@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy You read too much anticipation books.

Care to explain what you mean with "anticipation books"?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: I submit to be entertained by: 1/ what current technologies have to offer NOW and; 2/ what is possible in the near future (my life-span) based on 1/.

Answers already given in post #476.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: More seriously: Ah, you were not serious.

Exactly - and it took you how many postings to get that?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: I doubt you will be able to quantify my personal contribution... The simple fact you actually do (or will do) is enough really

Fine if this delights you - I already had to pay more for worse things than clean energy...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: I always thought the French are all gourmets and love to eat birds like geese, chicken, quails etc. and love to pay enormous sums for an mostly empty plate and call that "meal" - I always wondered how the French could survive so long in the face of such tiny portions... This is the problem of foreign tourists visiting a country only city after city. The countryside offers 'thick table's pleasures' inversely proportional to the number of visiting people (roughly).

Ahhh - now I understand...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: That why we like not seeing you there (and explains why you wondered btw). Thanks for asking.

I bet you wouldn't know me - even if I was standing in front of you...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: chopped birds for free, green power for free to operate the electric grill, all on your own property... Demonstrate you have no idea how to run a business.

But I know how to run away from a business (like e.g. nuclear energy)...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Or is it supposed to be another (non-)joke?

Your sense of humor seems to be rather underdeveloped...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: There's no science involved - just some basic mathematical knowledge... My bad, I forgot that some here believe Maths is no Science.

So you are saying my 11 year old grandson qualifies as a scientist in France, as he just learned the calculation of percentage at school?

Mate, this is just the calculation of percentage - not rocket science...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Anyway as it is stated in the report "A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant", meaning the ~3% value they gave is the value used to find for the ~4K prediction even if the text is not very clear (to me). I misunderstood the § and you were thus correct: I apologize for the noise.

Thanks for looking at that.

I believe nuclear, so far, is safer than coal or oil. The issue is that none can be completely conveyed with a simple headcount. We have to get those statistics involved to understand the expected impact by understanding deviations from the norm. And that even becomes problematic when the changes of numbers are close to if not within the margin of error.

Chernobyl was a huge cost. Not only do we have a couple thousand dead we have increased medical costs along with the individual and society's cost to move 350K people.

As we talk about nukes there still are large unknowns. There's no definitive answer on how to store radiactive waste safely for 10K years. My understanding of one of the better options is dry cask storage which the statistics seem it safe for about 100 years and after that we don't know. And of course it's not just human life that is valuable but other life on the planet too.


Quote:

In addition many house here are heated by the floor meaning there is a lag between the moment you start heating and the moment you sense it: cutting or even lowering heat in the day is very bad practice and investments too expansive in regards to the differential cost.

Do you use electric or water to heat the floor? I've had a couple in floor electric and they're expensive to use. Water is more costly to install but is more cost effective. Either way there is technology to aid this pursuit. A set back thermostat could be used to turn the heat down a bit then turn it up in a timely manner before you get home. Of course if schedules aren't well defined this could be a problem. The next best is one can put their thermostat on the Internet. Use your phone or any browser (with security of course) to power up your floor in a timely manner.

Quote:

might be interesting as a backup system, but it is really too expansive at the moment (and subsidies are now plunging to the zero figure).

If you use water to heat your floor one of the best ways to do this is to use solar to heat water directly. A couple of insulated storage tanks provide the energy for use on a controlled basis. Much less expensive and worrisome than batteries.

Quote:

The whole energy sector is so subsidized that I read recently the claim from an energy expert

This is definitely the case in the US and yes it makes understanding the true costs harder. Some energy companies in the US got millions in money from the Federal Government and paid no Federal Taxes. Not only is this a subsidy it happens that environmental clean up are often paid for by the government. And when other nations are involved the costs are, at least partially, shifted to them. Uranium from Niger is inexpensive not only do to 3rd world low costs but because environment regulations don't exist and therefore aren't enforced.

EDIT: Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. According to the SEC filing Exxon paid no Federal taxes and received a $156Million 'rebate' from the IRS :END EDIT

Quote:

. Second, it is far from certain that your 'fossils oil' has any biologic origin.

