IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Topics in this category pertain to planning. Discussions include how to prepare yourself, your family and your community for catastrophes and what you plan to do when they hit you.

Moderator: ZS Global Moderators

User avatar
Sun Yeti
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:54 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: 28 Days Later, Zomblies (no, that's not a typo)
Contact:

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by Sun Yeti » Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:50 am

That's the problem with discussing climate change on here; many people seem to see it as a political rather than scientific issue. I see that as a problem, or an ideological blind spot that is pervasive in the survival community in general.

There is uncertainty in the projections certainly, but a lot of people seem to forget that uncertainty goes both ways. It could be far worse/more rapid than expected. For example, there's some evidence that meltwater lubricates the movement of the greenland ice sheet, which could cause the land ice to flow into the sea (and raise sea levels) much more rapidly than projected.

On the brighter side, if solar and wind continue to grow at about 30 percent per year, as they have for decades, emissions will peak and then rapidly decline in the mid 2030's or so. That's too late to limit to 1.5 degree warming, but it's better than the continuing to make the problem worse.
The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” -Isaac Asimov

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 12453
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Bouncing in to Graceland

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by Stercutus » Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:42 am

teotwaki wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:21 am
Stercutus wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:03 pm
Maybe expand on your original post? That is what I got from it.
My original post is pretty detailed and nowhere is there any mention of me or anyone else having any plan to use an unlicensed reactor. If you read things more closely you'd see that they are trying to form a company to design, build and sell licensed reactors. There are a myriad of challenges there which a super smart kid may not be able to figure out.
I don't see how, even if he got it off the ground it would change anything 12 years from now. Besides, It is kind of like saying I am going to rely on FEMA to save me next time the SHTF.
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 12453
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Bouncing in to Graceland

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by Stercutus » Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:46 am

That's the problem with discussing climate change on here; many people seem to see it as a political rather than scientific issue. I see that as a problem, or an ideological blind spot that is pervasive in the survival community in general.

This discussion is not about climate change. This discussion is about what happens when we have 50% less energy to do the things in carbon emitting activities as I posted in the OP. If you don't think that will be TEOTWAWKI we may need to reexamine what that acronym means.
On the brighter side, if solar and wind continue to grow at about 30 percent per year, as they have for decades, emissions will peak and then rapidly decline in the mid 2030's or so. That's too late to limit to 1.5 degree warming, but it's better than the continuing to make the problem worse.
Useful Wind will peak out at some point. Solar much less so. If Hawaii followed California's solar energy initiatives they could be energy independent in 20 years.
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Zed Hunter
* *
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:02 am

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by Zed Hunter » Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:12 am

Nuclear fusion using helium 3 does not produce radio active by products. Using deuterium or tritium (isotopes of hydrogen) does, but in very small amounts and with a short half life. They are not talking about fuel rods of uranium or plutonium. They are talking about causing two atoms to fuse together to form a new element. Two hydrogens fused produce helium. Just look at a periodic table. Each element is just the prior element with an added proton and electron. Neutron additions produce isotopes of that element.

MPMalloy
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 3851
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:48 am

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by MPMalloy » Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:37 am

Zed Hunter wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:12 am
Nuclear fusion using helium 3 does not produce radio active by products. Using deuterium or tritium (isotopes of hydrogen) does, but in very small amounts and with a short half life. They are not talking about fuel rods of uranium or plutonium. They are talking about causing two atoms to fuse together to form a new element. Two hydrogens fused produce helium. Just look at a periodic table. Each element is just the prior element with an added proton and electron. Neutron additions produce isotopes of that element.
Has this tech been demonstrated & proven to be more green than what it replaces? Or is this going to be some kind six of one thing?

User avatar
raptor
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
Posts: 16344
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:18 pm
Location: Greater New Orleans Area

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by raptor » Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:24 pm

This is an inherently political topic. The IPCC is a politically driven and appointed board and as such anything they release (whether data or hot CO2) potentially has a political agenda. The fact that they are stating that by 2030 the carbon use "fee" should be $5,500 per gallon per ton of Co2/$49 per gallon of gasoline makes their refusal to release the data even more suspect that the report's suggestions are likely based upon more political reasons than the non-public data.

