Wind Farms don’t Deliver but a new Gasoline Engine May

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 6th, 2011

During Peak Demand Wind Power Generated less than 5% of Capacity

Before President Obama banned U.S. deep water oil drilling he was for it.  But that support was only half-hearted.  More for political purposes.  Because he just doesn’t like oil.  And high gasoline prices don’t bother him either.  In fact, he likes them.  They’re more of an incentive for people to pay more for electric cars that don’t drive as far as those hated gasoline counterparts.  Which will please his liberal environmentalist base.  And please his crony capitalist Big Business friends who make green energy generation equipment.  To provide this huge new electrical demand to power all those electric cars.  Like General Electric.  Who builds a lot of green products.  Including windmills.

Renewable energy is all the rage in the Obama administration.  It’s the ‘in’ energy this season.  Clean.  High-tech.  Currently nonexistent so it will add a whole bunch of taxpayer subsidized jobs to the economy.  It’s win-win for the administration.  And best of all, for them, it doesn’t work (see Wind farm efficiency queried by John Muir Trust study posted 4/6/2011 on the BBC News Scotland).

The research, carried out by Stuart Young Consulting, analysed electricity generated from UK wind farms between November 2008 to December 2010

Statements made by the wind industry and government agencies commonly assert that wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year, it said.

But the research found wind generation was below 20% of capacity more than half the time and below 10% of capacity over one third of the time…

During each of the four highest peak demands of 2010, wind output reached just 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity, according to the analysis.

You know, there is a reason why ocean transports aren’t sail-powered anymore.  Wind was unreliable.  It sometimes didn’t blow.  And it wasn’t a concentrated source of energy.  It took a lot of rigging to hold up a lot of sail to push ships slowly across the ocean.  When the wind blew.  And it didn’t always blow. 

Coal and the steam engine changed all of that.  Shippers replaced their sail-powered ships with steam-powered ships.  And they’ve never looked back.  Eventually replacing their coal-fired engines with oil-fired engines.  Some of the world’s navies even took it a step further.  They replaced their oil-fired engines with nuclear reactors.  Some of these warships can stay on station for 6 months and longer without ever refueling.

See the trend?  Energy sources became more concentrated.  Engines became smaller.  Which allowed people to ship more stuff for less.  This is progress.  It’s why they can sell a lot of those electronic toys we so enjoy so cheaply.  Because they can ship so many of them that the shipping cost per unit is like the cost of a postage stamp.  Using wind farms, on the other hand, is the opposite of progress.  It’s going backwards.  This less concentrated energy source will take acres of windmills at a high infrastructure cost to produce a trickle of electricity.  All it will do is enrich the equipment manufacturers.  Who will show their gratitude with generous political contributions. 

Crony capitalism at its worse.  And because this technology won’t solve our energy problem, our energy problem will always be here.  Government couldn’t ask for anything more.  Please the environmentalists.  Throw subsidies at their cronies in Big Business.  Sustain political donations from same.  And never fix the problem.  Which means this cycle just keeps repeating.   Politics.  It’s a beautiful thing.  For some.

The Internal Combustion Engine is Reinvented

Wind power is not really a viable energy source.  When fleets of electric cars ‘plug in’ it won’t be windmills providing the power.  It will be either a coal-fired plant.  A natural gas-fired plant.  Or a nuclear plant.  To provide reliable power during peak demands will require an energy source less fickle than the wind.  So if we want those electric cars, the environmentalists will have to embrace that which they hate.  Fossil fuels.  Or their archenemy.  Nuclear power.

Is there another way?  Perhaps.  But it’s a fossil fuel alternative.  But one that the environmentalist may even warm up to (see New Car Engine Sends Shockwaves Through Auto Industry by Nic Halverson posted 4/6/2011 on Discovery News).

[R]esearchers at Michigan State University have built a prototype gasoline engine that requires no transmission, crankshaft, pistons, valves, fuel compression, cooling systems nor fluids. Their so-called Wave Disk Generator could greatly improve the efficiency of gas-electric hybrid automobiles and potentially decrease auto emissions up to 90 percent when compared to conventional combustion engines.

The engine has a rotor that’s equipped with wave-like channels that trap and mix oxygen and fuel as the rotor spins. These central inlets are blocked off, building pressure within the chamber, causing a shock wave that ignites the compressed air and fuel to transmit energy.

