It is currently Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:42 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Eaarth
PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:12 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Posts: 7369
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Image
(click on image for link)

Quote:
"Read it, please. Straight through to the end. Whatever else you were planning to do next, nothing could be more important." —Barbara Kingsolver


I agree. Please read "Eaarth". Check it out from your local library, or buy it and pass it along to someone.

_________________
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:19 pm
Posts: 379
Location: San Diego
more "live green" crap.

*yawn*


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:26 am 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:39 am
Posts: 455
Location: England
Fayd wrote:
more "live green" crap.

*yawn*


Another valuable and insightful comment from our friend Fayd.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:34 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Posts: 7369
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Open your mind.

The tropical region at the equator has expanded by more than 2 degrees latitude, both on the northern and the southern hemispheres, since 1980 -- adding a further 8.5 million square miles to the tropics.

The pH of the ocean has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 and in short while shellfish will not be able to form their shells properly.

A “staggeringâ€

_________________
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:41 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Posts: 4247
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US
NeilBlanchard wrote:
Open your mind.


1. You request simply defies the conservative principal.

2. I like green options for the cleaner air aspect, which means fewer health problems, and ultimately lower health care costs.

3. Man tends to invent things during times of extreme need. When something new should be invented or found and there's not much need the need is created by law. There were a ton of nay-sayers in the early 1970's with the proposal of the catalytic converter. It's introduction lead to other advances and better efficiency, meaning more horsepower and better mileage. But had we gone with the nay sayers then we'd be like Europe, who waited what? 2 decades later to require cats?

4. I don't believe anything the government or corporations say or do anymore, especially when they cry that some regulation will destroy jobs or cripple the economy. What worry about that? Wall St has done a far better job than regulations or even bin Laden.

We have reached this point:

Bennito Musslini wrote:
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho ... olini.html

_________________
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:22 am
Posts: 379
Location: maine
ya know, I am a mechanic...

the first cats had a chance for crazy hydrocarbons.
they did get smart.

I then realized we are just moving the immediate crap temporaily because we are in it. Like massachussetts moving crap to a maine dumpsite.
or the flush of a city toilet simply has a turd flownig underground to somebody elses problem.

smell no crap, there must be no crap inventions.. wrong.

your a pig as much as I... selfish PIGs.

the real clean has real reactions closer to god. gas burns once.. volcanoes erupt in one direction.. earthquakes crack their rumble and change an appearance.

ice melts and refreezes...


I honest to my on god blame the last quarter century on exhaust gas recirculation in an automobile.

we all get to have our human theories... pigs.

_________________
DSFg$57%udRTYnh


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:20 am 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:39 am
Posts: 455
Location: England
aristide1 wrote:

1. You request simply defies the conservative principal.



Caring about the environment is not restricted to left wing anti globalisation anti capitalists. Don't stereotype all the people who are not left wing.
Same goes for being open minded.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:49 am
Posts: 454
Location: Where I Am
judge56988 wrote:
aristide1 wrote:

1. You request simply defies the conservative principal.



Caring about the environment is not restricted to left wing anti globalisation anti capitalists. Don't stereotype all the people who are not left wing.
Same goes for being open minded.

Environmental concern is not a monopoly of the far left, though they would like to have it that way, because the far left/green movements' environmental platform really is a front for a more perverse, sinister social agenda that is anti-family, anti-worker, anti-econonic growth, anti-national sovereignty.. They couldn't care less if the whole country went out of work and families drank tap water and ate water biscuits everyday so as long as "their environment" gets "protected" from "harm" and they get to implement their perverted policies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 4:50 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Posts: 7369
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Image

_________________
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 10:41 am 
Offline
SPCR News Editor

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
Posts: 2175
Location: TN, USA
I read eaarth and I wasn't impressed.

Maybe I'd be better off trying one of Bill McKibben's older books but this one came off too dense, pissed off, and yet still didn't seem to have a cohesive plot/plan/end. Definitely some small tidbits here and there that made it worth reading but not a book I'd recommend to others.

I thought Storms of My Grandchildren by James Hansen was more informative and a better read.

The common flaw I saw in both books is neither author even mentioned space based solar power with microwave transmission of power back to earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power as mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_F ... s_in_Space by Gerard K. O'Neill

space based power might not be a short term solution but when you are writing about 90+ year time scales you have to consider future power generation methods.

_________________
.
Please put a country in your profile if you haven't already.
This site is international but I'll assume you are in the US if you don't tell me otherwise.
RAID levels thread http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=388987


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:34 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Posts: 4247
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US
judge56988 wrote:
Don't stereotype all the people who are not left wing.


