The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-27-2007, 10:25 PM   #91
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 66,603
Here is the pdf of the 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
This summary, approved in detail at the 9th Session of Working Group III of the IPCC, Bangkok Thailand, May 2007, represents the formally agreed statement of the IPCC concerning climate change mitigation.

I'm not in the mood to read it (35pages) right now, but skimming it I noticed there is a sizable portion dedicated to cost of mitigation and the effect on GDP.
__________________
Everything is interesting... look closer.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2007, 11:08 PM   #92
The Eschaton
Vivacious Vivisectionist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Future
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesdave View Post
I agree with both you and tw, that today, using current technology, hydrogen cells are not going to be common place. I am putting my faith in the researchers I have cited, and others, and hope that they will find a solution. You say that you are looking to the future. Well, try it. I don't want to fight with you, because we both have the same goal. To clean up our environment.
Yeah, im not trying to fight either. I respect what researchers are trying to do with hydrogen. It was the same where i went to college. There are a lot of departments here excited about working with different parts of the problem. I worked with a professor that was just studying different materials for gas adsorption. But the big picture is missed. I do belive hydrogen is being pushed ahead of more workable options because of politics. Same with corn based ethanol, its probably the worst and most expensive way to produce ethanol but it has a lobby. Its disappointing.
__________________
"All i say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed." - Montaigne
The Eschaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2007, 02:07 AM   #93
duck_duck
Soul Duck
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: over here
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesdave View Post
I assume that you have been working in a research project on climate change, and have the requisite qualifications. Otherwise; you would not have made that statement, would you?
So you believe the IPCC and drive around with hybrid cars and buy carbon offsets like other dumb suckers? You did this based on your own research project concerning climate change? Or just suck down what the IPCC said?
__________________
Girls are like phones. We love to be held, talked too but if you press the wrong button you'll be disconnected!
duck_duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2007, 02:57 AM   #94
bluesdave
Getting older every day
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 308
duck, you said more about yourself in your reply, than I could possibly put forward, so I rest my case on your own words.
__________________
History is a great teacher; it is a shame that people never learn from it.
bluesdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2007, 03:14 AM   #95
bluesdave
Getting older every day
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Eschaton View Post
I do belive hydrogen is being pushed ahead of more workable options because of politics.
You might be correct. I said in an earlier post that the whole climate change debate had been hijacked by politicians. You have no idea how many presentations we did to various politicians in the 90s, and even into this century, trying to convince them that climate change research is important. Can you imagine how frustrating it is to spend 1-2 hours explaining how global warming is going to be a problem (forget about who, or what caused it, for now), only to have a room full of blank faces looking back at you? Then, to add insult to injury, they then hijacked the whole thing on us in the last year or two, and then became "converted" to climate change.
__________________
History is a great teacher; it is a shame that people never learn from it.
bluesdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2007, 03:18 AM   #96
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesdave View Post
I knew later last night that I should not have used the compression of hydrogen as an example. I agree that it is a poor example. I was simply trying to say that hydrogen can be produced relatively cheaply, utilising the output from recycling systems. I should have mentioned solar cells. Sure, they are not suitable for all locations, but down here we have plenty of sunshine.
Yes, hydrogen may have usefulness as a battery. For example, some use hydrogen stored at low pressure to collect solar energy. Whether efficiencies can be improved upon is unknown. Promising but completely unknown. But hydrogen was obvious never an energy source. Obviously if only because George Jr said otherwise.

Hydrogen even in a car (as a battery) may have potential. Fuel cells were never an energy source. The concept has potential as a battery. But the naive promoted fuel cells as some kind of fuel. Some are experimenting with hydrogen storage materials. However restrictions such as excessively high temperatures and weight have made those technologies currently completely impractical. The point remains - hydrogen never was a viable fuel. However many who heard a president say otherwise in his State of the Union address therefore should have immediately known it must be a lie - and believed that lying president anyway.

Any potential solutions based in hydrogen are at least a decade away. Today we should be implementing what can work - that has potential proven in prototypes. GM - the classic example of failure - could not make a hybrid even when paid to in 1996? Again, directly traceable to the many who still believe in 'magic bullets' rather than identifying or addressing a problem.

The problem is not about 'magic bullets'. The problem is about *efficiency*. Some who promote or deny either global warming or energy problems simply forget where this entire discussion and solution lies: doing more with less. No communication major, lawyer, or business school expert can even guess how that solution might be implemented. Solutions must be defined by those who come from where the work gets done.