However there are other places to discuss such political topics beside ZS.



If we want to limit the discussion of the topic to what should a ZS'er do to prep in case this correct feel free to do so.

The OP has stated that this is the topic for this thread and as such it is within forum rules and acceptable.
Stercutus wrote:This discussion is about what happens when we have 50% less energy

MPMalloy
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 3851
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:48 am

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by MPMalloy » Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:17 pm

raptor wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:24 pm
If we want to limit the discussion of the topic to what should a ZS'er do to prep in case this correct feel free to do so.

The OP has stated that this is the topic for this thread and as such it is within forum rules and acceptable.
Stercutus wrote:This discussion is about what happens when we have 50% less energy
My position & resources are such that: It might suck to be me.

I rent, therefore I cannot 'modify the structure'. No solar, no wind, no extrateresstial free-energy device that extra-governmental organizations are suppressing.

fuck :(

User avatar
teotwaki
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 4293
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Contact:

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by teotwaki » Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:31 pm

Am multitasking so will add some tech info in smaller posts for the discussion.
Stercutus wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:46 am
If Hawaii followed California's solar energy initiatives they could be energy independent in 20 years.
Hawaii is a fairly complex problem that prevents solar from being an immediate fix.

Terrain of the islands makes it more expensive to build power lines than in other states so Hawaii's utility charges much more per kilowatt-hour to cover upfront costs for transmission systems.

Solar power is not steady; it has numerous peaks due to the variable clouds. The utility has nowhere to dump extra solar power and no access to backup electricity generation from outside the state so it has to build the oil fired plants for max loads.

The Hawaii Public Utility Commission was forced to formally cap the number of new customers that can install solar panels that feed electricity back into the grid. this has hurt the growing solar installation industries there.

Similar to other state utilities, Hawaii may charge customers (with solar arrays) a fee to upgrade their local power lines to handle the extra outgoing power.

Hawaii has plans to improve the grid with better monitoring of solar arrays and possibly implement battery storage to manage solar peaks. I don't think they will be energy independent in 20 years but the forecast is for 40% of their electricity to come from renewable sources in 2030.
My adventures and pictures are on my blog http://suntothenorth.blogspot.com

User avatar
woodsghost
* * * * *
Posts: 2890
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by woodsghost » Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:43 pm

Around my neighborhood wind is pretty popular. MP, a small wind or solar generator and a small deep cycle battery might be something to look at. I have been looking at options for apartment dwellers. I can't do any of them yet, but I have been looking. But swamp coolers run off 12v fans and LED lighting run off of 12v batteries have been an interest. I suspect there are other small appliances which are run off 12v. In addition, one of those non-electric washers might be something to look into. I don't think you would be fucked. But it would be a lifestyle change for sure.

If legal one might consider a propane heater for winter and a gasifer or propane stove for cooking.


For Hawaii, I understand ocean wind is supposed to be pretty steady and useful. That might be worth their looking into. It would change the image from some of the beaches, but that is the cost of getting away from fossil fuels?
*Remember: I'm just a guy on the internet :)
*Don't go to stupid places with stupid people & do stupid things.
*Be courteous. Look normal. Be in bed by 10'clock.

“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” -Bilbo Baggins.

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 12453
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Bouncing in to Graceland

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by Stercutus » Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:41 pm

In case people were wondering we here are transitioning to a full roof top solar array and electric vehicles. We will keep a truck and All Terrain gas guzzler for special purposes but the cars in our household will all be electric by 2022.
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

User avatar
grennels
* * * *
Posts: 909
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:04 pm
Location: North Central Ohio

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by grennels » Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:50 pm

flybynight wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:33 pm
Global warming, low cost clean energy, reducing carbon footprint. The sad fact of the matter is there are too many humans living on this planet. When a animal population grows too large, Mother Nature has brutal ways to reduce that population. Quickly


Two thumbs up.
Shot 'em, now I'm gonna hang 'em, then I'm gonna burn 'em!
Damn Zombies. Can't ever be too dead to suit me.

