"Earth Getting Mysteriously Windier"

[wintler2]

Opinion, opinion, opinion.

If i wanted illinformed opinions i'd buy a tv.

Fossil fuels are hazardous for much more than just co2 (Hg, Ur, fly ash, particulates, acid rain), there is not as much economic uranium or coal as you claim (energy watch group), and i'm still waiting for your evidence of large production from geothermal (try Iceland for trivial exception). Have a look for research (not your opinion) on potential for new/increased hydro too while you're at it, a little problem of 'no more rivers'.

[TVC15]

Jack,

You said:

All forms of energy generation come with their own disasters. That doesn't free us from making distinctions. Did anyone here say there's a perfect solution? Rare earth mineral mining is dirty, but better they be mined for wind turbines than electronic toys powered by coal that's also being mined. Especially since, I don't know, but something about the name tells me they're... not abundant.

This is incorrect.

Despite the name, RE elements are fairly plentiful.

However, because of their geochemical properties rare earth elements are typically dispersed and not often found in concentrated and economically exploitable forms known as rare earth minerals.[3] It was the very scarcity of these minerals (previously called "earths") that led to the term "rare earth".

[JackRiddler]

Jack,

You said:

All forms of energy generation come with their own disasters. That doesn't free us from making distinctions. Did anyone here say there's a perfect solution? Rare earth mineral mining is dirty, but better they be mined for wind turbines than electronic toys powered by coal that's also being mined. Especially since, I don't know, but something about the name tells me they're... not abundant.

This is incorrect.

Despite the name, RE elements are fairly plentiful.

However, because of their geochemical properties rare earth elements are typically dispersed and not often found in concentrated and economically exploitable forms known as rare earth minerals.[3] It was the very scarcity of these minerals (previously called "earths") that led to the term "rare earth".

Is your point to take my word play and get literal and pedantic about it? "This is incorrect," you start, and then you go on to explain why it was, in fact, correct. Thanks! You say: "not often found in concentrated and economically exploitable forms known as rare earth minerals.[3] It was the very scarcity of these minerals..." All right then. Sounds "rare." (I also know that the oil doesn't really run out, only the EROEI falls off. Golly. You can still call that "running out" for the purpose of how it's usually meant, thanks to the miraculous flexibility of language, at least when people care to understand each others' meanings instead of doing irrelevant one-upmanship on words.)

Anyway, so let these not-often-found-in-concentrated-and-economically-exploitable-forms minerals go out for wind turbines and solar panels, rather than electronic toys. China may have the right idea in restricting them, no?

.

[Stephen Morgan]

Opinion, opinion, opinion.

If i wanted illinformed opinions i'd buy a tv.

Fossil fuels are hazardous for much more than just co2 (Hg, Ur, fly ash, particulates, acid rain),

Minor matters. Sulphur dioxide, which leads to acid rain, is now easily minimised in emissions, through coking cole, through catalytic converters, and so on. Particulate and fly ash aren't all that hazardous. Ur: Uranium? Not a fossil fuel, of course. Not made of fossils.

there is not as much economic uranium or coal as you claim (energy watch group),

Oh dear, might only last a couple of hundred years. Also note the variable definition of "economic", as seen with oil which has led to the modern use of heavy oils, like tar sands.

and i'm still waiting for your evidence of large production from geothermal (try Iceland for trivial exception).

As I've made it quite clear I want distributed production, and that it still needs to be built, what the hell make you think I'm going to dig up giga-watt scale geo-plants for you? Go to wiki and look up geothermal energy in the united kingdom, then start educating yourself.

Have a look for research (not your opinion) on potential for new/increased hydro too while you're at it, a little problem of 'no more rivers'.

Well, quite so. I mean, the entire early industrial revolution was run on water mills, at which time agricultural mills also used mostly water mills, and neither used the most potentially productive regions of the nation in the remote, lightly inhabited hills. Little if any of that water-energy is still being used. So, yeah, obviously expansion simply isn't possible.

You just don't want to admit the non-inevitability of your techno-apocalyptic wet dreams.

[Hammer of Los]

Stephen, we are indeed techno apocalyptically doomed, and you are either a knowing Koch propogandist or a deluded useful idiot.

Didn't you get the memo?

Besides, they've been warning me about earth changes for decades. And isn't Planet X still on the way? The only certainty is change.

But I'm not worried. Life has always been a tenuous affair. Besides, I don't expect eco apocalypse in my lifetime. I could be wrong. I'm looking forward to flying my kite.

But I don't drive, don't fly, consume and own very little, live in a small, cheaply heated home with three others, recycle as much as possible and practice non-violence (except I'm not a vegetarian, I am a sinner in that regard) and service to others, and I also speak out against consumption and greed and exploitation and violence and so on, when it seems to be useful to so do. So don't accuse me of dooming the planet or anything.