OK, how about all the really vocal ones, fair enough?

_________________
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 3:42 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Posts: 7369
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Quote:
The common flaw I saw in both books is neither author even mentioned space based solar power with microwave transmission of power back to earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power as mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_F ... s_in_Space by Gerard K. O'Neill


Sounds very expensive, complicated, and slow to implement? Whats wrong with land-based solar? We can implement storage systems, and/or overlap with wind, geothermal, methane digesters, wave power, tidal power, small scale hydro, biomass -- a varied mix for the needs and resources of various locations. One big "silver bullet" answer is not going to be possible, nor would it really be desirable.

_________________
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 9:32 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Posts: 4247
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US
judge56988 wrote:
aristide1 wrote:

1. You request simply defies the conservative principal.



Caring about the environment is not restricted to left wing anti globalisation anti capitalists. Don't stereotype all the people who are not left wing.
Same goes for being open minded.


Have you been exposed much to US republicans? Perhaps I should have stated them, as they do not practice conservatism anymore.

My statement never meant to imply outside the US.

Sorry.

_________________
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:23 am 
Offline
SPCR News Editor

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
Posts: 2175
Location: TN, USA
NeilBlanchard wrote:
Quote:
The common flaw I saw in both books is neither author even mentioned space based solar power with microwave transmission of power back to earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power as mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_F ... s_in_Space by Gerard K. O'Neill


Sounds very expensive, complicated, and slow to implement? Whats wrong with land-based solar? We can implement storage systems, and/or overlap with wind, geothermal, methane digesters, wave power, tidal power, small scale hydro, biomass -- a varied mix for the needs and resources of various locations. One big "silver bullet" answer is not going to be possible, nor would it really be desirable.


Land based solar is great. I hope to have it on my roof in the next few years. And variety is good. I don't want all our eggs in one basket but I do want to get off coal and all the tar sand and coal liquification type solutions that would send insane amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.

The point of space based solar is you have no atmospheric losses and the losses by conversion to microwave transmission and back to electric at the receiver is less than the atmospheric losses.

In addition solar on my roof would only give full power for about 5 hours a day but solar in space if done right gives full power 24/7 (you put the solar cells out far enough they are never in shadow. No night if your orbit is right).

Here let me quote some

Quote:
...If solar cells at Earth's surface were to be used to supply all our electric power, we would have to cover about forty times as much area, or about 8 percent of the continental United States, with opaque solar arrays. [his math was done assuming efficiency of about 16% for ground based cells and 80% for space based cells. Efficiency for both would be higher now] ... The average over a year of solar energy intensity in the United States is only an eighth as much as in space.


8 times the solar intensity * 24/5 is about 40 times the power gross and even if half the energy is lost in transmission/conversion you still end up with 15-20 times as much energy per cell from space based solar plants.

The only thing holding this back is launch costs and we have to hope that SpaceX and the like will make this reasonable. NASA hasn't done it.

Image

You do realize that that little green line has to grow to replace that entire red area to stop Global Warming don't you?

No small scale change is going to make that green like grow. It's going to take big thinking and money to change this situation.

Oh and for the record I'm all for more nuclear as well. Standardize the designs and make them the type that can use spent fuel from the older reactors and it's all good.

_________________
.
Please put a country in your profile if you haven't already.
This site is international but I'll assume you are in the US if you don't tell me otherwise.
RAID levels thread http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=388987


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:19 pm
Posts: 379
Location: San Diego
the thing that's stopping fast breeder reactors is regulation. your hippie friends that think somehow a nuclear power reactor is a bomb waiting to kill you all.

people shouldn't be taking their ideas for power from science fiction books. that's just fucking retarded.

regarding neilblanchard's cartoon, global 'warming' and pollution are two separate issues. it pisses me off the number of retards who want to connect them to say that if you're against legislation regarding the farce that is human impacted global warming, then you're against taking any action regarding pollution in general.

i agree with the pursuit of "energy independence" as a foreign policy measure. from a realist perspective, being dependent on foreign oil makes us subservient to someone else. IF war were to break out between us and them, we would lack the oil to power our machine of war. hence why i support the drilling in ANWR and anywhere else there's economically viable extractable oil. this is also why i support a massive expansion of the US nuclear industry, allowing for the creation of both fast-breeder reactors, and thorium based reactors.

however, economic independence is, to me, far more important. this massive expansion of the US National Debt under the Obama administration to fund your "green jobs" bullshit is, in my opinion, far more damaging to the US than any dependence upon foreign oil. it funds the creation of jobs that are not economically feasible.

dhanson865: our politicians operate enough in the area of fantasy. i'd rather you didn't give them more bullshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:51 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Posts: 7369
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Three Mile Island nearly melted down -- all too real. Nuclear is way too expensive. All the plants being built now (all over the world) are way over budget. The same money spent on wind would be a lot more productive.

