.99999% certainty, I want something that corroborates that statement even mildly.
How do I relate my experience on this topic over the span of my life? My God man. It's very clear to anyone who has witnessed urban growth.

[MannyIsGod]

No one cares about your personal experiences. We want proof. This is your safety net when you can't prove shit. I need only pull up the wind energy thread to provide another glaring example.

[Wild Cobra]

No one cares about your personal experiences. We want proof. This is your safety net when you can't prove shit. I need only pull up the wind energy thread to provide another glaring example.
I'm sorry if you haven't lived enough years to witness it yourself.

I understand. You are do dumb, if I cant find it on the internet, it just isn't true.

Bye moore-on.

[RandomGuy]

Smog in the USA no. CO2, yes, but it is invisible, and not a component of smog.

How is taxing most energy related usage helping this nation? Do you realize the cost effect that will have with supply and demand forces? Prices rise sharply as supply diminishes, then the poor are left without.

How does the libertarian argument go?

"They are poor because of their choices. All they have to do is take responsibility for themselves and they won't be poor."

Full speed ahead.

[RandomGuy]

I'm sorry if you haven't lived enough years to witness it yourself.

I understand. You are do dumb, if I cant find it on the internet, it just isn't true.

Bye moore-on.

The internet has become the repository of all human knowledge.

If you can't find it on the internet, then the chances of it being true fall markedly.

I'm not about to take a public policy stand based on your personal experiences, sorry.

Either you can support your assertion with something approaching a reasonable argument or actual data, or we can discard it as false.

I see little reason why city planning, which is a professional discipline, can't take into account places for children to play. The very existance of parks with playgrounds seems to run counter to your assertion.

[MannyIsGod]

I never said anything bout it having to be on the internet. I asked for proof. Apparently you believe your perceptions to be infallible proof. I'm quite sure nobody else does.