Oil has been proven to have a biologic origin. What I might accept is that every single source of oil has not been tested. There might be other origins of oil besides biological material. It is clear biologic sources do exist. EDIT 2: For those joining the discussion Wikipedia has a good primer of this idea. Also noted is a number of semi-recent failures for the nonbiological theory to find oil. Failures, of course, don't rule out that nonbiological may exist but it does indicate that we don't know enough about it to make it a useful tool for discovering new oil. : END EDIT 2

What we do know is we're running out of oil in so far as the easy and inexpensive sources are drying up. We must go continually deeper to get at the oil.

Last edited by BrianK on 01-Apr-2011 at 04:09 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 01-Apr-2011 at 03:57 PM.

@Dandy

Quote:

Then use walls, windows, etc. as well

Not efficient enough.

Quote:

and/or panels that are tracking the sun

Subsidies are cut by half if panels are not integrated in the roof, making your proposition much more expansive.

Quote:

Glue the solar cells upon a solar heat collector and their efficiency factor will increase even more, PLUS you have hot water for free (that can also be stored to heat your house during the winter time).

It is technically difficult in my house because of its configuration and I am legally restricted by what we call here non altius tolendi.

Quote:

But it clearly demonstrates that the energy storage density is being worked on and is continuously improving, as development advances.

I am sure of that. Human ingenuity is what is leading technical progress and development. But this technology is too early.

Quote:

Hadn't it been you, who demanded more confidence in technical progress regarding energy generation some AGW threads ago? Where is YOUR confidence NOW?

My position is that current ROI of solar is not yet interesting even with subsidies.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

This looks intresting..

http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/buildings/denmarks-netzeroenergy-home

Is the latitude of Denmark higher than that of just about the ehtire USA also, meaning the more southerly latitudes of the bulk of the USA can therefore be expected to generate net Excess of useable power of a mere 40 year lifespan?

What modifications would be needed to improve the lifespan of the buildings to over 100 years, Preferably using formed timber or plastics?

And before you say but plastics are made from oil, thats because oil isnt taxed enough to make carbon extraction from CO2 cheaper, which you have to extract for sequestration anyway.

Tax the oil companies, not teh oil users, and youll see where the money and political power really lies, because any decent cash grabing company would be uasing their rig technology for geothermal drilling, off shore turbines, and hydrogen generation and injection into the CO2 filled oil fields for conversion to long chain hydrocarbons.

Fossil fuels are thmselves renewable, naturally on a multi million year cycle, but it can be speeded up to only decades with the right applications of effort and technology.

Dont forget houses are expensive because the rich artificially increase the price. Otherwise how can you explain the incresing reduction in cost of manufacturing, and the given increase in wages is far less than the increase in sale cost of teh building itself.

Or teh Wales guy who offers a 3 bedroom detatched preformed plastic waste slab house for £45000.

Combine the plastic and rock waste module assembly with zero net energy designs,a nd you can build millions of houses needed, with converting older stock at ease.

_________________
The older and more respected a scientist is, the longer it takes to prove him wrong.

@olegil

Quote:

It seems our good frenchman is using electricity to heat his walls rather than a heat exchanger to heat his floors. When you're stuck in such an archaic view of how to efficiently heat a home then of course solar isn't going to be sufficient right now.

In fact I have a 14kW reverse heat exchanger to heat/cool the home/pool because it is the most interesting and economical technique right now. Was also heavily subsidized thanks to our greenies.

Quote:

+ firewood

How medieval
I have an hearth btw, but I use it only for enjoyment.

Quote:

that's 40 square meters.

My south-oriented area is about 10m². I can add east and west roof but efficiency is half (less in fact as I have a big tree near the east roof hidding the sun most of the time).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@MikeB

Quote:

Of course the world does need to limit CO2 output in big cities as smog is very harmful for the people living there, but overall CO2 is consumed by plant-life.

I agree city pollution is a problem, but CO² has really nothing to do with smog: it is odourless and invisible.

Quote:

As for the true reasons for the above mentioned problems I have a theory that I am not yet ready to disclose, but IMO there is a worldwide cover-up taking place and blaming CO2 output for various of the changes is just an easy excuse to blindfold the public.

