RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2013 05:09 pm
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/226027_422363681176146_1011788199_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2013 05:51 pm
Got Tar Sands?
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/480694_484472634932009_576598868_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2013 06:03 pm
A Safer And More Efficient Lithium Battery Could Boost Low-Carbon Transportation
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/28/1505931/a-safer-and-more-efficient-lithium-battery-could-boost-low-carbon-transportation/
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2013 06:19 pm
@RexRed,
It circumnavigated the world, to what benefit? What fish did it catch, or how much cargo was transported. In other words, what point was made other than that solar cells produce electricity - a point long established.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2013 06:20 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:

Fukushima is sill spewing nuclear fallout and is part of a concerted media blackout called "plume gate".... You are full of it George. Care for a serving of radiated salmon George? And you still think nuclear power is better than solar?
You here further demonstrate your ignorance of the radionuclides associated with uranium reactors; the types of materiasls released in this accident; and the available biological uptake paths associated with them. Did you notice the following disclaimer included early in the article you cited here ... before all the scary speculation that followed ;
Quote:
What are researchers finding post-Fukushima?

Dr. Ken Buesseler, a world expert in marine radioactivity with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, is leading an international research team tracking Fukushima's trails in the Pacific. He -- and other scientists -- have found radiation up to 600 km off Japan's coast. The amount they've found thus far does not pose a risk to humans or marine life, they say, although a few scientific voices are raising doubts
.


The Huffington Post is not exactly a reknowned source of accurate scientific opinion, however, it is very good at transforming an optimistic assessment by a team of scientists into a falsely negative propaganda piece about an issue it opposes.
The containment around the reactors has been reestablished and no significant release is likely.

RexRed wrote:

Solar power accomplishes two things at once, it blocks the rays of light from further warming the planet and supplies energy for our needs... What could be more ideal?
Here again your woeful lack of understanding of physics or thermdynamics, combined with your well-developed prejudices, have led you to truly laughable errors and illusions. Solar cells collect the thermal energy of the incident sunlight and convert it to electrical energy, which is ultimately delivered to machines and light fixtures, all of which discharge the energy used to the environment as heat. There is zero elimination of the thermal energy added to the environment by the sun. It's a little thing called the First Law of Thermodynamica (there are only two).
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2013 06:22 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:


You mean like it's doing now for the Boeing Dreamliner?
0 Replies
 
noinipo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2013 07:03 pm
@Pemerson,
If only we could find a way of harnessing all that energy.
----------------------
Solar is the Latin word for sun—a powerful source of energy that can be used to heat, cool, and light our homes and businesses. That's because more energy from the sun falls on the earth in one hour than is used by everyone in the world in one year.
.
http://www.nrel.gov/learning/re_solar.html
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2013 02:35 am
@georgeob1,
Fukushima Is Falling Apart: Are You Ready … For A Mass Extinction Event?
http://www.infowars.com/fukushima-is-falling-apart-are-you-ready-for-a-mass-extinction-event/

Explain this article above line by line George... Notice is it quoting some the world's most renowned governmental and scientific experts. They are not just spouting off idiotic and moronic partisan politics as you do...

George wrote: The Huffington Post is not exactly a reknowned source of accurate scientific opinion,

Comment:
By the way, the word "renowned" does not have a k in it Mr, "I am so highly studied.." So highly studied that a spell checker is foreign to you.

You know who is a renowned expert?

Dr. Michio Kaku, a Japanese-American theoretical physicist and best-selling author who also concurs. His very words in describing Fukushima are "Mass Extinction Event". But I am sure you are much smarter than Dr. Michio Kaku. How many best seller books on physics have you written George?

your own words
"Nuclear power is so safe... and the cost is so low compared to other energy forms..." (cynical)

And what is the cost of mass extinction event George? Will you please answer that???!!!

California will certainly go broke if we are all dead...