- with apologies to Larry McMurtry

User avatar
grennels
* * * *
Posts: 909
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:04 pm
Location: North Central Ohio

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by grennels » Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:54 pm

woodsghost wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:34 am
teotwaki wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:16 am
MPMalloy wrote: No quotes - avoiding politics.
.

No need to worry about being the first to mention “politics”

The very first post starts with a very political topic about a highly political group that keeps their data secret and has been roundly criticized by its own members as well as numerous others for its political skulduggery.
The whole "we are not releasing our data to the public" thing is a huge red flag, and that leads me to be skeptical of the rest of what they have to say. On the other hand, there are groups with more openness and accountability. And some scientists still question the human impact on climate change. So as long as the scientific community is still working out what is going on and how much humans are responsible, vs other natural mechanisms of climate change, I'm interested in solutions and seeing if we can implement them while also making lifestyle changes.

Just where I'm at.


"Some scientists" = a very small number.
Shot 'em, now I'm gonna hang 'em, then I'm gonna burn 'em!
Damn Zombies. Can't ever be too dead to suit me.

- with apologies to Larry McMurtry

User avatar
woodsghost
* * * * *
Posts: 2890
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by woodsghost » Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:26 am

grennels wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:54 pm
woodsghost wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:34 am
teotwaki wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:16 am
MPMalloy wrote: No quotes - avoiding politics.
.

No need to worry about being the first to mention “politics”

The very first post starts with a very political topic about a highly political group that keeps their data secret and has been roundly criticized by its own members as well as numerous others for its political skulduggery.
The whole "we are not releasing our data to the public" thing is a huge red flag, and that leads me to be skeptical of the rest of what they have to say. On the other hand, there are groups with more openness and accountability. And some scientists still question the human impact on climate change. So as long as the scientific community is still working out what is going on and how much humans are responsible, vs other natural mechanisms of climate change, I'm interested in solutions and seeing if we can implement them while also making lifestyle changes.

Just where I'm at.


"Some scientists" = a very small number.
That, in a nutshell, is where the politics are. But I feel the way forward is to focus on what we can do about it. That is why I'm excited about technology which sucks carbon out while also having technology which reduces carbon output. And that has had an impact in some people's preps, such as stercutus, above.
*Remember: I'm just a guy on the internet :)
*Don't go to stupid places with stupid people & do stupid things.
*Be courteous. Look normal. Be in bed by 10'clock.

“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” -Bilbo Baggins.

User avatar
Sun Yeti
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:54 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: 28 Days Later, Zomblies (no, that's not a typo)
Contact:

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by Sun Yeti » Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:31 pm

Anywho... lets assume that by 2030 you will have 50% less resources from CO2 emitting resources. An across the board equal cut as unlikely as that may be. That is only 12 years away
.

OK, so getting back to the original question, and doing my best to ignore (*twitch twitch*) various factually incorrect statements along the way (engaging with which would certainly be labeled politics), how could I cut my carbon footprint in half in the near-ish future?

For many middle-class people in this country, about half their carbon footprint comes from their vehicle emissions. I don't own a car; I commute and get around using a combination of bicycle and public transit. So, there's very little fat to trim there. If I switched to only biking tomorrow, I would very likely blow out my knees in spectacular fashion (my commute is 11 miles each way; I don't do it via bike every day). However, given 12 years, I might be able to build up my tendons, joints etc. to the point where I could mostly bike places. That's something I plan on working on anyways. A bike is a mostly carbon-free way to get around, but there's still embodied carbon emissions in occasional replacement parts. Would switching to almost all biking cut my transportation carbon footprint in half? Probably more than half actually, but my transportation is not a large chunk of my carbon footprint to begin with.