Conspirational, heh?

Bye
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@MikeB

Quote:

Of course the world does need to limit CO2 output in big cities as smog is very harmful for the people living there, but overall CO2 is consumed by plant-life.

Hard to tell if you understand this so just in case Smog is not CO2.

CO2 is consumed by plant-life and absorbed by oceans. The net influx into the atmosphere is larger than the consumption from the atmosphere. This is fairly easy to measure.

CO2 contains carbon. Carbon 12, 13, and 14 are the 3 different types. They are #'d such due to the number of neutrons in the chemical. We can measure the different type of carbon. Carbon 12 is natural and the plants love it. Carbon 13 is man-made through burning of fossil fuels. And the plant's really don't love it. So while the plants do absorb some Carbon 13 it's very low and small enough I'd simplify and say plants don't like it. So not all CO2 is useful to plants.

Last edited by BrianK on 01-Apr-2011 at 06:53 PM.

@Dandy

Quote:

Care to explain what you mean with "anticipation books"?

Sci-fi books.

Quote:

Answers already given in post #476.

I was not asking, I was claiming.

Quote:

Exactly - and it took you how many postings to get that?

You are making it difficult to decipher when you are and when you are not serious: you are putting ellipsis in each and every sentence you write, your smiley seems to indicate joking except when you are serious and vice versa. What about being more clear/consistent?

Quote:

I bet you wouldn't know me - even if I was standing in front of you...

I fortunately do not haunt nudist beaches, so odds are effectively very low.

Quote:

Your sense of humor seems to be rather underdeveloped...

It most probably is too 'fine grained' for you.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

I believe nuclear, so far, is safer than coal or oil.

That's was my point since start.

Quote:

The issue is that none can be completely conveyed with a simple headcount.

I agree but, as a former scientist, I (have learn to) tend to focus on specific point rather than general one because generalities often led to dead end discussion. I hope you understand this point I have tried many times to emphasize.

Quote:

Do you use electric or water to heat the floor? I've had a couple in floor electric and they're expensive to use. Water is more costly to install but is more cost effective. Either way there is technology to aid this pursuit. A set back thermostat could be used to turn the heat down a bit then turn it up in a timely manner before you get home. Of course if schedules aren't well defined this could be a problem. The next best is one can put their thermostat on the Internet. Use your phone or any browser (with security of course) to power up your floor in a timely manner.

I have a water network in the floors. The heat exchanger operations are regulated by 3 temperature probes, one outside, one inside home (a remote thermostat) and one in pool (coupled with passive heat exchanger connected to the main one) . In case of a heat exchanger failure, I have an old but trusty gas-burning device in backup (with a big tank outside) on the same water network: the switch is automatically made by some temperature probe on the network acting over a multi-head valve (the water pressure is also controlled and automatically adjusted in need). In inter-seasons (hot inside, cold pool water) the passive heat exchanger sucks the heat from the house to warm the pool (a pump is sufficient). The system is fairly optimized but rather complex. Some maintenance is usually required as with any complex system.

Quote:

If you use water to heat your floor one of the best ways to do this is to use solar to heat water directly. A couple of insulated storage tanks provide the energy for use on a controlled basis

I have such buffer tank between the main heat exchanger and the floor but I should have to do many trenches in the walls outside and I do not want to do that.

Quote:

This is definitely the case in the US and yes it makes understanding the true costs harder.

I can not found the report again even in my 1GB Firefox cache (I will have to increase it again) but the expert was speaking worldwide.

Quote:

Uranium from Niger is inexpensive not only do to 3rd world low costs but because environment regulations don't exist and therefore aren't enforced.

This point is also true to virtually all energy productions nowadays.

Quote:

Oil has been proven to have a biologic origin.

What has been proven is that there are biological elements in oil. Subtle difference. The chemistry of Earth's interior is still poorly understood, though.

Quote:

What we do know is we're running out of oil in so far as the easy and inexpensive sources are drying up. We must go continually deeper to get at the oil.