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/japonia-fukushima.jpg

Apologies A2kers, I hate to be such a downer on this but it is the nature of the nuclear beast. We should have no disillusions about such dirty and life threatening forms of energy.
RexRed
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2013 12:17 pm
Using Microbes to Generate Electricity?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110523152337.htm
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2013 12:58 pm
Did This 15-Year-Old Kid Just Change the Course of Medicine?
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/01/27/jack-andraka

I am posting this here because this same arrogant blind eye is also prevalent in the energy industry... (no thanks to the oil, coal and gas lobbies)

One would think doctors would be a bit more open to new ideas than a physicist.

The problem is capitalism itself and people holding onto profits at the cost of innovation.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2013 01:15 pm
@RexRed,
It appears you are a bit annoyed at competent criticism of your fantasies and have returned to your sources in the web-based world of loonie prognosticators. There's a certain childish, almost girlish, quality in your foot-stamping over all this.

When will the mass extinction event start? Should we begin preparing for the spreading disaster now? What specifically are your plans for raising your survival odds in the coming disaster ?? If no mass extinction begins, and no evidence of serious danger unfolds, at what point should we conclude that your source is as uninformed, uncomprehending and propagandizing ? What conclusion should we draw from such an outcome about you?

Worse than all this , I misspelled renowned ! This, I assume, is your ample cover for your foolish insistence that solar cells shield the earth from solar thermal radiation. You don't understand the First Law of Thermodynamics, but you do rate yourself as competent to affirm dangers in nuclear reactors that no scientific or regulatory body has yet claimed, including those who are opposed to it.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2013 01:29 pm
@georgeob1,
Yes George your same idiot right wing fucktartds said there was no "evidence" for global warming either... (is that butch enough for you?) You have zero credibility...

Do we need to be dead from nuclear radiation before you will say, ummm maybe there is a problem with nuclear energy... Now there is evidence...

As for your girly comment... Seems by putting someone down in such a way it reveals volumes about your own masculine insecurities and ineptness...

I do value your opinion but lately it has been crap.

It is only logical that the amount (in the gigawatts) of solar energy collected by solar panels are directing these gigawatts of energy from hitting the earth.

The more panels we build world wide the more the earth is shielded from the sun's harmful rays...

All of the sun's emitted rays? Did I say that? No. But maybe over time enough rays to allow our earth to cool. I think of these solar panels as another layer of atmosphere. If air can shield our earth from the sun so can solar panels...
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2013 03:38 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:

It is only logical that the amount (in the gigawatts) of solar energy collected by solar panels are directing these gigawatts of energy from hitting the earth.

The more panels we build world wide the more the earth is shielded from the sun's harmful rays...

All of the sun's emitted rays? Did I say that? No. But maybe over time enough rays to allow our earth to cool. I think of these solar panels as another layer of atmosphere. If air can shield our earth from the sun so can solar panels...


Please explain your "logic" here.

The solar rays or energy incident on solar cells is partly reflected off back into the atmosphere ( where it is absorbed as heat) and partly absorbed and converted into electrical energy in the form of moving charged particles (electrons). Those charged particles enter the electrical power networks where they are used to drive machinery (everything from large electrical motors to heaters, fans, toasters, lightbulbs, and computers. All of these devices transmit the energy thus received back into the environment as heat.

You may have noticed that the computer you are using to post your fantastic web cites here gets a little warm to the touch when it is operated for a while. Why is that? The fact is the electrical energy powering your computer is not destroyed by it. Instead it is transformet into heat as it is used to power the chips, illuminate the screen and make those funny little noises. This is the first law of Thermodynamics, the so called conservation of energy. It is a very powerful but fundamental idea in the development of modern science, one that is behind nearly all of our technoogical advancements.

I find it very odd that, after our earlier dialogue, you persist in this fundamental error, and that, given your ignorance in this and possibly other fundamental areas, you persist in telling us all what is really good for us.

There's nothing inherently wrong with ignorance or the lack of knowledge or understanding. Indeed the first step in aquiring knowledge, understanding or even wisdom, is the acknowledgment that one lacks them. However, when one persists in repeating nonsense, even after warning or correction, and does so without thought or reconsideration of the issues at hand, then he has crossed the line from benign ignorance to willful stupidity.

If you want to be a stupid, narccisistic fool all your life, posting here your vaporous musings and nonsensical propaganda posted on the web by other similar types thst's OK with me. Indeed it's your right. However, I would recommend that you try something different and expend some of that energy and time educating yourself to the real complexities of the physical and human world.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2013 05:17 pm
@georgeob1,
I think the answer is in the word you used "partly"...