I take maybe four or five plane trips a year; I would probably have to stop doing that altogether. Electric rail is a pretty good substitute that's much lower in carbon: shame only one of the places I want to travel to is readily accessible that way. A bus trip is substantially longer than a plane flight, but would probably be my only lower carbon option for many trips (and god, it would be awful going from East Coast to California via bus; I love my relatives, but maybe enough to do that in order to see them).

OK, how about my dwelling place? My wife and I live in a smallish one-bedroom apartment (significantly lower heating and cooling expenditures than a freestanding, single-family dwelling), and we already buy wind power. How green is the 'wind electricity' option? Certainly not as green as actually being hooked up to a renewable-only grid, but still greener than regular electricity; most of the extra money that I pay goes to people that will use it, or borrowed against it to build wind turbines. Since we rent, we can't get too much of our power from renewable energy (although I do have a solar panel hanging from our balcony rail that powers some lighting), so really the only way I can see to cut carbon in half is to somehow convince the landlord to replace our decades-old central air unit with a shiny new, super-efficient one. Given that we pay for electricity and they don't, that's going to be a very hard sell.

Lastly, the embodied carbon from food and consumer goods. Bye bye meat, it was nice knowing you! I don't eat that much meat, but I would have to cut it out entirely. Same goes for any produce from foreign countries or California or Florida (goodby nuts, citrus, most dried fruit). This sucks! For consumer goods, I would probably have to stop buying brand-new survival gear on the Internet, and try to scavenge what I needed from thrift stores instead (I already get most of my clothes from thrift stores, but I'm less picky about what I wear than I am about potentially life-or-death survival/camping gear).

Now, on the other hand, if you drive a huge SUV or pickup truck to work every day, you can pretty easily cut your carbon footprint almost in half by switching to an electric car (or even better/cheaper/greener a sweet electric motorcycle from Zero Motors). If you own your own home, you can add some solar panels (and a Tesla Powerwall while you're at it; no self-respecting survivalist is going to be without power in a home covered in solar panels just because the grid is down), and now you've cut probably 3/4 of your carbon footprint. Expensive, certainly, but you have 12 years; eke a few more years out of your old car and get an electric vehicle when the price has come down some more. The cost of home solar installation continues to drop every year, and if you do an energy efficiency retrofit first, you can usually cut your power consumption in half without effecting your lifestyle much (this is a good idea even if you don't get solar panels).

Anyway, I think a 50% cut in carbon footprint is very achievable for most middle class people in this country over 12 years, in fact I think our carbon emissions are likely to drop a good deal by 2030 (although not by half) anyways.
The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” -Isaac Asimov

User avatar
majorhavoc
ZS Donor
ZS Donor
Posts: 6853
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 10:06 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: 28 Days Later, ZombieLand, Dawn of the Dead
Location: Maine

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by majorhavoc » Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:07 pm

It's worse than we thought. :ohdear:

Heat and Drought Could Threaten World Beer Supply https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/scie ... e=Homepage

Image

MPMalloy
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 3851
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:48 am

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by MPMalloy » Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:04 pm

majorhavoc wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:07 pm
It's worse than we thought. :ohdear:

Heat and Drought Could Threaten World Beer Supply https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/scie ... e=Homepage

Image
Being sober, I'm not personally concerned.

Effects on others??? Not really concerned. I'm not saying "ALL FUCKING ALKIES MUST DRY OUT!", but...umm...(meh). :clownshoes:

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 12453
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Bouncing in to Graceland

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by Stercutus » Mon Oct 15, 2018 6:04 pm

in fact I think our carbon emissions are likely to drop a good deal by 2030 (although not by half) anyways.

Last year despite the booming economy the US cut emissions by .5%. For our members overseas other countries did not do so well with most European countries (France, Italy) increasing and China of course posting a large increase.
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

User avatar
Sun Yeti
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:54 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: 28 Days Later, Zomblies (no, that's not a typo)
Contact:

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by Sun Yeti » Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:36 pm

To be fair on the China emissions issue, they manufacture enormous amounts of consumer goods for the rest of the world, so it's not like we have nothing to do with China's emissions. I've personally contributed to China's emissions by buying a few hundred dollars worth of new gear in the last month.