When total reserve is not known, such claim can not be proven. What is true is that we have drilled the most accessible sources: picking the low hanging fruits is what logic and economy dictate anyway, but does not inform about future discoveries (by number and extent). I am personally not afraid about that.

Edit: some additions

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 01-Apr-2011 at 08:28 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

This point is also true to virtually all energy productions nowadays

To some degree or another certainly. However, we can't overlook the rest of the world because they are less developed or more socialized than where we live. People are people and have a value. Killing someone on Niger probably has less impact on a balance sheet than killing someone in France. Lives have values that francs cannot convey.

Quote:

When total reserve is not known, such claim can not be proven. What is true is that we have drilled the most accessible sources: picking the low hanging fruits is what logic and economy dictate anyway, but does not inform about future discoveries (by number and extent). I am personally not afraid about that.

We know that areas we have in production down are being drawn down faster than the planet are refilling them. As you say the low hanging fruit is logical and cheap so is economically favored. The result of this is an increasing expense to get to the oil we need. The result of this is an increasingly expensive oil. To counter act we're adding efficencies to usage and creating a marketspace for other sources.

While it appears you aren't personally well situation for alternative energy there are better choices. Myself I have lots of land. I'm remote and have to use propane, which is expensive compared to natural gas. If I stay in my home for 7 years it's cost effective to use geothermal. (Assuming Propane won't go up in cost, which it will.) Year 8 I'm saving a boatload. The problem in here is the one must pay for geothermal upfront (mostly) and propane is more of an over time expense. Thus, we're trying our best to save up for geothermal. Had home prices not dropped we likely could have rolled the investment into a home loan and been ahead. But, now we have to do it another way.

And this is part of the problem with renewables. Your investment is up front and not over time. Many people don't have tens of thousands saved to make the investment even if net over time it's more cost effective. Even with government programs they might give me some of the money back but I still have to have the money to spend waiting the next year for a return.

Quote:

What has been proven is that there are biological elements in oil. Subtle difference. The chemistry of Earth's interior is still poorly understood, though.

You claim you were a scientist? It's a bit shocking as you abound with anti-scientific beliefs. If you haven't read and understood Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot please do. ... "Some undisprovable things are sensibly judged far less probable than other undisprovable things" -- Bertrand Russell.

Last edited by BrianK on 01-Apr-2011 at 10:20 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

People are people and have a value.

People have a value? You are not really meaning what I understand here.

Quote:

Killing someone on Niger probably has less impact on a balance sheet than killing someone in France. Lives have values that francs cannot convey.

I am still waiting for this death figure. In the mean time, please note that we have switched to Euro currency 10 years ago. I agree with your last sentence, though many greens (not all, OK) see human lives are more parasitic than anything else. I am happy you do not belong to this despicable people.

Quote:

We know that areas we have in production down are being drawn down faster than the planet are refilling them. The result of this is an increasing expense to get to the oil we need. The result of this is an increasingly expensive oil. To counter act we're adding efficencies to usage and creating a marketspace for other sources.

Well, it is the fate of products to be replaced by better alternatives for lower prices. Natural gas and unconventional energies fit well this usual scheme and have already began to push out coal in electricity generation. Mainly because of that, nuclear in the US is unlikely to 'rebirth'. Also, like in the US oil is mainly used here for transportation (electricity generation from oil is negligible).

Quote:

If I stay in my home for 7 years it's cost effective to use geothermal. (Assuming Propane won't go up in cost, which it will.) Year 8 I'm saving a boatload. The problem in here is the one must pay for geothermal upfront (mostly) and propane is more of an over time expense. Thus, we're trying our best to save up for geothermal. Had home prices not dropped we likely could have rolled the investment into a home loan and been ahead. But, now we have to do it another way.

Capital investment upfront is the cost you have to pay for your energy autonomy. Business is like that: you have to start somehow with the bank. After a few years (or a few decades depending on your success), you are your own bank and could achieve whatever independence you like/need. 7-8 years seem short term for a ROI. Any reason you keep propane and don't switch to grid line electricity? Do you know the cost per kWh of propane btw?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

You claim you were a scientist? It's a bit shocking as you abound with anti-scientific beliefs.

