DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Global Collapse
HTML https://globalcollapse.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 219--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: K-Dog Date: May 3, 2021, 2:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=14.msg218#msg218
date=1620003470]
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=14.msg214#msg214 date=1619989638]
[quote]I've got a nice 20 year old Chrysler sitting outside, it
hadn't been running for a month, and I finally got the intake
torn apart and it back together and running. Unfortunately, I
seem to be the only one in the family interested in driving a
clunker.[/quote]
I find with the car only running once every ten days or so it is
a lot harder to keep clean. The wheels stay free of brake dust
but driving does not blow pollen and dust away. If I don't keep
it clean it can get crusty fast.
[/quote]
Mine managed to collect a busted windshield during the last big
freeze. Same freeze took out the last of what the battery had.
Tried to get the battery back to life, failed, slow leak took
out the driver side front, presto, POS clogging up the driveway.
A month or more later I finally got around to removing the
intake to get at the battery and replace it, put it all back
together, back to the tire shop to find the leak, presto,
perfectly functional car with a busted windshield. Everyone
refuses to drive it. No bluetooth, plus its a stick. Rain keeps
it generally clean.
[/quote]
I too have a POS clogging my driveway. Not the one I drive.
That one I might wax tomorrow.
#Post#: 221--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: K-Dog Date: May 3, 2021, 2:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[spoiler][quote author=Nearings fault
link=topic=14.msg216#msg216 date=1619996185]
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=14.msg212#msg212 date=1619988990]
[spoiler][quote author=Nearings fault
link=topic=14.msg209#msg209 date=1619979960]
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=14.msg207#msg207 date=1619973792]
[quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=14.msg205#msg205
date=1619970759]
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=14.msg175#msg175 date=1619852853]
I am driving this (the gas version, not the Diesel
shown):
HTML https://www.cstatic-images.com/car-pictures/maxWidth503/usb70mbc801a0101.png
You can get them for $3,000 — $15,000. Eddy has (or had) one
too. If you get a good one you have great value for the money.
I don't care what the mileage of it is (it is actually pretty
good. 27 MPG on the freeway). What matters is how much I drive
it. Two trips a week in a fuel efficient car to the same place
farts more CO2 out than one trip to the same place no matter
what else you drive.
[/quote]
Can you explain the logic on this? In part because after you say
this, you say this:
[quote author=k-dog]If people really cared about fuel
efficiency, saying how much fuel a car uses at idle stuck in
traffic or uses up when a 'Karen' uses it to drive through
Starbucks without turning off the engine while as she waits for
cars in front to move would be on the white sticker when it was
sold. Idle consumption is as important as knowing what the
mileage is where I live.
The answer is not to drive an electric. [/quote]
Driving an electric means it doesn't emit while idling. And it
is a car that emits less in 10 trips than a fuel efficient
Mercedes in 1. So why isn't electric part of (but not
necessarily the entire) the answer?
Emissions become a power generation issue, as opposed to a "get
rid of cars" angle. The Pacific Northwest being a great example,
based on the fuels for their power generation. WV? Not so much.
[/quote]
[quote]And it is a car that emits less in 10 trips than a fuel
efficient Mercedes in 1.[/quote]
You will have have a very hard time convincing me that the trip
ratio difference is more than 2 / 1. Batteries also need a lot
of lithium and don't last forever. Everything considered
driving old cars as long as we can might be smarter than going
green with electrics. The power generated at the power plant
and the environmental costs to manufacture and deal with a fleet
of electrics is as bad as what we have now. The best thing is
drive as little as you can without 'driving' yourself crazy.
The drive through at Starbucks demonstrates how poorly the
American Public understands energy issues. It is not a
statement for or against electrics.
Electrics are part of the solution as long as you only drive it
on days you are licensed to do so. We will have to ration power
or too much CO2 will be emitted at the coal burning plants than
the current Paris or whatever agreement will be allowing. If
you don't think you will need new coal fired power plants to
charge 100 million new electric cars in America you are
dreaming. Nothing else could give that much power in the time
frame needed.