Who is the enemy of innovators? They are lead by George Jr and his band of anti-Americans. No exaggeration. No song. No political agenda. Just solid science fact. Just blunt and politically incorrect reality. This problem was identified repeatedly with numerous examples in Perverting science for politics.

Why did so many forget what we need - efficiency? Notice who was perverting that reality with his 'message' - also called propaganda, spin, lies, or preachings of Rush Limbaugh. Promoted hydrogen as a 'magic bullet' caused others to ignore the real question: "how do we increase efficiencies?"

There is no way to avoid a major reason why this hydrogen myth was promoted – George Jr. At best, hydrogen may help solve another serious problem - short term energy storage - a battery. There is no viable alternative to petroleum fuels.

Last edited by tw; 05-28-2007 at 03:25 AM.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2007, 04:23 AM   #97
bluesdave
Getting older every day
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 308
tw, I hate to rain on your parade, but Sydney Buses (ie. NSW State Government buses), have been using hydrogen fuelled buses for, I think, two years. I cannot find a link on their website, but I think they are working OK. I am also not sure of how many there are - I know it is only a small number. At least it is a start. I'm not saying it is the final solution.
__________________
History is a great teacher; it is a shame that people never learn from it.
bluesdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2007, 04:37 AM   #98
bluesdave
Getting older every day
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
I'm not in the mood to read it (35pages) right now, but skimming it I noticed there is a sizable portion dedicated to cost of mitigation and the effect on GDP.
I don't blame you Bruce. Some of this stuff can be heavy going. The effect on GDP is a problem. This is why so many politicians back away from taking positive action. This is why China and India take their stands. They are just starting to reap the benefits of industrial growth, and do not want to risk damaging economic growth. The Australian Government is the same. At least they have given us some funding for research (they are playing both sides, of course).
__________________
History is a great teacher; it is a shame that people never learn from it.
bluesdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2007, 05:51 AM   #99
duck_duck
Soul Duck
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: over here
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesdave View Post
duck, you said more about yourself in your reply, than I could possibly put forward, so I rest my case on your own words.
Is that a yes or a weak attempt at an insult? I'll take it as both.
__________________
Girls are like phones. We love to be held, talked too but if you press the wrong button you'll be disconnected!
duck_duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2007, 05:51 AM   #100
bluesdave
Getting older every day
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 308
When I was ranting about the evils of sugar cane, I forgot to mention that before they harvest it, the crop is set on fire, thus throwing huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Just another reason to hate sugar cane, and be angry that the Australian Government continues to subsidise its production. I'm not against sugar, just sugar cane.

See tw, I'm learning.
__________________
History is a great teacher; it is a shame that people never learn from it.
bluesdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2007, 06:03 AM   #101
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesdave View Post
tw, I hate to rain on your parade, but Sydney Buses (ie. NSW State Government buses), have been using hydrogen fuelled buses for, I think, two years. I cannot find a link on their website, but I think they are working OK.
You are confusing 'working OK' with 'working efficiently'. How many times did I use that word 'efficient'? Also a question that demands numbers.

Bus can work inefficiently to be working OK? Did you grasp references to 'thermodynamic efficiency' in multiple posts? What is hydrogen's pressure in its tanks? Did you read the part where less than 2 out of 10 units of energy are available for productive work? How many miles on a 'tank' of hydrogen? Even GM's EV-1 electric car worked OK. So what happened? Why was EV-1 a complete disaster if it worked OK?

Why do I post this concept repeatedly - and must now repost it again?

Where are those cleaner cars operating on natural gas? They also worked OK. Most every home already has natural gas pipes to 'refuel' their car. What happened to another technology that was working OK? Or was everything OK except the technology?

The Challenger also worked OK everytime previously. Therefore Challenger was safe to launch? Nothing wrong with that reasoning either? We are killing Al Qaeda in "Mission Accomplished". Therefore that war is working OK?

Defined was a larger problem about George Jr supporters who fail to think logically AND who avoid the fundamental problem - 'efficiency'. How many times was the word 'efficiency' referenced?

Do we use ten gallons of gasoline to get less than 2 gallons into a car? And then only 0.3 gallons does productive work? Do you call that increased efficiency? Welcome to your bus example. Did the english major who reported on those buses forget to think like a patriotic American - provide important facts - especially numbers? Why did she forget to provide basic numbers? Maybe she was reporting for Murdoch meaning that shorting of facts to promote an agenda is acceptable? Or maybe we can blame it all on her? But when she does not provide underlying facts and numbers - just like George Jr - then who is to blame for believing her?