We need to mimic the principle of what they are already doing in Germany with renewable energy. Mixed sources, and mixed locations, some storage, and smarter grid management. It ain't rocket science and it is doable right now.

It isn't perfect, but it is a lot better than spewing carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gases are pollutants, too.

_________________
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:03 am 
Offline
SPCR News Editor

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
Posts: 2175
Location: TN, USA
Fayd wrote:
people shouldn't be taking their ideas for power from science fiction books. that's just fucking retarded.


If you are refering to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_F ... s_in_Space by Gerard K. O'Neill as fiction you are badly mistaken.


Quote:
Gerard Kitchen O'Neill (February 6, 1927 – April 27, 1992) was an American physicist and space activist. As a faculty member of Princeton University, he invented a device called the particle storage ring for high-energy physics experiments. Later, he invented a magnetic launcher called the mass driver.[1] In the 1970s, he developed a plan to build human settlements in outer space, including a space habitat design known as the O'Neill cylinder. He founded the Space Studies Institute, an organization devoted to funding research into space manufacturing and colonization.

O'Neill began researching high-energy particle physics at Princeton in 1954 after he received his doctorate from Cornell University. Two years later, he published his theory for a particle storage ring. This invention allowed particle physics experiments at much higher energies than had previously been possible. In 1965 at Stanford University, he performed the first colliding beam physics experiment.[2]

While teaching physics at Princeton, O'Neill became interested in the possibility that humans could live in outer space. He researched and proposed a futuristic idea for human settlement in space, the O'Neill cylinder, in "The Colonization of Space", his first paper on the subject. He held a conference on space manufacturing at Princeton in 1975. Many who became post-Apollo-era space activists attended. O'Neill built his first mass driver prototype with professor Henry Kolm in 1976. He considered mass drivers critical for extracting the mineral resources of the Moon and asteroids. His award-winning book The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space inspired a generation of space exploration advocates.

...

He applied to the Astronaut Corps after NASA opened it up to civilian scientists in 1966. Later, when asked why he wanted to go on the Moon missions, he said, "to be alive now and not take part in it seemed terribly myopic".[5] He was put through NASA's rigorous mental and physical examinations.

NASA studies (1975–1977)

O'Neill held a much larger conference the following May titled Princeton University Conference on Space Manufacturing.[36] At this conference more than two dozen speakers presented papers, including Keith and Carolyn Henson from Tucson, Arizona.[37][38]

After the conference Carolyn Henson arranged a meeting between O'Neill and Arizona Congressman Morris Udall. Udall wrote a letter of support, which he asked the Hensons to publicize, for O'Neill's work.[37] The Hensons included his letter in the first issue of the L-5 Society newsletter, sent to everyone on O'Neill's mailing list and those who had signed up at the conference.[37][39]

...

In June 1975, O'Neill led a ten-week study of permanent space habitats at NASA Ames. During the study he was called away to testify on July 23 to the House Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications.[40] On January 19, 1976, he also appeared before the Senate Subcommittee on Aerospace Technology and National Needs. In a presentation titled Solar Power from Satellites, he laid out his case for an Apollo-style program for building power plants in space.[41] He returned to Ames in June 1976 and 1977 to lead studies on space manufacturing.[42] In these studies, NASA developed detailed plans to establish bases on the Moon where space-suited workers would mine the mineral resources needed to build space colonies and solar power satellites.[43]

...

Private funding (1977–1978)

Although NASA was supporting his work with grants of up to $500,000 per year, O'Neill became frustrated by the bureaucracy and politics inherent in government funded research.[3][22] He thought that small privately funded groups could develop space technology faster than government agencies.[2] In 1977, O'Neill and his wife Tasha founded the Space Studies Institute, a non-profit organization, at Princeton University.[6][44] SSI received initial funding of almost $100,000 from private donors, and in early 1978 began to support basic research into technologies needed for space manufacturing and settlement.[45]


The man didn't write that book for leisure reading. He wrote it as part of a serious effort to educate and spur businesses to develop industry in space.