Nobody to my knowledge has done this math so I will. Lets say
it takes 17 kW to get Karen to
[img]
HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.brandenwilliams.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2Fstarbucks-coffee-logo.gif%3Fresize%3D150%252C150%26ssl%3D1&f=1&nofb=1[/img]<br
/> where yes, she can wait in line and message on her phone with
no idle emissions. It took her 17kW to get there. That does
not change.
So 100 million new electrics won't be driven all the time. Lets
say 15% use each day and the rest of the time they are parked.
If you dispute the ratio, dispute the 100 million as well.
That means 15 000 000 cars are using 17kW for a total of 255 Gw.
[quote]U.S. coal-fired capacity peaked at 318 gigawatts (GW) in
2011 and has been declining since then because many plants
retired or switched to other fuels and few new coal-fired plants
came online. By the end of 2019, U.S. coal-generating capacity
totaled 229 GW[/quote].
[quote]In 2020, net generation of electricity from utility-scale
generators in the United States was about 4,009 billion
kilowatthours (kWh)[/quote]
4,009 billion kWh / 8760 hrs (hours in a year) => 458.0 GW
This little exercise reveals the US is getting exactly 50% of
its electricity from coal.
Cutting to the chase: 100 million new electrics will require
increasing electric generating capacity by ((255/458)x100%.
After the math crunches 100 million new electrics will require
increasing National Electric Generating Capacity by 58%.
I wonder why nobody pushing [glow=green,2,300]the green new
deal[/glow] has pointed this out?
HTML https://i.imgflip.com/2/2w6m27.jpg
I wonder why nobody else has pointed this out?
Does this mean we are screwed?
* the math can be customized to reflect your country of
residence
[/quote]the tesla x is rated at a little over 200 watt hrs per
km
HTML https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.tesla.com/en_EU/support/european-union-energy-label&ved=2ahUKEwjfqfu0zqvwAhUQbc0KHUgEDPYQFjAKegQIGBAC&usg=AOvVaw3bu5di3U0kTWpjTNG_L4dF
While I do not disagree with a renewed grid being a
prerequisite for electric cars. I think the math should be as
close to right as possible...
I do think we will see the same thing happen as did with fuel
injection. Watts per km will lead to heavier vehicles until
efficiency is about the same... I forget what that energy law is
called.
[/quote][/spoiler]
Driving at 80 kilometers an hour you move 80 kilometers in one
hour. <-- Don't say Duh.
(80 kilometers) x (200 watts/kilometer) = 16000 kW.
Your number is 16kW and mine is 17kW. No difference, mine was
an educated guess and my math is still valid.
The distinction between kW and kwh is frequently overlooked. kW
is the rate at which energy is being used. kWh is how much has
been used. 200 W is how much energy it takes to cover a
kilometer and a speed was not given.
I picked 50 mph which works out to 80 kph.
[/quote]an 80km trip to Starbucks? I believe I got my energy
denotation right. 200watts hr is the consumption number.
Instantaneous would be watts and it is probably many times 200
for short durations.
I would say we generally agree that the best answer is driving
much much less.
[/quote][/spoiler]
200 watts hr is the consumption number.
No, Watt-Hr is a unit of measurement.
I was going to be a smart ass and say in his day Lance Armstrong
could put out 4 times that much, and that is NO DOPE.
Then I realized that unless it is explained in a physics course
(which I have had) confusion could be legitimate. The guy who
wrote this says it fine.
[quote]As you may have noticed, we use Watt Hours to explain the
capacity of most of our products. For many of us, a Watt Hour
isn’t something all that familiar. So, here’s a brief
explanation of what it is.
A Watt Hour is a unit of measurement for power over a period of
time (an hour), or in our case, a way of measuring capacity. One
Watt hour is equal to one Watt of average power flow over an
hour. One Watt over four hours would be four Watt Hours of
power. As an example, a 100 Watt light bulb on a 400 Watt Hour
battery (like the Yeti 400) would last, on paper, 4 hours.
A Watt, the measure of power, is usually calculated using this
equation: Watts = Volts x Amps. To explain a little further, we
will use a plumbing analogy. If we have a water pipe; Volts
would be a measure of the water pressure (force) in the pipe,
Amps would be a measure of the current or flow through the pipe.