The easiest and most democratic and economically just solution would be for everyone to micro generate their own household or small community's energy needs from renewables. We might need to use a lot less energy, but I think that would be alright. It's doable, but if it doesn't make ever increasing profits for the tiny fraction of humanity with real wealth and power, then it will not come about under our present cultural and economic structures.

Personally, I think our cultural and economic structures will have to change.

Rejoice, rejoice! We have no choice, but to get along.

So wintler2, why not discuss a subject without the sarcasm and derision for once? If not for those qualities, you would be a near perfect human being. But you know, suit yourself. Just remember that others are actually entitled to have opinions, just the same as you are.

[23]

"Personally, I think our cultural and economic structures will have to change."

The structures will manifest easily enough, once our values change. The former generally reflects the latter. Which implies less attention on the structures may be needed, and more on the values which drive them. And a good place to begin might be the ideas expressed in your signature, which appreciatively sound very Krishnamurtiish to me.


"Just remember that others are actually entitled to have opinions, just the same as you are."

With the added caveat that the act of thumping on someone else's opinion, because you view yours as superior to theirs, is a good place to start for self-reflective inquiry.

[wintler2]

..You just don't want to admit the non-inevitability of your techno-apocalyptic wet dreams.

Strawman, with insult overtones, how sad.

[Hammer of Los]

"Personally, I think our cultural and economic structures will have to change."

The structures will manifest easily enough, once our values change. The former generally reflects the latter. Which implies less attention on the structures may be needed, and more on the values which drive them. And a good place to begin might be the ideas expressed in your signature, which appreciatively sound very Krishnamurtiish to me.


"Just remember that others are actually entitled to have opinions, just the same as you are."

With the added caveat that the act of thumping on someone else's opinion, because you view yours as superior to theirs, is a good place to start for self-reflective inquiry.

One man's opinion is as good as another's to me. It is all grist to the mill, taken with a pinch of salt.

My sig line is a direct quote from you quoting J Krishnamurti, whose words I enjoy.

Wintler2, I apologise already for chiding you. You know what I'm like. You go right ahead. I always enjoy reading your opinions, with which I find a very great deal to agree with.

ps I believe it highly likely that co2 and other manmade emissions are responsible for warming the earth, even to an alarming degree. Therefore I believe we should curb such emissions and seek remedial action. I put this in because around here sometimes you have to state the bleedin' obvious. Oh the lengths I go to, to avoid a flame war!

[wintler2]

.. Just remember that others are actually entitled to have opinions, just the same as you are.

Opinions are ubiquitous and free, facts require substantiation; thanks for the segue.


Hi Stephen! Can i invite you to start a thread to substantiate your opinions on wind, hydrothermal, etc. Your assertions here and my questioning of them have derailed this thread long enough.

[JackRiddler]

If threads are supposed to run on tracks, as the idea that they can be derailed implies, isn't it also the case that the tracks may lead somewhere other than where they started?

[Sounder]

I think its getting windier because the bankers have learned how to securitize words and create a derivatives market for those words. Let me explain, it’s a brilliantly evil plan. See, fellow planet fuckers buy the derivatives in exchange for the bankers ‘agents’ beaming some particular electromagnetic waveform sequence at some particular person or area. While results have been inconsistent, the hope and desire of the PFers is to reduce the level of rational interaction amongst the general population. I hear that the PFers get together to trade and brag about the effects that this or that waveform sequence had on its target.

Anyway the wind is simply a byproduct of this new system, -nothing to be alarmed about.

(For entertainment purposes only, so don’t go all days of the condor on me, okay?)

HoL wrote…

Stephen, we are indeed techno apocalyptically doomed, and you are either a knowing Koch propogandist or a deluded useful idiot.

While not wanting to add to any discord, this seems like it may be a place to jump in and add my two cents.

While I may relate to wintler2’s assertions more so than those of Stephens pragmatic realism, both seem to discount the power of imagination to reorder our assessments as to the nature of reality.

So Hammer, sure fine, but can we have ‘techno apocalyptical’ refer to the revelation of the (soon to be understood) inadequacy of current conceptual structures? Wintler2 is right to highlight pernicious effects of our technological innovations, but I prefer to think that the nasty side effects derive more from our values and use of the tech rather than coming from technology itself. i.e. the MIC being interested in promoting nuclear power so that a bomb making industry becomes easier to rationalize and support.

One thing is for sure though, if some tech comes along and ‘saves the day’, it will only happen after some stiff pushback from the oil oligarchs, as it would surely rock their world.

Maybe something like this?

More at:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Cold ... 1302201175

Cold fusion -- the largely discredited science of making more energy from less -- may be making a comeback.
Controversial yet high-profile demonstrations in Italy last month purported to show a cold fusion device turning 400 watts of heat power into 12,400 watts. The eye-popping 31-fold increase -- also known as an "excess heat effect" -- illustrates why lay observers say cold fusion is the "holy grail of energy independence" and why many scientists doubt, some to the point of apoplexy.