You can say his plans didn't work out as fast as he wanted or you can say you don't think they are viable at all but don't harp on it as just fictional.

You know Arthur C. Clarke was a science fiction writer but he also did the math and described the concept for a geosynchronous orbit.

Quote:
most important scientific contribution may be his idea that geostationary satellites would be ideal telecommunications relays. He described this concept in a paper titled Extra-Terrestrial Relays — Can Rocket Stations Give Worldwide Radio Coverage?, published in Wireless World in October 1945.[80] The geostationary orbit is now sometimes known as the Clarke Orbit or the Clarke Belt in his honour.[81][82]


I mean you'd have to be ignorant to not know that we use satellites on a daily basis that were placed just as described by a science fiction writer.

And solar power stations have nothing to do with US politicians. If they ever happen on any scale other than testing it'll be private industry that does it.

_________________
.
Please put a country in your profile if you haven't already.
This site is international but I'll assume you are in the US if you don't tell me otherwise.
RAID levels thread http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=388987


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:19 pm
Posts: 379
Location: San Diego
NeilBlanchard wrote:
Three Mile Island nearly melted down -- all too real. Nuclear is way too expensive. All the plants being built now (all over the world) are way over budget. The same money spent on wind would be a lot more productive.

We need to mimic the principle of what they are already doing in Germany with renewable energy. Mixed sources, and mixed locations, some storage, and smarter grid management. It ain't rocket science and it is doable right now.

It isn't perfect, but it is a lot better than spewing carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gases are pollutants, too.


three-mile island is an example of a safety system that functioned as planned when the worst happened.

your idea that somehow a meltdown is gonna trigger some massive explosion or breach of containment is ridiculous.

and you're absolutely batshit insane if you think wind power is cheaper than nuclear.

"greenhouse gasses" are only classified as pollutants because of stupid politicians and stupid constituents.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:51 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Posts: 7369
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
We are alive because of greenhouse gasses -- and ~43% percent increase of carbon dioxide (one of the main GHG) in just 150 years, when we sat at 275PPM for 10,000 years is a substantial increase.

Try breathing carbon dioxide some day and tell me that it isn't a pollutant. ANYTHING can be a pollutant if there is too much of it.

Do you have any idea how powerful the strong force is? Do you know how much matter was expended in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs?

ONE GRAM.

It incinerated entire cities with one gram of matter. A little containment dome doesn't stand a chance. It had started to melt down, and we are damn lucky it didn't.

Check out the costs of a modern nuclear plant -- they run into the many billions of dollars, and they run way over budget and take a long long time to build.

And they have yet to figure out how to get Murphy to retract his law. The risks of a nuclear power plant are great. Nobody died from a wind spill...

Be careful with your invectives sir/madam -- someone might take them personally. One might also be wondering if you are afraid of losing the argument, and start name calling/insults as a result?

_________________
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


Last edited by NeilBlanchard on Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:51 pm 
Offline
SPCR News Editor

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
Posts: 2175
Location: TN, USA
Fayd wrote:
NeilBlanchard wrote:
Three Mile Island nearly melted down -- all too real. Nuclear is way too expensive. All the plants being built now (all over the world) are way over budget. The same money spent on wind would be a lot more productive.

We need to mimic the principle of what they are already doing in Germany with renewable energy. Mixed sources, and mixed locations, some storage, and smarter grid management. It ain't rocket science and it is doable right now.

It isn't perfect, but it is a lot better than spewing carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gases are pollutants, too.


three-mile island is an example of a safety system that functioned as planned when the worst happened.

your idea that somehow a meltdown is gonna trigger some massive explosion or breach of containment is ridiculous.

and you're absolutely batshit insane if you think wind power is cheaper than nuclear.


In general you are correct that past costs haven't favored wind. In the future it is expected to be cheaper than Nuclear in some areas. It all depends on where you compare wind vs nuclear.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5354 shows

Image

Outside of the US Nuclear will be cheaper than wind for some time to come it appears.

Just goes to show how screwed up US nuclear energy is. Too much money spent on non operating costs before you ever break ground on a new nuclear plant in the US.

_________________
.
Please put a country in your profile if you haven't already.
This site is international but I'll assume you are in the US if you don't tell me otherwise.
RAID levels thread http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=388987


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:19 pm
Posts: 379
Location: San Diego
NeilBlanchard wrote:
We are alive because of greenhouse gasses -- and ~43% percent increase of carbon dioxide (one of the main GHG) in just 150 years, when we sat at 275PPM for 10,000 years is a substantial increase.