A Watt would be the measure of of what you can do with that
water, like turning a water wheel. So, how do we determine Watt
hours?
Watt Hours are calculated using a similar equation when dealing
with batteries. An example of this would be that the Yeti 400
contains a 33 Amp Hour battery operating at 12 Volts. 12 Volts x
33 Amp Hours = 396 Watt Hours or roughly 400 Wh. Not only are
Watt Hours a good unit of measurement for capacity, but it is
also pretty universal when finding out how many times one of our
GZ products will recharge something with it’s own battery in it
(like a phone, tablet, or laptop). The Equation to find the Watt
Hours of a battery gives us a universal measurement despite
batteries on the market varying greatly in operating voltage and
mAh.
[/quote]
Battery capacity or power used. Both are measured in
watt-hours.
If you drive your Tesla at one kilometer per hour you would be
correct. Walking is three times as fast. Ants do 1 km an hour.
Interestingly the closest Starbucks to me is a mile away and
350 feet lower in altitude. An electric driving at 15 miles or
less an hour might actually deliver more power to the battery
than was used getting there. You'd have to go slow to recover
enough power coming down the hill to make up for getting to the
top of the hill from the house.
That is not a good reason to get one.
#Post#: 227--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: Phil Potts Date: May 4, 2021, 4:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=14.msg175#msg175 date=1619852853]
[spoiler][quote author=Nearings fault
link=topic=14.msg173#msg173 date=1619822766]
[quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=14.msg172#msg172
date=1619821737]
[quote author=Nearings fault link=topic=14.msg170#msg170
date=1619780211]
[quote author=RE link=topic=14.msg167#msg167 date=1619767206]
[quote author=Nearings fault link=topic=14.msg164#msg164
date=1619706197]Transport: I drive a 16 year old ford explorer
that I try to keep maintained and running even if it makes less
and less sense financially. I could invest several tens of
thousands of dollars for a slightly more efficient vehicle but
it violates many of my financial rules so no.
[/quote]
You also would have to calculate all the embedded energy
involved with replacing that vehicle. For instance if you
replaced it with an EV, the batteries for it have a huge
embedded energy in their manufacture.
RE
[/quote]I totally agree.
[/quote]
And how would you calculate this embedded energy, and determine
its value in a real world purchase? Does less embedded energy
indicate a less expensive/practical/efficient vehicle, or more?
[/quote]I honestly dont know anymore. I find the numbers are
skewed to match whoever's point is being made. I think a vehicle
that is maintained and replaced piece by piece and driven
sparingly should have a lower carbon footprint regardless of
fuel. Based on my research the current batch of electric
vehicles will last the life of the battery. Maybe there will be
a huge aftermarket that develops to refit the cars but
everything about them is assembled for fit not for
sustainability...
[/quote]
[/spoiler]
I am driving this (the gas version, not the Diesel
shown):
HTML https://www.cstatic-images.com/car-pictures/maxWidth503/usb70mbc801a0101.png
You can get them for $3,000 — $15,000. Eddy has (or had) one
too. If you get a good one you have great value for the money.
I don't care what the mileage of it is (it is actually pretty
good. 27 MPG on the freeway). What matters is how much I drive
it. Two trips a week in a fuel efficient car to the same place
farts more CO2 out than one trip to the same place no matter
what else you drive. Plan your driving to minimize miles
driven. Save some money. If people really cared about fuel
efficiency, saying how much fuel a car uses at idle stuck in
traffic or uses up when a 'Karen' uses it to drive through
Starbucks without turning off the engine while as she waits for
cars in front to move would be on the white sticker when it was
sold. Idle consumption is as important as knowing what the
mileage is where I live.
[img]
HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Y91xN6zb_-XOvRUQ9DringHaE8%26pid%3DApi&f=1[/img]
You know every car in that line has its engine running and you
are NOT going to get through that line in 5 minutes. Maybe they
could have a car wash pull mechanism? That would keep the
engines off. But I'm kidding. No
[shadow=gray,left]Diner[/shadow] would be in this line. An
average drive through at a fast food place I'll guess uses up
fifty cents worth of fuel at todays prices unless there is no
line. With no line the odds of someone being smart enough to
turn the engine off at the window is increased. The answer is
not to drive an electric. The answer is cook at home and make
sure everyone else does too. Nobody likes the second part of
that statement. I don't.