It is a bit strange to be called anti-scientific because I linked to 3 papers while the only response you gave is a philosophical quote. More to the point, it is easy to produce the components of oil from iron and calcium carbonate alone -- that are found in vast quantity in earth mantle -- both at high level pressure and temperature. Also while it seems 'natural' that 'fossil' oil can be found relatively near the surface, it is more difficult to explain how 'fossil' oil would have seeped down to 10 km or more into an oil deposit. The fact that the biggest oil fields are located near tectonic plates and faults does not square well with a biological origin: one could have difficulties to imagine a rich flora/fauna in the Middle-East too. There are some problems with the abiogenic theory as well, so overall I have not a firm and trenched view: as always, the truth is probably in the middle.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Quote: People are people and have a value. People have a value? You are not really meaning what I understand here.

I'm going to take you serious here and assume you're unable to assign a worth to something unless it has a Euro pricetag attached to it.

Quote:

Quote: Killing someone on Niger probably has less impact on a balance sheet than killing someone in France. Lives have values that francs cannot convey. I am still waiting for this death figure.

I agree the problem here is there's no formal counting of bodies. Though that is different than assuming 0 bodies exist.

Quote:

In the mean time, please note that we have switched to Euro currency 10 years ago.

Why are you giving your liberty to someone other than your country? Now all the foreigners have control of the foundation of the value within your society.

Quote:

Capital investment upfront is the cost you have to pay for your energy autonomy. Business is like that: you have to start somehow with the bank. After a few years (or a few decades depending on your success), you are your own bank and could achieve whatever independence you like/need. 7-8 years seem short term for a ROI. Any reason you keep propane and don't switch to grid line electricity? Do you know the cost per kWh of propane btw?

At current rates electricity is even more expensive per BTU than propane in my area. And in addition I now need another upfront investment to buy and run electric heaters into each room.

Quote:

It is a bit strange to be called anti-scientific because I linked to 3 papers while the only response you gave is a philosophical quote.

It wasn't because you linked to 3 papers. It's because you refuse to accept the current understandings of science on several occasions. You reject Global Warming, though it's the science with the most evidence at the present. You reject biological creation of oil, though it's the science with the most evidence. You support 'alternative' medicine, though the scientific evidence is against it, else it'd be called medicine. I see your persepective is tied to ideas that are not accepted by the current understanding of science.

Frankly I was surpised you said Quote:

The fact that the biggest oil fields are located near tectonic plates

Afterall plate tectonics is a theory which there is the most evidence for. I expected you to churn out this is at lines from the growth in the volume of the earth. You seems the closer the evidence is to NIL: the more you favor it as the right answer in science. I expected you'd be able to see the conspiracy behind the scenes that's using Plate Tectonics to form a one world socialist government.

Quote:

the truth is probably in the middle.

HUH? This is most confusing either fuel has a biological component as the current science understands through our current evidence. Or it doesn't and is therefore non-biogentic. I'm not sure what a middle ground between having or not having fossil material might be.

Last edited by BrianK on 02-Apr-2011 at 01:23 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 02-Apr-2011 at 01:19 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 02-Apr-2011 at 01:10 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

I'm going to take you serious here and assume you're unable to assign a worth to something unless it has a Euro pricetag attached to it.

A simple problem of definition: I attach no (metric nor moral nor sentimental) value to a person, instead I (try to) only attach merit. For example, I don't like you but I do not hate you either, ie I have no particular sentiment toward you as a person. In your case it is worse: indeed I don't know you as a physical person (you technically are what sociologists called a holon, a representation of your persona through some kind of device -- I remember we already discussed this in a previous thread). On the other hand, I can (or not ) find merits in your (holon's) action (mostly by trying to make sense of what you(r representation) write here and compare it to what I know). So in my view, you (to continue with the example) have no value per se, you have only merits (more exactly I attribute merits to you). Please don't take it as a 'not so subtle insult' (it is not, if you have understood what I wrote). Note also I can accept someone else thinks differently, and hope you can do as well.

Quote:

I agree the problem here is there's no formal counting of bodies. Though that is different than assuming 0 bodies exist.