Sounds like a lot of science fiction.  But did you get that one number?  Reduce emissions by 90 percent?  An internal combustion engine that is almost emission-free?  What’s not to love about that?  Sure, it still uses gasoline, but it uses it so much more efficiently.

The Wave Disk generator uses 60 percent of its fuel for propulsion; standard car engines use just 15 percent. As a result, the generator is 3.5 times more fuel efficient than typical combustion engines.

Researchers estimate the new model could shave almost 1,000 pounds off a car’s weight currently taken up by conventional engine systems.

More efficient, lighter and near-emission-free?  It’ll exceed every CAFE and emission standard the environmentalist demands from the automotive industry.  This engine has everything.  It pleases the environmentalist.  Reduces our consumption of foreign oil.  And with such a small, efficient power plant, the auto companies can make the big cars people want to buy again.  What’s not to love about this engine?

Last week, the prototype was presented to the energy division of the Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is backing the Michigan State University Engine Research Laboratory with $2.5 million in funding.

Oh.  They used federal funding to develop this engine.  It would seem to the layperson that an engine as wonderful as this would have a market.  A big market.  And could attract private investors.  I mean, they’re building expensive cars that no one will buy without a massive federal subsidy (to both the buyer and the seller) just to please the government.  An engine like this would make life so much simpler for the auto companies.  And so much more profitable.  Which suggests this may be too good to be true.  For the best things in life don’t need federal subsidies.  If there is a market people will take risks.  If there is a profit to be made people will bring good things to market. 

More Power with Less Fuel is Progress

The Wave Disk Generator may be for real.  For it is a step in the right way.  It uses the same concentrated fuel we use today in our cars.  But it uses it more efficiently.  Reducing the size of the engine.  While providing more power.  With less fuel.  This is progress.  This is good.  The only thing of concern is the government’s involvement.  For this is the same government that is investing in wind-generated electricity. 

Yes, it’s possible that the government backed a winner here.  Anything is possible.  I mean, even a broken clock is right twice a day.  Time will tell.  Perhaps one day we’ll see the Wave Disk Generator under the hood.  But if the government is involved, don’t hold your breath.  It could be awhile.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rich Liberals Champion the Poor to Maintain their Privileged Lives

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 2nd, 2011

Per-Vote-Subsidy replaces Corporate and Union Money

Canada has a spoils system when it comes to public financing of political campaigns.  The big pile of public money ‘donated’ by the Canadian taxpayer is divided between the parties by vote.  The more votes a party gets, the more tax subsidies that party gets.  The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, wants to do away with these subsidies (see Harper vows to scrap per-vote subsidies by CTV.ca News Staff posted 4/1/2011 on CTV.ca).

Currently, political parties receive a $2-per-vote subsidy, but Harper has long opposed the system, which was brought in by the Liberals when corporate and union donations were banned.

He said Friday that political parties already enjoy “enormous tax advantages” and taxpayers should not have to support parties they don’t support with their votes. Harper added that the subsidy only helps to ease the way for frequent elections.

Interesting.  Unlike the United States, Canada does not allow corporations or unions donate to political parties.  And when that ban went into place, the liberals brought in the per-vote-subsidy.  It takes money to win political contests.  And when you shut down two big sources (corporations and unions), that money has to come from somewhere else.  So the liberals decided to get that money from the taxpayer.  Fair, right?  I mean, without these subsidies, political power falls to the rich.  And that’s not fair, is it?

The Liberals are the Rich trying to Buy Political Power

When they banned corporate and union donations that left private donations.  From actual people.  So I guess we would have to see how that money flowed to see whether the per-vote-subsidy is fair and serves its purpose.  To keep the rich from wielding political power over the poor (see Analysis: Fears about scrapping per-vote subsidies wildly off target by Patrick Brethour, Vancouver, posted 4/2/2011 on The Globe and Mail).

Data compiled by the website Punditsguide.ca show that funds raised by the parties largely come from small donors, in amounts that would make few Canadian households cringe…

Take the Conservative Party in 2009, which raised… an average [per person] donation of $174.60…

The story is pretty much the same with the other parties: the NDP, with an average donation of $169.11; the Bloc Quebecois, average $102.63; Green Party, $123.21; and the Liberals, with an average of $239.23, the highest of the major federal parties.