Also remember a 0.5% drop in emissions doesn't mean CO2 concentrations are going down, rather just that they are increasing slower.

All that being said, I take a 0.5% drop in emissions as really good news. If anyone reading this is a solar installer or a wind turbine technician, keep up the good work!

And as for a global perspective, given that global renewable energy install rates have been growing exponentially for decades and show no signs of slowing down, I expect global CO2 emissions to peak by the middle of the next decade or so, absent radical changes in trajectory. Again, that just means getting worse slower rather than getting better, but I would still see it as really good news.
The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” -Isaac Asimov

grumpyviking
* * *
Posts: 461
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 5:47 am
Location: rural UK

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by grumpyviking » Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:25 am

2030? it'll come to a head a long time before that.
Survive, Adapt & Evolve .

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 12453
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Bouncing in to Graceland

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by Stercutus » Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:02 am

As it turns out the smallest attempts to curtail the use of fossil fuels has led to widespread protests in France.

Imagine this on a worldwide scale. This is the point I was trying to get to.
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

User avatar
flybynight
* * * * *
Posts: 2351
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 12:30 am

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by flybynight » Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:31 am

To be fair on the China emissions issue, they manufacture enormous amounts of consumer goods for the rest of the world, so it's not like we have nothing to do with China's emissions. I've personally contributed to China's emissions by buying a few hundred dollars worth of new gear in the last month.
As of now I bet you got me wrong

John Titor was right

Zed Hunter
* *
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:02 am

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by Zed Hunter » Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:36 am

4 years ago I was experimenting with biodiesel and waste vegetable oil to run my F250 power stroke. I wound up blending diesel with WVO and running it as rich as 80% WVO in the summer down to 50% WVO in the winter. I did this for two years at my home. Then the house next door went up for sale. The realtor looked into my yard from the 2nd floor, decided she needed to call the city. They shut me down based in my "manufacturing" in a residential zoning. They did not care that I was reducing my carbon foot print. (As well as saving a large amount of money per tank full. ) only the city's zoning counted.

User avatar
teotwaki
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 4293
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Contact:

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by teotwaki » Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:02 pm

Sun Yeti wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:36 pm
To be fair on the China emissions issue, they manufacture enormous amounts of consumer goods for the rest of the world, so it's not like we have nothing to do with China's emissions.
Good point.

The problem is how China runs manufacturing in a less sustainable manner and pollutes much more per ton of consumer goods than does a Western company trying to meet all sorts of environmental rules. Supposedly in 2016 they started fining companies but in 2017 it only amounted to $180 million across 14,000 companies if I read it right.


https://qz.com/1177395/pollution-data-b ... clean-air/
http://www.cmc-consultants.com/pollutio ... ctor-facts
https://money.cnn.com/2017/11/27/news/e ... index.html
My adventures and pictures are on my blog http://suntothenorth.blogspot.com

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 12453
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Bouncing in to Graceland

Re: IPCC Reports TEOTWAWKI by 2030-40

Post by Stercutus » Sat Dec 01, 2018 8:34 pm

Zed Hunter wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:36 am
4 years ago I was experimenting with biodiesel and waste vegetable oil to run my F250 power stroke. I wound up blending diesel with WVO and running it as rich as 80% WVO in the summer down to 50% WVO in the winter. I did this for two years at my home. Then the house next door went up for sale. The realtor looked into my yard from the 2nd floor, decided she needed to call the city. They shut me down based in my "manufacturing" in a residential zoning. They did not care that I was reducing my carbon foot print. (As well as saving a large amount of money per tank full. ) only the city's zoning counted.
WVO is now a valuable bi-product. Every night tankers trucks go all over our city sucking it out of containers that the company provides VO users for that purpose.
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Post Reply

Return to “Contingency Planning & Preparation”