Nothing is politically correct anywhere in this post. Instead it is blunt honest. Asked are some damning questions. If those buses are working OK, then where are these numbers? Why are they doing what no one else has been able to accomplish? GM's EV-1 electric car also worked OK. Where is it today? In piles. GM eventually bought them all back. But EV-1 also worked OK.

Last edited by tw; 05-28-2007 at 06:08 AM.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2007, 06:04 AM   #102
Aliantha
trying hard to be a better person
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 16,477
They don't burn the cane always these days do they? In fact, they have machinery which basically 'chips' the useless leaves which forms a trash blanket which in turn regenerates the soil (to a degree) for the next crop.

I could be wrong, but I believe there's less than 5% of cane crops being burned in Australia these days.

Aside from that point, you're right about everything else you've said about sugar cane dave. (and I bow to your superior knowledge)
__________________
Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber
Aliantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2007, 06:08 AM   #103
Aliantha
trying hard to be a better person
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 16,477
Here's a good link-for-dummies about the sydney project.
__________________
Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber
Aliantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2007, 07:23 AM   #104
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 66,603
tw's call for efficiency rings hollow when you look at the efficiency of posts. Now Aussie busses are Bush's fault.

Did someone say there are no magic bullets? Then why would an experiment to run city busses on hydrogen, thereby reducing greenhouse gasses in the city, have to be justified as sufficiently efficient? There's no reason to believe that down the road it can't be made sufficiently efficient.
It's a pilot project to see what hiccups will develop in a practical application. A PR experiment that will help get people thinking there are alternative solutions, not to convince them hydrogen is the answer for them.

Quote:
Most every home already has natural gas pipes to 'refuel' their car.
"Most every" is actually less than 2/3 have gas service. The ones that do, have this ever scarcer fuel coming in at less than 3 psi. How far do you think your car would go, with the biggest tank you could carry, at 3 psi?

It would have to be compressed... high pressure and low temperature, by the same people that start fires just filling their cars with gasoline. No, best leave that to a filling station attendant that's been trained and tested handling high pressure connections.
Even so, the gas won't last forever so we have to keep plugging at different solutions, use gas for stationary uses, industrial and residential.

Gasoline is wonderful stuff, beyond compare...so far.
__________________
Everything is interesting... look closer.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2007, 12:57 PM   #105
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 66,603
Hey, guess what... I know how to eliminate 6 Billion tons of CO2 being added to the air, every year. That's 6,000,000,000 tons... every year.

Over 20 years ago, Joseph Davidovits, Director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, claimed that the stones of the pyramids were actually made of a very early form of concrete created using a mixture of limestone, clay, lime, and water. Everyone had a good laugh and life went on.

When Michel Barsoum, professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Drexel University, heard Davidovits claim he laughed too. But when he was told nobody ever checked it out, he decided to disprove it with a few hours of electron microscopy.

Egyptian born Barsoum's daily routine consists mainly of teaching students about ceramics, or performing research on a new class of materials, the so-called MAX Phases, that he and his colleagues discovered in the 1990s, so he's no amateur.

Quote:
"What started as a two-hour project turned into a five-year odyssey that I undertook with one of my graduate students, Adrish Ganguly, and a colleague in France, Gilles Hug," Barsoum says.
Quote:
At the end of their most recent paper reporting these findings, the researchers reflect that it is "ironic, sublime and truly humbling" that this 4,500-year-old limestone is so true to the original that it has misled generations of Egyptologists and geologists and, "because the ancient Egyptians were the original-albeit unknowing-nanotechnologists."
Quote:
"How energy intensive and/or complicated can a 4,500 year old technology really be? The answer to both questions is not very," Barsoum explains. "The basic raw materials used for this early form of concrete-limestone, lime, and diatomaceous earth-can be found virtually anywhere in the world," he adds. "Replicating this method of construction would be cost effective, long lasting, and much more environmentally friendly than the current building material of choice: Portland cement that alone pumps roughly 6 billion tons of CO2 annually into the atmosphere when it's manufactured."
Wow, if we could eliminate Portland cement for everything not poured underwater, what a tremendous energy savings and CO2 reduction.
__________________
Everything is interesting... look closer.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:16 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.