Looking at the average per-person donation, it appears the liberal donors are richer than the conservative donors.  Kind of goes against everything the liberals tell us.  That conservatives are nothing but a bunch of rich fat-cats who want to use the poor as footstools.  Either that or conservatives are just cheap bastards.

The same picture emerges when looking at the distribution of donations by size. For the Conservatives, about 10 per cent of the funds raised came from those giving between $1,000 and the maximum of $1,100; conversely, two-thirds came from those giving $400 or less. The NDP were similar, with 7 per cent coming from the highest donated amount, and 70 per cent coming from donations $400 and under. The Liberals – who have fulminated against the perils of the rich controlling the political process – were actually the party most dependent on big donations, with 35 per cent of their cash coming from donors giving between $1,000 and $1,100, while sub-$400 donors accounted for just 38 per cent of the funds the party raised.

In fact, the Liberals outperformed among big donors, raising $3.2-million to the Conservatives’ $1.7-million. The Tories made up that ground, and more, with small donors.

And what do these numbers tell you?  Liberals rely on rich people for their political donations.  Conservatives rely on the little guy, the average working person who can barely afford to donate $200.  And the big corporations and the big unions pour money into liberal political parties.  In ‘soft ways‘ these days.  In Canada.  In the United States.  All around the world.  So much money that it was hard for the little guy to fight against it.  Leaving political power in the hands of the rich.  Much like the liberals say they want to prevent with the per-vote-subsidy.  But, in fact, that’s exactly what they want to do.  Leave political power in their rich hands.

You see, the crony capitalists and the snooty rich don’t like the little guy.  They like the good life that few can enjoy.  And sometimes they need special favors from government to continue that privileged life.  Which is why they donate to liberal parties.  But when they banned ‘hard money’ donations from corporations and unions, liberals had to scramble for other financing.  Because the majority of people don’t support their views.  So they need to ‘force’ donations through these per-vote-subsidies.  For it is the only way they can continue to rule against the will of the people.

The People who Supported Obamacare get Obamacare Waivers

It’s always about the money.  Whenever you’re confused about some political debate, just ask yourself this simple question.  Where’s the money?  Take health care, for example.  The goal of Obamacare was to provide everyone with high-quality yet affordable health care insurance.  Sort of like paying for a Big Mac and getting filet mignon.  Impossible, yes, but that’s what they told us. 

Big Business and the unions were all behind it.  Everyone (employers and unions) wants to dump their health care costs.  That’s why they were anxious for that public option.  Well, they didn’t get the public option.  Not yet.  First Obamacare has to put the private insurers out of business.  Once it does that then the government can step in as the insurer of last resort and, presto, they’ll get their national health care.  But leaves a costly problem for the here and now.

To ‘pass’ CBO, they had to include some onerous requirements.  The new law forced everyone to buy insurance.  The insurers had to cover preexisting conditions.  And they forbade insurance companies to recover their full overhead expenses.  Suddenly affordable insurance was going to become unaffordable.  Or people were simply going to lose their insurance because they couldn’t afford the premiums that were necessary to comply with the requirements of Obamacare.  So many of those who supported this legislation want no part of it.  For themselves, that is.  It’s okay for us.  But not for them.  So they’re asking that the law does not apply to them.  Only us (see List of health reform waivers keeps growing by Jason Millman posted 4/2/2011 on The Hill).

The number of waivers the Obama administration has awarded for a provision of the year-old healthcare reform law grew by 128 in March.

With the new waivers, that means 1,168 businesses, insurers, unions and other organizations have received one-year exemptions from a healthcare reform provision requiring at least $750,000 in annual benefits.

Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass Obamacare to learn what was in it.  Apparently another 128 insurance plans learned what was in it this past March.  And they want out.  Like the majority of Americans.  Which really begs the question why Obamacare?  It isn’t popular.  They had to pass it quickly before anyone could read the bill.  None of the unions want it.  So why have it?  Because liberals want it.  And why do politicians want anything?  Follow the money.

