I believe in goals and working steadfastly to acheive them!

As long as we can agree that the way forward isn't radical...

Or that we're dying tomorrow....

Then maybe we can actually make progress I. A safe, healthy, and profitable future can be more assured this way.

Quote:

---

As long as we can agree that the way forward isn't radical...

---

How can you be sure of that?

You can never be sure of anything but anything new will be considered radical by some for better or worse until tried and proven. Like going to the moon as an example. Radical stuff APPEARS more scary than doable, but some solution or good ideas worth trying, start with thinking outside the box I feel.

It's not like we don't have plenty of data and experience of what does work and what doesn't work as well as it could. I just don't think the costs and profitability should be the main factors in do ability or NECCESSITY. Hey it's just a thought, the starting point for a larger plan. I got nothing else to do but dream.

Radical would be dreaming of jumping out of a plane with no parachute, and expecting a soft landing. I mean a few years ago jumping off a cliff was insane, but guys do it for sport now. Somebody came up with a fly suit.

Quote:

---

I just don't think the costs and profitability should be the main factors in do ability or NECCESSITY. Hey it's just a thought, the starting point for a larger plan. I got nothing else to do but dream.

---

You had me until you seemed to indicate that we can ignore cost. Not even the non-profits can do that. It has to be paid for.

I never said IGNORE costs, I said cost and profitability shouldn't be the MAIN factors in the consideration of viability of a plan. I'm a capitalists and do believe any cost can be mitigated (Regulatory rollbacks is not a good vehicle in this case. Just my opinion, but based on the data.).

jlisenbe: Ever hear of the 80/20 Rule? Its interesting and it exemplifies business.....It says that 20% of your sales people, Engineers, planners, accountants, whatever discipline accomplish 80% of your goals, whether it be projects or sales......and that 80% of that same staff accomplish the remaining 20%......Well, most people look at that and say "Fire that 80% and save the costs" but that will not work: You still need to retain the 80% staff to get that residual 20% gain.....Don't be so concerned with knowing the COSTS of Everything when the VALUE is the dominant concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

jlisenbe: Ever hear of the 80/20 Rule? Its interesting and it exemplifies business.....It says that 20% of your sales people, Engineers, planners, accountants, whatever discipline accomplish 80% of your goals, whether it be projects or sales......and that 80% of that same staff accomplish the remaining 20%......Well, most people look at that and say "Fire that 80% and save the costs" but that will not work: You still need to retain the 80% staff to get that residual 20% gain.....Don't be so concerned with knowing the COSTS of Everything when the VALUE is the dominant concern.

---

Good memory. We went to the same school different years it seems. In terms of sports though the star can have a bad day or injury, and the role players have to step up and fill the gaps on any given day. That's usually the difference between winning and losings.

The Gemini fire didn't stop our moon landing quest did it? The Civil War didn't stop the nation from growing either. To overcome obstacles keep your eyes on the GOAL. Forgive me but I get goosebumps when challenged.

Great post VAC.

Talaniman: Its a Boxing match of sorts.....if the other guy isn't touching you, you probably aren't going to touch him, either, the way you want to...you have to step-in and take a gamble, chance, show some risks.....Same with industrial challenges and, I think, Energy projects of any stripe: There are no sure things and if that is the pursuit, the return will be minimalized.....You must risk greatly to achieve greatly.....and sometimes, you have to "Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before".....a lot of great accomplishments had a playbook but no set recipe book....so the plan was formulated but the safety net didn't exist because there were no previous "examples" to go by: What was being done was the first time it had ever been attempted!

I get what you're saying and I don't disagree other than to say that no business in America will teach people to disregard cost. It is not the only factor, but it is a big, big one.

LOL, Few things go perfectly according to the initial plan, so sometimes you have to make adjustments according to conditions. Sometimes you screw it up and have to redo it. Things do look better on paper, and I'm sure a national grid has been thought of. Just the jobs from all those man hours has me giddy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I get what you're saying and I don't disagree other than to say that no business in America will teach people to disregard cost. It is not the only factor, but it is a big, big one.

---

I didn't say it would be cheap, but a country with a trillion dollar military that fights trillion dollar wars for years and can cut more than a trillion dollars in taxes aught to be able to fund a world class grid and power transmission system.

>Relevant commercial break< Of course we need another commercial! Now back to our show folks, the very last paragraph says it all. The links are fabulous trust me! 8D

Quote:

---

I didn't say it would be cheap, but a country with a trillion dollar military that fights trillion dollar wars for years and can cut more than a trillion dollars in taxes aught to be able to fund a world class grid and power transmission system.