[img]
HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.zcjqIv9ExwaikdEmzuR08wHaCJ%26pid%3DApi&f=1[/img]
As things are [shadow=gray,left]Diners[/shadow] would find
another way to get our coffee fix. If I could find a local
boiled tree bark I liked as much that would be great.
[img]
HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F25%2F23%2Fe3%2F2523e3e40fdbb5d925419cf2942647a3.jpg&f=1&nofb=1[/img]
The world will not and cannot conserve itself to salvation. The
general public has been propagandized with this idea because
that is where capitalism wants things to go. It keeps the
existing arrangement going the longest.
* Changing our ways is not in the equation but that is the only
thing that could work.
The equation:
[img]
HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quizlaw.com%2Fblog%2Fimages%2Fmath-problem.jpg&f=1&nofb=1[/img]
Having 'Woman' in the equation is only humor, but a healthy guy
will drive fifty miles to get laid. 100 miles round trip.
[/quote]
There's a problem with quoting the post u want, but getting KD s
post the 1st time
#Post#: 228--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: John of Wallan Date: May 4, 2021, 4:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The next transport revolution will be back to horse and cart.
The rest is just a sideshow on the way to the final solution,
like steam cars 120 years ago, wood gas burners during WW2 fuel
shortages, nuclear cars and gas turbine cars in the 60's, the
hydrogen "miracle" of the last 40 years and EV's now.
They all actually work from an engineering standpoint, but don't
make economic or practical sense and cant be scaled to meet the
transport needs of society.
Before anyone tells me horse and cart cant be scaled to meet the
needs of modern society, I will suggest modern society will be
very different in 20 years, if we make it. I am expecting a lot
wont.
I once predicted the future will be more like "Little house on
the prairie" than "Mad max". Now I am not so sure.
At least you can eat a horse if you get desperate. Not sure I
want to go the long pig option.
JOW
#Post#: 230--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: Phil Potts Date: May 4, 2021, 5:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=14.msg210#msg210
date=1619981930]
I'm betting the average American doesn't even equate sitting in
a Starbucks line with energy issues. Based on the consumer
response to the energy crisis of the 1970's though, they can be
made to understand one. The price pay they pay to fill their
tank, or if there happens to be any fuel to buy.
[/quote]
Which is why the era of bigger is better and land yachts like my
77 Chrslyer hemi (cousin to the Bluesmobile 74 Dodge Polara)
went the way of the dinosaur.
I figured it might also have had something to do with taking
your life in your hands in these behemoths last time I took it
out. All excited after getting it out andready on Sunday to hit
the road before 5 for about a 6am start. In the dark, heavy fog
and the wipers and demister are hardly helping. It was ok once I
got onto the main highway, but on a minor single lane winding
highway, not so much. Pizza cutter tyres, wipers and demister
not helping much, log trucks all coming from the other way while
you can barely see where you're going and keep it both on your
side of the road without going off the road.. easy to end up
upside down.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 232--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: John of Wallan Date: May 4, 2021, 5:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I had one of these: 1980 Chrysler Regal with a 265 Hemi. (Last
year they were built in Oz) Went well for a 6, but drank like a
road train.
Drove from Melbourne to Cairns in 1991 at 160km/h all the way
(100mph Merikan). No speed cameras back then. Just about broke
me in fuel cost.
Handling was always exciting. Torsion bar front end.
This was obsolete before they even sold them.
If you drive a car like this very small distances every year
fuel use is not an issue. Carbon footprint from manufacture is
being spread over more years so actually is better than a new EV
you change every 5 years based on age and resale not distance
travelled like most do.. These have a horrendous manufacturing
carbon footprint. Only make sense if you drive longer distances
a year and actually wear it out!