This is a problem of coherence: one can not assume existence of something without at least some data about this something. I am after logic, not magic.

Quote:

Why are you giving your liberty to someone other than your country? Now all the foreigners have control of the foundation of the value within your society.

You in the US are exactly in the same boat. Anyway my liberty was very relative with the previous local currency too, as I had no right to 'create' it de novo (except having to visit jail at some time). People creating their own currency are rarity. Note also that the little liberty I lose by euros has been vastly balanced by some other freedoms I gained: I now can travel to any European country without passport and currency cost changes. So all in all the balance is a net positive.

Quote:

At current rates electricity is even more expensive per BTU than propane in my area. And in addition I now need another upfront investment to buy and run electric heaters into each room.

OK. I invested myself in the more expansive floor water network because of the liberty this system gives: it is mostly independent of the input energy source. Potential future investment is thus 'reduced' to the new energy source environment only. Like in any business a good planning is essential to save money.

Quote:

It's because you refuse to accept the current understandings of science on several occasions.

You misunderstand my position; I am not rejecting anything, I am questioning. I have difficulties with model-only based predictions, blatantly tweaked evidences and statistics (AGW). Same with oil, I said the truth is probably in the middle.

Quote:

You support 'alternative' medicine, though the scientific evidence is against it, else it'd be called medicine.

The evidence-based medical literature supports 'alternative' medicines, not me. Btw 'alternatives' ARE officially called medicines in Europe and elsewhere with medical, administrative and legal requirements similar to allopathic medicines. YOU reject these evidences.

Quote:

I see your persepective is tied to ideas that are not accepted by the current understanding of science.

I never have and will never consider/ed consensual approach a safe way for Science. Accepting scientific consensuses is de facto accepting a moral bias, with far more potentially damaging consequences than any other analytical biases: the encroachment of moral is somewhat irreversible and is not compatible with the scientific paradigm, contrary to empirical evidences. You know my position on this epistemological subject as we have discussed it ad infinitum in the past. It is a litmus test: talking of consensus about scientific question instantly raises my BS detector to the max. level.

Quote:

Afterall plate tectonics is a theory which there is the most evidence for.

My point was that deposit locations deep near tectonic plates and in the middle of vast desert regions suggest geological evidences, not biological ones.

Quote:

HUH? This is most confusing either fuel has a biological component as the current science understands through our current evidence.

No surprise here: it is not that unusual that the ultimate explanation in the presence of two potential theories is found to be explained by parts of the two. In this case one can think of primordial elements seeping from the deep up into rocky sedimentary basins through geological faults. Major gas fields have been found at great depth under major oil deposits. There are many examples of massive methane release just before and right after earthquake meaning that gases come from deep sources. The showdown between both theories is surprisingly interesting.

Edit: forgot a response
Edit: forgot a verb

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 02-Apr-2011 at 12:52 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 02-Apr-2011 at 12:45 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

Hard to tell if you understand this so just in case Smog is not CO2.

It's a shame I need to point out the obvious. I stated smog is harmful not CO2, else I would have stated CO2 instead of smog. Understand? Easy isn't it?

@TMTisFree

Quote:

CO² has really nothing to do with smog: it is odourless and invisible

Of course they are related. One of the harmful compounds of smog is the odourless and invisible carbon monoxide. This usually forms due to partial oxidation, a lack of O2, else CO2 would be formed.

Last edited by MikeB on 02-Apr-2011 at 01:46 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @BrianK Quote: Hard to tell if you understand this so just in case Smog is not CO2. It's a shame I need to point out the obvious. I stated smog is harmful not CO2, else I would have stated CO2 instead of smog. Understand? Easy isn't it?

Thanks MikeB it appears at least 2 of us didn't understand your meaning. That helps.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

A simple problem of definition: I attach no (metric nor moral nor sentimental) value to a person, instead I (try to) only attach merit. .. On the other hand, I can (or not ) find merits in your (holon's) action (mostly by trying to make sense of what you(r representation) write here and compare it to what I know)... Note also I can accept someone else thinks differently, and hope you can do as well.