---

That same country is 23 tril in debt and still spends like a drunken sailor, so you might want to figure out a different funding source. And besides, how does making changes to the grid get us off of our dependence on fossil fuels?

We don't have to get off fossil fuel, we must mitigate the pollution factor. That includes waste management. When we find a better energy source we can leave fossil fuels behind. I like lights and A/C personally. As to the debt, that can be managed too. Our politicians don't want to.

Quote:

---

We don't have to get off fossil fuel, we must mitigate the pollution factor. That includes waste management

---

How do you practice waste management with the products of burning fossil fuels?

jlisenbe: Costs on a project positively influencing/increasing production are largely mitigated as that production volume/production rate increases over time....its the integration of costs: The more product you make/the higher the production, the more the costs of the particular production increase project's initial costs and, also, the new project's Annual Operating Costs, are spread out/across over the increased number of units produced (could be widgets, cinder blocks, cars, tanks, planes, paper, etc., whatever!)…the effect of this is that costs are water-down and disappear through enhanced production rates: Costs Per Unit Volume (whatever the unit produced is) will decline and the COSTS that everyone worries about simply evaporates......This is why COSTS just aren't that exciting when you look at it in terms of production increases. The ROI is there and it usually is there in gobs once you get the process tuned-up.....Where people go astray is over-estimating the project ROI period: You won't do that but once because the knots on you head and butt will remind you never to do it again!

Once a project is implemented and up to production levels anticipated, you can then begin to hone the process, and costs, even more by going after EFFICIENCY enhancements.....its like icing on the cake.

Quote:

---

jlisenbe: Costs on a project positively influencing/increasing production are largely mitigated as that production volume/production rate increases over time....its the integration of costs: The more product you make/the higher the production, the more the costs of the particular production increase project's initial costs and, also, the new project's Annual Operating Costs, are spread out/across over the increased number of units produced (could be widgets, cinder blocks, cars, tanks, planes, paper, etc., whatever!)…the effect of this is that costs are water-down and disappear through enhanced production rates: Costs Per Unit Volume (whatever the unit produced is) will decline and the COSTS that everyone worries about simply evaporates......This is why COSTS just aren't that exciting when you look at it in terms of production increases. The ROI is there and it usually is there in gobs once you get the process tuned-up.....Where people go astray is over-estimating the project ROI period: You won't do that but once because the knots on you head and butt will remind you never to do it again!

Once a project is implemented and up to production levels anticipated, you can then begin to hone the process, and costs, even more by going after EFFICIENCY enhancements.....its like icing on the cake.

---

And so again, how do you practice waste management with the products of burning fossil fuels?

You ever consider the meat packing business? You shoot the bull better than anyone I know.

jlisenbe: No, I wasn't involved in that discussion....that was between you and Talaniman…...but since you brought it up with me: Typically, with the industry I am involved with, we have people/industries who use the carbon residual and residues that are a result of using fossil fuels (very efficient burns)…..there are many uses of carbon, particularly in filtration media.

No, never considered the meat packing business...but grew up on a beef cattle farm.....also, have a brother who is a Butcher. What I said to you isn't bullsh$&t....I have been involved in many projects like these. Don't know why you would want to come at me with such a smartassed reply....never have and never would do that to you.....I can only imagine that you must be having a bad day....the days will get better, jlisenbe, believe me.

My apologies, Vac. I had asked Tal, " how do you practice waste management with the products of burning fossil fuels?". I thought your post was his reply to my question which, of course, would have made no sense at all. I'm actually kind of glad to find out my mistake. I puzzled hard over his (your) reply and how it could have made sense relative to my question.

We have a power plant nearby that was going to be a model of how to burn coal cleanly. They were going to pipe the CO2 to oil fields and inject it into old oil wells. As it turned out they could not get the technology of gassifying coal to work right and the whole thing ended up being a colossal failure.

jlisenbe: Apology accepted, Sir.....one Southern man to the other!

There are ways to make this all happen....just going take a big commitment, government help (in spots), a lot of engineering, big time labor involvement, and, initially, an acceptance that financial losses are inevitable in the interim periods until the process cycles up and the bugs get worked out.

But my issues with all of this is the same as those expressed by Paraclete: While we spend time, money, and effort to implement all these waste management systems, if China and India don't respond-in-kind, very little net change will occur.

Quote:

---

But my issues with all of this is the same as those expressed by Paraclete: While we spend time, money, and effort to implement all these waste management systems, if China and India don't respond-in-kind, very little net change will occur.

---

That's a very good point, but even beyond that it's still an open question as to how much of the marginal global warming that has occurred is genuinely caused by CO2. There is still so much of this that is still poorly understood.