Like with all efficiency gains, it only increases usage not
decreases usage. Stop subsidising fossil fuels. True
manufacturing and running costs will then be self correcting.
People will walk more.
Everyone prefers virtue signaling rather than green wash
reality.
JOW
#Post#: 234--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: K-Dog Date: May 4, 2021, 10:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Like with all efficiency gains, it only increases usage
not decreases usage. Stop subsidizing fossil fuels. True
manufacturing and running costs will then be self correcting.
People will walk more. [/quote]
A carbon price is the single most powerful tool available to
reduce [s]America[/s]’s carbon pollution.
Net Zero by 2050
HTML https://citizensclimatelobby.org/price-on-carbon/
A strong, economy-wide price on carbon could reduce[s]
America[/s]’s carbon pollution by 50% by 2030, putting us on
track to reach net zero by 2050. Learn more from recent carbon
pricing studies.
A carbon tax becomes affordable for ordinary [s]Americans[/s]
people when the [glow=green,2,300]money collected[/glow] from
fossil fuel companies is given as a
[glow=red,2,300]dividend[/glow], or “[glow=grey,2,300]carbon
cash back[/glow]” payment, to every [s]American[/s] person to
spend with no restrictions. This protects low-and-middle-income
[s]Americans[/s] people who otherwise might not be able to
afford the transition.
HTML https://youtu.be/W25_jgiY51I
[glow=green,2,300]Carbon Dividends[/glow] are money in your
pocket.
[img]
HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftoppng.com%2Fuploads%2Fthumbnail%2F100-dollar-bill-11549435244rpc0pr6xzv.png&f=1&nofb=1[/img][img]https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftoppng.com%2Fuploads%2Fthumbnail%2F100-dollar-bill-11549435244rpc0pr6xzv.png&f=1&nofb=1[/img][img]https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftoppng.com%2Fuploads%2Fthumbnail%2F100-dollar-bill-11549435244rpc0pr6xzv.png&f=1&nofb=1[/img]
#Post#: 235--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: John of Wallan Date: May 5, 2021, 4:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Bolox.
Crap.
Rubbish.
Rhubarb.
Another boondogle so someone can make money while delaying
actually solving the issue.
A carbon price will not work.
It just forces a transition away from fossil fuels to something
else with more unknown consequences.
Thalidimide, DDT, CFC's , PCBs, asbestos all have useful
characteristics, and initially un-forseen downsides...
Every EV has a huge carbon footprint to manufacture and more
complex systems and technology. We need to de-industrialise not
re-industrialise to something new.
We need less people too. I dont want it, but we need it. It will
happen of its own accord shortly. We are in population overshoot
measured by so many metrics: Desertification, over fishing,
salinnation, loss of topsoil, peak oil, peak water,
deforestation, peak helium, increased reliance on rare earth
minerals, loss of biodiversity, peak phospherous.... Thats just
what I can remember.
Perhaps we need organic self replicating transport systems.
Think replicants in blade runner.
I know: Horses!
They run on grass. Thats carbon neutral.
We have to stop thinking we can find a technical solution.
Technology is the driver of our problems not the solution.
Technology allowed us to go into overshoot. Stupidity keeps us
here for now.
JOW (The new ludite!)
#Post#: 237--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: RE Date: May 5, 2021, 4:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=John of Wallan link=topic=14.msg228#msg228
date=1620164963]
I once predicted the future will be more like "Little house on
the prairie" than "Mad max". Now I am not so sure.
[/quote]
I'll stick with 10,000 BC. What goes around, comes around.
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoKxkx0bYRk
We'll have to wait a while for anything as big as a mammoth to
re-evolve though. We'll be chasing down rats for quite some
time to come.
HTML https://youtu.be/rV0NN2eFVqE
RE
#Post#: 242--------------------------------------------------
Re: Climate Doom
By: Digwe Must Date: May 6, 2021, 4:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've been following this conversation with interest. You all
have made good points. I hope no one minds my chipping in.
Of course, the discussion has a bit of trying to
bail-the-Titanic-with-a-teacup atmosphere about it.
Realistically, it can't be serious and be otherwise. Time is
short.