The Free Market provides High Quality and Low Prices

Hillary Clinton tried to socialize our health care.  Now Obamacare is a short step from doing just that.  Because they said only government could step in and fix our health care system.  That the so-called free market had failed.  Really now?  Because that’s the one thing that has been missing from our health care system.  Market forces.  Doctors providing medical services for a fee that their patients actually pay for.  Not a third party insurance bureaucrat.  But the actual patient.  Until now, that is.  And that free market?  It works.  It’s providing a fully funded quality system that people of average means can afford (see High-end medical option prompts Medicare worries by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press, posted 4/2/2011 on the Sun Journal).

Every year, thousands of people make a deal with their doctor: I’ll pay you a fixed annual fee, whether or not I need your services, and in return you’ll see me the day I call, remember who I am and what ails me, and give me your undivided attention.

But this arrangement potentially poses a big threat to Medicare and to the new world of medical care envisioned under President Barack Obama’s health overhaul.

The spread of “concierge medicine,” where doctors limit their practice to patients who pay a fee of about $1,500 a year, could drive a wedge among the insured. Eventually, people unable to afford the retainer might find themselves stuck on a lower tier, facing less time with doctors and longer waits.

People actually paying to see a doctor?  Imagine that?  Just like in the old days.  Before there was a health care crisis.  The patients are happy.  The doctors are happy.  And making a very nice living.  You can’t get much more of a win-win situation, can you?  Who could find fault with this?

The trend caught the eye of MedPAC, a commission created by Congress that advises lawmakers on Medicare and watches for problems with access. It hired consultants to investigate.

I guess the government could.  Big Brother is everywhere.  And he is looking at this free market solution.  And Big Brother is not amused.  People paying for their own medical care?  That’s a problem for those in government.  A big problem.

Several members said it appears to be fulfilling a central goal of Obama’s overhaul, enhancing the role of primary care and restoring the doctor-patient relationship.

Yet the approach envisioned under the law is different from the one-on-one attention in concierge medicine. It calls for a team strategy where the doctor is helped by nurses and physician assistants, who handle much of the contact with patients.

John Goodman, a conservative health policy expert, predicts the health care law will drive more patients to try concierge medicine. “Seniors who can pay for it will go outside the system,” he said.

MedPAC’s Hackbarth declined to be interviewed. But Berenson, a physician and policy expert, said “the fact that excellent doctors are doing this suggests we’ve got a problem.”

You see, one-on-one concierge medicine is bad because it lets doctors work freely with patients.  The government would prefer something along the current lines.  You treat patients.  And then we’ll think about paying you.  And how much we’ll pay you.  Like in the Medicare program now.  That way you’re our bitch.  But if you work outside the system, you and your patients will be free.  And we don’t like that.  Why?  Follow the money.

Follow the Money for the Money Never Lies

Politics is always about the money.  Always has been.  Always will be.  Because it takes money to gain and maintain political power.  Whether you’re running a political campaign.  Or supporting a campaign with your union dues in exchange for political favors (such as legislation that limits competition so unions can maintain their high wage and benefit packages).

Liberals are a minority of the population.  Wherever you are.  The majority of people don’t belong to a union or work for the government.  This majority has jobs.  They take care of their family.  And want Big Brother to leave them alone.  Union dues from a small percentage of the population can greatly influence elections, though.  They can’t donate directly.  But that money finds its way to liberals.  Liberals in the U.S. desperately need this money.  In fact, union dues have become so important to the ruling liberal elite that they created an entire new class of union-paying people.  The public sector union class.  Who has but one purpose.  To launder tax dollars from taxpayers to the Democrat Party.

The 2010 mid-term elections shook up the political establishment.  Conservative governors are fighting back against this new political class.  And the liberal left is attacking these governors.  Even President Obama sent activists to Madison, Wisconsin, to protest against Governor Walker as they voted to make their public sector workers live more like the rest of the people in Wisconsin.  This is why Obamacare is so important to the left.  Health care is 17% of GDP.  That’s a lot of money.  That’s why the public option is so important.  Why nationalized health care is so important.  Because of this money.  Liberals want this money to pass through Washington.  Where they can easily skim a little off the top for their political needs.  And to live well.  Without actually having to work.  Like that majority that pays all those taxes.

Life’s greatest question can be easiest answered by following the money.  For the money never lies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,