• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Global warming

Laniakea

Not of this world
Great idea! You have lots of down time for charging. That's lost $$ you will never get back, besides electric mining trucks can't work in extreme climates. The ' Green Energy' people is all about sticking it the consumer.
Not only mining trucks, but CA is now mandating trucks that transport goods from ports will also have to be electric. Those things are far more expensive to buy and don't have the range of conventional trucks. Again, another cost to be passed on to you and me.
 

Laniakea

Not of this world
Millions or even billions might die before then from the effects of global warming.
Such scare tactics will probably cause so much stress on people that they'll die from anxiety-caused depression before they die from the Earth warming up a fraction of a degree.
 

Laniakea

Not of this world
What compassion! :rolleyes:
The same compassion people like you show for those who are being put out of jobs and paying higher prices (which can lead to further homelessness) because of the higher costs being implemented due to you guys and your green agenda.
 

Laniakea

Not of this world
Doubtful. More likely scenario would be millions or billions will die from starvation and widespread violence after we run out of oil and can't transport the food to all the people.
Well, if the environmentalists would stop being violent, that would be one less problem to be concerned about.
As for transportation, how about NOT banning gas powered cars? Then it would be easier to transport food to everyone regardless of where they are.
Maybe even get rid of Hamas so they won't be able to take food away from their Gazan subjects?
So many great ideas that don't require vandalizing Stonehenge with orange paint.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
They say we got 130 years of Coal left at current consumption rates but after the oil is gone, we will consume more coal so that 130 years will be a much shorter.
I briefly participated in a coal project. In this project, the coal was passed through an extruder, which is like large screw inside of a pipe. The extruder subjects the coal to high pressure, work/heat, which liquifies the coal; coal oil. Our project was less hands on and more about working on the math to simulate the process.

This coal process was about making coal cleaner, up front. The coal oil made the mineral components easier to separated by centrifuge, filter and gravity. This could reduce the scrubber costs in the stacks. The Germans in WWII, has a process to make liquify coal, as fuel for their war machine. Germany had plenty of coal but foreign oil was too easy for the Allies to cut off. So they had a back up plan.

Extrusion technology was already well characterized via its use in the plastic industry for liquifying solid plastic resins and pushing that through dies for filaments and into molds for cups and buckets. The math was mostly done, but with liquefied coal a non-newtonian fluid, it had some strange rheology aspects to work out.

One other energy project I did, was more of a feasibility study. The idea was to use solar collectors to melt wax for heat storage. We would do the calculations. We modeled a wax that melted at about 100F or 38C. The solar panels on a roof, would melt the wax during the day. At night, one could reclaim steady the 100F or 38C heat of fusion as the wax solidifies. This project was mostly about the heat exchanger design within the solar collector panel. It was suppose to be passive with one moving part; fan and heat sensor.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Whataboutism from you again.
Can't you just stick to the topic being discussed?
No, he made a claim about how he reasoned so I assumed that he was consistent in his reasoning. He told me that his reasoning was irrational instead. It was not "whataboutism" because I was not trying to excuse the acts of the protesters. I told him that I agreed with him on that. If I had tried to get the protesters off that would have been "whataboutism". He revealed that he was not for justice, he was for revenge.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Oh my! How long will you continue saying the opposite of what you actually mean?
What are you talking about? I want to make America great. That means that we need to reelect a sane and effective President. Not elect on incompetent buffoon and convicted felon. You are against making America great. You appear to be the one that does not understand the words that you are using.

By the way, you never did go back and see how I was right last time you brought up this failed argument of yours. Maybe one of these days you will learn how to reason and debate instead of just reacting viscerally.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sure, it's always someone else who doesn't understand. But never you.
Oh, everyone who can reason logically could see that I was right. It appears that you do not know when to quit digging. Once again, go back to his post. You will see that my response was accurate. He said the he cared about my opinion.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
Ever see those massive windmill fires? Talk about pollution and complete waste of the environment.
I've seen many things on fire, fella.

Building those monstrosities that don't even last that long in the first place utilizes more fossil fuel than what it takes for it to make up for the cost to build and replace those things in the first place.
They last 20-25 years. I suppose it depends on how long is "long" to you but I reckon that isn't bad.

So you spend some energy and co2 manufacturing, moving, decomissioning, etc. Then you have a thing for 20-25 years that's generating energy from the wind. With no extra co2. The energy produce over the lifetime more than makes up for the costs:

A 2016 study from Danish engineers looked at onshore and offshore turbines and wrote, "The energy payback time was found to be less than 1 year for all technologies."

A group of engineers in Texas did similar work and reported that "the payback times for CO2 and energy consumption range from 6 to 14 and 6 to 17 months," with on-shore facilities having a shorter payback.


From the MIT Wind Energy article on their Climate Portal:

Wind energy is also remarkably clean, even compared to other types of carbon-free energy like solar and hydropower. Building new wind turbines does create some greenhouse gas emissions—from making the steel for their towers and fiberglass for their blades, and mining the rarer minerals sometimes used in their generators. But even factoring that in, a wind turbine creates only around a quarter of the greenhouse gas emissions of a solar panel for every kilowatt of electricity, and only a little over 1% the greenhouse gas emissions of a coal-fired power plant.6

And future innovations could make wind energy even cheaper and cleaner. Researchers are experimenting with new materials and construction techniques, as well as designs very different from the familiar “horizontal axis turbine” with its three blades rotating like a pinwheel. “Vertical axis turbines” spin instead like a carousel, while “airborne wind energy” looks more like a kite or plane tethered to a generator on the ground.


The Eco Nazis will never admit that.
The radicals at Applied Energy and MIT?

 
Top