For context, we also drive old vehicles. A 1998 F-150, and a
2002 Subaru are in the driveway and a 2003 jeep sits parked
under a Ponderosa pine. The jeep will be leaving soon, I
haven't driven it in months. Besides the already discussed
points about embedded energy costs in new vehicles, it is much
cheaper - at least in this state - to insure and license older
vehicles.
We are, however, getting a new tractor. A 4 wheel drive 25HP.
At 70 years old I simply can't keep up with all the work here
without a machine. We still have much thinning and other work
to do in the woods. I have a portable sawmill and the tractor
will aid me in skidding logs and getting them on the carriage,
also there are a couple of hundred slash piles to be burned and
a mile of fencing to be run. The piles that were done with a
large commercial machine have too much dirt in them to easily
make biochar. With a grapple on the loader I can basically
shake the dirt out and make a few tons of char. Moving hay and
1ton totes of grain will, of course, be less wear and tear on
the old fart (me). I need to build a shop and an addition on
the barn and the tractor will be handy setting posts and beams.
And the list goes on.
As handy as it will be, the tractor is a fossil fuel burning
machine that required a lot of energy to manufacture and ship
here. It has a heavy environmental cost to it. The only way I
can ethically justify the purchase is by estimating the
environmental benefits of our using the machine to enrich the
health of the forest and soil. Do these benefits outweigh the
negative environmental impacts? Obviously we've decided they
do. A gallon of gas (or diesel ) burned is still in the air no
matter the reason. But, I would like to think that forest
rehabilitation is a tad better use than idling while in line at
Starbucks.
Part of the motivation to get a tractor comes from the loss of
Hercules the ox last month. A gentle giant. I could get a
couple of calves and train them up - but it will take two years
to get meaningful work out of them. I'm too damn old to wait -
but if we were to get an intern with an interest in draft
animals I'd do it in a heartbeat. The future will be animal
powered for those of us not in the elite or the military. The
tractor is certainly more versatile than a draft animal - but in
a pinch the draft animal is easier to feed.
Most of the Northwestern US has hydro power feeding the grid.
So, charging an electric vehicle is less problematic in this
region than in coal country. However, the environmental costs
of the lithium extraction are devastating. For that matter, the
rare earths used in wind generators also have a dirty extraction
and manufacturing process. I agree that techno-fixes that allow
the continuation of BAU are .... unlikely at best.
All of us here can have the best of intentions and make our
decisions based on what we think is best for the planet and yet
be completely nullified by a few private jet flights to the
Bahamas. I knew a pilot who actually flew a very wealthy
divorced couple's dogs back and forth from Texas to California a
couple of times a year for "visitation". No one else on the
plane. True story.
The little town of Usk, Washington has a plant that used to
manufacture newsprint. The plant was owned by a large lumber
corporation and because of a drop in demand and price for
newsprint, went bankrupt. There were three bidders for the
plant. One bidder was the Kalispell Tribe of Indians. They
wanted to operate the plant. The tribe can make investments
like this because they have excellent funding from their casino
and don't have to be worried about immediate profit. They are
trying to provide good employment for the tribal members and a
market for tribal timber resources. The plant is powered by an
adjacent dam on the Pend O'reille River. They also burn the
manufacturing waste to generate power.
The tribe was outbid by a California corporation. They just
kept throwing money at it. At first the new owners said they
were going to operate the portion of the plant used to
manufacture paper used in corrugated cardboard. The next day
(April 29) it was disclosed that they would operate the plant
but use all the excess power to mine for bitcoin. We hear now
from the manager of a local mill that, in fact, the primary
business of the new mill will be crypto currency mining. They
are trying to find a source for mega loads of wood chips to
generate more power. Of course, that will employ far fewer
people than a paper mill and most of the higher paid positions
will be for workers brought in from out of the area.
Sure, if they are going to use electricity for this "industry",
this is cleaner than coal. That is the only good thing I can
say about it. To me this is just another sign of frenzy before
collapse.
I must go shovel manure. They say eventually a man finds the
work he's suited for.
It's very dry and warm here. Unseasonable would be an
understatement. Pray for rain.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page