Better partly than none at all and how does adding more CO2 and "wholly" ignoring the sun's rays (global warming, animals becoming extinct and coral reef decimated...) and the energy, many gigawatts we could obtain from this source help the mix?

George how about you start your own thread misspelled words and all and educate the world on the wondrous benefits of tar-sands, strip mining, fracking and the absolute safety of nuclear power plants and the waste thereof?

You are quick to point out the the shortcomings in research and development of solar technology while underfunded and attacked (as you are doing) mercilessly by the dirty energy lobbies. Yet you give no solution for the stockpiles of toxic waste, the build up of CO2, the danger to water supplies and our clean air...

Cast the speck out of the eye of solar power while you have a beam in your own...
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2013 05:31 pm
@RexRed,
That's a rather pretentious (and evasive) admission of repeated errors on a very fundamental principle.

There are many energy lobbies out there. Those supporting more government subsidies, ghrants and insured loans fo wind and solar investors are currently the most effective for their backers. No form of energy production is entirely without environmental effects. There is no totally "clean" energy. Even emission free hydroelectric dams; wind turbines; andd solar cells have adverse environmental effects. Wind and solar have the additional adverse effect of being very expensive and offering a very low power generating density, requiring a great deal of land or surface area to operate at scale. Even then their output has huge diurnal variations.

What are the "dirty energy lobbies" ? What have they done to harm the natural development of new alternative energy sources? I think you will find very little with which to back up your vague accusations there.

There is no form of energy production that currently gets more government subsidy per unit of output than do wind and solar.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2013 05:42 pm
I think we need to declare a moratorium on nuclear, crude oil, fracking unorthodox natural gas collection, strip mining for coal and a few other rare earth minerals.

We need to not only get our fiscal house in order, balance the budget but (yes Republicans this means you) also balance the cost we are levying upon future generations due to our unfettered consumerism. Garbage patches floating in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans the size of continents and will the manufactures of these goods pay even part of the expense to clean up the materials they produced without consideration of their ultimate outcome? Consumers are paying the full bill today for recycling in the form of special garbage bags but what are the manufacturers paying who share fully in this debacle? Once again the burden falls on the 98%..

When these greedy tycoons have spent these billions from profits on summer resorts and lavish lifestyles of pure decadence what recourse will we have? It will be too late to get retribution.

Capitalism or extinction?
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2013 05:47 pm
George wrote for the umpteenth time... Wind and solar have the additional adverse effect of being very expensive...

What is the cost of mass extinction George?

You have no sense of scope George...
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2013 05:59 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:

I think we need to declare a moratorium on nuclear, crude oil, fracking unorthodox natural gas collection, strip mining for coal and a few other rare earth minerals.


Now there's a plan for mass extinction.

Perhaps we should turn over control of the world to the fantasies closet self-absorbed and narccistic Walter Mittys like yourself. Perhaps, just before all the lights go out in a starving world, you just might shut up.

Anyway, since there's no getting through your impervious wall of stupidity and prejudice, I''m outta here. - at least until some moment when the opportunity of busting another of your idiotic bubbles proves too tempting.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2013 08:26 pm
@georgeob1,
I rather like the idea of
Quote:
strip mining for coal and a few other rare earth minerals.
Not sure if that means coal is rare, or rare earth minerals are mined like coal, but both are interesting.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2013 08:31 pm
@georgeob1,
Or we could look for clean energy sources though research and development... What a novel idea... A concerted effort could save us from certain self destruction and time is running out. The sun will be shining long after oil, coal and natural gas destroy this planet. The epitaph? We took the easy way to our own end rather than the hard way toward perpetuation. Why? It was too expensive? No. Because we were hoodwinked by big money and idiots...

Like bacteria making electricity... You have no comment on that but you push your dirty fuels like a blaring siren. Your intentions are seemingly without conscience and disingenuous.
 

Related Topics

Perpetual Motion - Question by magnocrat
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Energy
  3. » Page 19
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/19/2022 at 01:18:55