Wow it's even worse than I thought at least a Euro figure on a head we can assign a worth. In your view the only 'useful' person is someone that touches you directly. You appear to not understand value of a person is that usefulness they provide to others. Too bad you reject this. I hope you don't mind I've conveyed you as a Ayn Rand Libertarian type. I think here this overt selfishism displayed yet again confirms my understanding. ... And sure I accept others in the world think differently than I do. I have friends that are Libertarian.

Quote:

This is a problem of coherence: one can not assume existence of something without at least some data about this something. I am after logic, not magic.

There is 'data' of deaths in Niger mining towns as the types of cancer, such as thyroid, are much higher than the other areas. We've also seen people take radiation readings and these indicate high conditions which increase the chance and type of cancer. There is correlative evidence that deaths have occurred in Niger due to the mining industry. ... What you did is reject the organization as too political and instead of finding a more accurate count you counted them as 0, which itself is untrue too.

Quote:

People creating their own currency are rarity.

I do this all the time. I trade labor for labor. I also set it's worth for some people I do 3 hours of work while they do 2 and for some people I do 2 hours of work and they have to do 3. I've even paid for things with other things. All are types of currency.

Quote:

You misunderstand my position; I am not rejecting anything, I am questioning.

I'd argue the misunderstanding comes from the representation of your ideas. You reject the bulk mainstream science (when it comes to Global Warming) and only promote those with the least amount of evidence validating their assertions.

Quote:

The evidence-based medical literature supports 'alternative' medicines, not me. Btw 'alternatives' ARE officially called medicines in Europe and elsewhere with medical, administrative and legal requirements similar to allopathic medicines. YOU reject these evidences.

I understand that in scientific testing the wider and deeper the test the more reflective it is of accuracy. Alternative medicines do not have the depth and breath of testing and when they do -- for example accupunture -- they outright fail, in so far as they aren't any better than a placebo.

Quote:

I never have and will never consider/ed consensual approach a safe way for Science.

You accept this all the time, you simply fail to acknowledge it. For example you heat your home on theories that are based upon the preponderance of evidence from science. Science itself is always critiquing and reassessing it's ideas. And it should this is how it should be.

You seem to misunderstand what consensus is. The point of science is for us to learn about our universe. Through this knowledge we can put the universe to better use. Consensus is generated from the theory which has the preponderance of evidence. You seem to think a consensus is some stopping point where science has to work no more. That's neither how consensus nor science works. At the end of the day certain theories will have more evidences and some less. Go back to my statement from Russell. It applies well to taking the natural philosophy (now called science) and rolling it into our lives. Afterall we have to live while science continues it's never ending journey of skepticism.

Quote:

My point was that deposit locations deep near tectonic plates and in the middle of vast desert regions suggest geological evidences, not biological ones.

Tectonic plates make discovery easy and less expensive. And deserts haven't been deserts the entire history of the planet. Just because it's a desert now doesn't mean it was hundreds of thousands of years ago. And AFAIK no oil has been identified without biological material.

Quote:

No surprise here: it is not that unusual that the ultimate explanation in the presence of two potential theories is found to be explained by parts of the two.

Here we have two completely different theories in the broad sense. Either (1) Oil is derived from some biological material or (2) Oil is derived from 0 biological material. You can't intermingle these two on the broad sense because as soon as any biological material is found to be in the reaction it immediately falls into (1) 'some' and out of (2) 'none'.

Perhaps the combination is 'both' are true. But, again as I indicated this might be but at this point we don't understand this near enough to make any sort of useful predictions (aka we can't find oil in this method in a consistent basis.)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Conspirational, heh?

Well as I explained I am not against limiting the effects of modern human society on the planet. According to scientists the world on average is now less than 1 degree Celsius warmer than it was 100 years ago. As we don't have sufficient data from before this we can't compare this with natural fluctuations of the distant past.

Water vapor in the air contributes to the bulk of "global warming", more so than the effects of all the other greenhouse gasses combined.

"Global warming" does not explain most of the problems I listed in my original posting. Of course the greenhouse effect is something we need to plan ahead for for the long term, but IMO there are short term problems mounting up which will not really be altered by measures taken to effect "global warming".