Try breathing carbon dioxide some day and tell me that it isn't a pollutant. ANYTHING can be a pollutant if there is too much of it.

Do you have any idea how powerful the strong force is? Do you know how much matter was expended in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs?

ONE GRAM.

It incinerated entire cities with one gram of matter. A little containment dome doesn't stand a chance. It had started to melt down, and we are damn lucky it didn't.

Check out the costs of a modern nuclear plant -- they run into the many billions of dollars, and they run way over budget and take a long long time to build.

And they have yet to figure out how to get Murphy to retract his law. The risks of a nuclear power plant are great. Nobody died from a wind spill...

Be careful with your invectives sir/madam -- someone might take them personally. One might also be wondering if you are afraid of losing the argument, and start name calling/insults as a result?


a poison or an asphyxiant does not make a pollutant. how dumb are you? is argon a pollutant?

the design of a bomb is vastly different than the design of a nuclear power plant. even in the event of a full meltdown, there is no nuclear explosion. it overheats and melts the core (hence meltdown). even at chernobyl, the only explosion was a steam explosion. and that could easily have been contained if they had built a proper containment system. (which every one of our reactors has.)

i'd like to know where you got the ridiculous idea that the bomb contained 1 gram of uranium. what a fucking joke.

the costs associated with building modern nuclear power plants are by and large to satisfy absurd amounts of bureaucratic bullshit instituted by hippies like you intended to stop the expansion of the nuclear power industry. it has little to do with safety.

near where i live is san onofre.. each dome outputs ~ 1.2 gigawatts. tell me, how much does your average windfarm output? according to wikipedia, the largest put out somewhere around 1/4 of the total output of san onofre? using something like 50x the land? you do realize there's an implicit cost to using all that land for wind powered electricity generation, right?

wind power is heavily dependent on weather, and there's no practical way to store large amounts of power for any length of time. while winds might be predictable, they're not absolute. a grid that bases its power generation on wind WILL run dark.

there is no such thing as winning or losing an argument, especially on the internet. there's nothing i can say or do to cure your stupidity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 3:34 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Posts: 7369
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
You sir/madam, are distorting my words.

Too much argon would be a pollutant. Too much ozone would be a pollutant. Too much carbolic acid is a pollutant. Too much mercury is a pollutant. Too much oxygen is a pollutant.

I said that 1gm of matter was expended by the explosion. You are making a fool of yourself by saying otherwise.

Read this folks, to find out where the Tea Party and Global Climate Change deniers get their money:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

_________________
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


Last edited by NeilBlanchard on Wed Aug 25, 2010 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:14 am 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:39 am
Posts: 455
Location: England
NeilBlanchard wrote:
Be careful with your invectives sir/madam -- someone might take them personally. One might also be wondering if you are afraid of losing the argument, and start name calling/insults as a result?

Neil, why waste your time even responding to his/her posts?
If ignorant fuckwits were ignored they might just go away.
It's amazing how brave an anonymous person in a forum can be - I wonder if Fayd would have the bottle to say anything like that to your face?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:53 am 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Posts: 867
Location: Phoenix, AZ
The easiest way to live green is to be poor. Consuming resources takes money, so the only way to truly reduce the usage of resources is to make everybody poor. The more poor, the lower the resource usage. This is proved by the UN statistics of per-capita income versus per-capita resource usage. In case anybody ever wondered why socialism and the environmentalism movement are so closely aligned, it's because socialism makes the whole country poor, and a poor country has a smaller carbon footprint than a wealthy one.

_________________
Phenom 1090T / 9800GTX+ / Antec P180 / Seasonic S12-600


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:19 pm
Posts: 379
Location: San Diego
judge56988 wrote:
NeilBlanchard wrote:
Be careful with your invectives sir/madam -- someone might take them personally. One might also be wondering if you are afraid of losing the argument, and start name calling/insults as a result?

Neil, why waste your time even responding to his/her posts?
If ignorant fuckwits were ignored they might just go away.
It's amazing how brave an anonymous person in a forum can be - I wonder if Fayd would have the bottle to say anything like that to your face?


if one were so inclined, they could easily figure out who i am.

ah, of course, refusing to buy into the hype being sold by some idiot with a powerpoint presentation makes me an ignorant fuckwit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:49 am
Posts: 454
Location: Where I Am
AZBrandon wrote:
The easiest way to live green is to be poor. Consuming resources takes money, so the only way to truly reduce the usage of resources is to make everybody poor. The more poor, the lower the resource usage. This is proved by the UN statistics of per-capita income versus per-capita resource usage. In case anybody ever wondered why socialism and the environmentalism movement are so closely aligned, it's because socialism makes the whole country poor, and a poor country has a smaller carbon footprint than a wealthy one.

It's no wonder why the green/climate change movement is more accurately called the watermelon movement.

Carbon taxes, green taxes, emissions trading schemes are just statist slush funds.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:57 am 
Offline
SPCR Reviewer

Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 6:33 am
Posts: 8636
Location: Sunny SoCal
Attn: ALL OF YOUZ!

Quit the name-calling or I'll lock this (or delete it).

Consider this your only warning!

_________________
Main Box: Intel i3-3225, Intel DH77EB, 16GB Corsair RAM, 256GB Samsung 830, SS360GP PSU, CM PS07 case.
Music Server: Intel DH77EB + i3-3220, 2xSamsung 2TB F4, Pico PSU, Fractal Define Mini, 2xScythe Fans @250 rpm.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:13 am 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Posts: 867
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Shamgar wrote:
It's no wonder why the green/climate change movement is more accurately called the watermelon movement.

Carbon taxes, green taxes, emissions trading schemes are just statist slush funds.


I'd never heard that expression before, but here in the states there is a small but statistically significant movement towards growing your own produce and the emergence of local farmers markets. It attracts all types though - there's some ultra-conservative types who are very big on growing your own food because it fits well with a conservative agenda? How you ask?

1) Home grown food is not imported from hostile nations
2) Home grown food is not taxed by the government (yet)
3) The government can't ration food that was never theirs to begin with

I'm not making this up! Check out The Emergency Seed Bank

Quote:
Why Is a Seed Bank So Necessary?

As the world wide government agenda goes forward, one of the next things to be hit will be our food supply. The reason is simple. The government now owns our houses (by bailing out the banks), they have stopped our freedom to travel (by hiking up gas prices, and new "security" measures) and now they want to control our food, where we live, go to school, work, eat, and sleep.


I thought it was cool to be honest, when I first saw a group advertising home produce production as a conservative movement, when up to this point a lot of people associate that with leftist movements. I'm encouraged because I see it as opportunity for the country to unite and move towards common goals (healthy, affordable, locally produced food) regardless of what inspired you to do so. It's hard to go wrong with planting and harvesting your own food.

Besides, if we're all going to be poor anyway, we may as well have our Topsy-Turvy strawberries to comfort us in our home or balcony gardens.

_________________
Phenom 1090T / 9800GTX+ / Antec P180 / Seasonic S12-600


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:38 am 
Offline
SPCR News Editor

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
Posts: 2175
Location: TN, USA
Image

Notice that solar power doesn't even show on the graph and wind is so small you can barely see it.

Gail the actuary wrote:
Wind energy is the tiny dark green line that is visible only in recent years, just above the line I call "wood and ethanol" on the chart. (It is called "biomass" in the EIA report it comes from.) The "wood and ethanol" line does not rise very quickly either.

Other ways of measuring the rise in wind energy would give a little more favorable picture. For example, the percentage would be a little higher, if we looked only at electricity, or the amount of energy were measured differently from the way the EIA does it. But no matter how one measures it, it is not coming close to replacing fossil fuels.

The thick black line at the top is US energy consumption, and the difference between US consumption and US production is imports.

...
...
...

The second problem is that energy transitions take decades, or longer. We first started using coal before 1800, but use did not scale up to a high level until 1910, over 100 years later. Natural gas use began by 1890, but it was not until 1970 that it reached 2.2% of world energy supply.


more graphs and text at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6890

_________________
.
Please put a country in your profile if you haven't already.
This site is international but I'll assume you are in the US if you don't tell me otherwise.
RAID levels thread http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=388987


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: not quite....
PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:56 pm
Posts: 1075
Location: San Jose
NeilBlanchard wrote:

And they have yet to figure out how to get Murphy to retract his law. The risks of a nuclear power plant are great. Nobody died from a wind spill...



Well, to be fair, more than a few people have died erecting and maintaining windmills. Here are some links:

http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/fullaccidents.pdf

I understand that you're worried about nuclear power, but the safety record in the US is pretty exemplary. There are risks to nuclear power, but the industry has worked hard to minimize them all, and new designs keep getting safer. Given the power of the strong force, can we really ignore it in the face of almost unthinkable damage that could be caused by global climate change? I also think we need a variety of non-carbon power sources, but I don't think that we should ignore one of the most powerful sources that's already in wide use.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group