Since he's only seen second hand accounts of this latest project, University of Missouri Vice Chancellor for Research Robert Duncan, Ph.D., an expert in low-temperature physics, said he "can neither criticize nor endorse" it.

"But I do know that excess heat effects are real, and although we do not fundamentally understand their origins, the world's scientific community would be remiss if it does not seriously pursue these fascinating new observations," Duncan told TechNewsWorld.

The Italian Project
The reactor demonstrated in Italy is the brainchild of University of Bologna physics professor emeritus Sergio Focardi, Ph.D., and Andrea Rossi, who manufactures biofueled electric generators at his Bedford, N.H.-based Leonardo Corporation. It reportedly fuses nickel and hydrogen atomic nuclei at room temperature, producing copper -- and copious energy.

The process is also green, giving off neither coal-fired carbon dioxide nor radioactive waste, the two men said at a standing-room-only January 14 demonstration/press conference in Bologna. A nuclear physicist associated with the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics, Giuseppe Levi, examined the procedure and told reporters he was 100 percent convinced.

.

King Caution
Despite all the excitement -- online chatter and news reports about the demo still haven't died down -- "the history of the cold fusion controversy teaches us that caution is king," said New Energy Times' Krivit.

Ever cautious, peer-reviewed journals and a patent examination have rejected the claims. The Rossi-Focardi reactor, the patent examiner wrote, "seems to offend against the generally accepted laws of physics and established theories."

Oh dear, write home to Momma, it ‘seems to offend’.
The honor, let alone consideration, given to original thinking is pathetic when one considers that that is the best place to find opportunity for reordering our (currently inadequate) pictures of reality.

Particularly remarkable was the (decidedly chilly) cold fusion journey of Julian Schwinger, who with Richard Feynmann and Shinichiro Tomonaga won the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics for one of the greatest ever physical theories, quantum electrodynamics or QED.

After studying the Pons-Fleischmann experiments, "Julian had a theory that a process tantamount to cold fusion was occurring, but even as a Nobel laureate, he couldn't get reputable journals to publish it," Duncan told TechNewsWorld.

"My first attempt at publication was a total disaster," Schwinger recalled during lectures and seminars. He had devised a hypothesis about the effect "to suggest several critical experiments," but because cold fusion had become what Duncan calls a "pariah science, poison to all who touched it," Schwinger -- graduate advisor to four other Nobel laureates who also won the U.S. National Medal of Science -- was summarily ignored.

"What I had not expected was the venomous criticism, the contempt, the enormous pressure to conform. Has the knowledge that physics is an experimental science been totally lost?" he wondered.

"Temporarily misplaced" perhaps, Duncan said, urging that scientists leave peer pressure behind and return to their methodological roots.
"Cold fusion, or low-energy nuclear science, has benefited from exciting innovations and outstanding minds, yet massive, destructive 'group think,' has given it a checkered past," Duncan explained. "Now, however, it is of paramount importance that science proceed boldly, with a determined yet dispassionate focus, on the objective study of these fascinating phenomena."

I like the 'tantamount to cold fusion', which really means; these words don't mean much because there is no match here between theory and observation, but hey you gotta call it something.

Humans are not stupid or lacking in creativity, but they sure seem to be brainwashed into the opinion that this is the case.

Willful lack of imagination strikes me as being the greatest sin of this age.

As long as we don't know what we are aiming at, we are bound to 'miss the mark'.

(we are aiming at an evolution of consciousness)

[wintler2]

If threads are supposed to run on tracks, as the idea that they can be derailed implies, isn't it also the case that the tracks may lead somewhere other than where they started?

And if where they lead is starting to look alot like where you came from, if the fact of travelling in useless loops begins to wear, should you stay on the train.?

[TVC15]

Is your point to take my word play and get literal and pedantic about it? "This is incorrect," you start, and then you go on to explain why it was, in fact, correct. Thanks! You say: "not often found in concentrated and economically exploitable forms known as rare earth minerals.[3] It was the very scarcity of these minerals..." All right then. Sounds "rare." (I also know that the oil doesn't really run out, only the EROEI falls off. Golly. You can still call that "running out" for the purpose of how it's usually meant, thanks to the miraculous flexibility of language, at least when people care to understand each others' meanings instead of doing irrelevant one-upmanship on words.)

Nope.

The point was to explain why this group of plentifully occurring elements was given the name confusing name "rare earth"., a name which leads many to believe that they are not abundant.

I thought this was made quite clear in the italicized portion of my post, but after seeing how you completely missed the point, obviously I was wrong.

Let me try again.

The elements themselves are quite plentiful. Due to their nature, however, they tend to be dispersed. The fact that these elements are rarely found concentrated in minerals, or earths,as they used to be called, is why they were given the name "rare earth elements".

Once more, because this is subtle, these elements are called "rare earth elements" not because of scarcity, but because of the odd property they have of not concentrating in some mineral, or to use the old science term, earth.

Make sense now?

[JackRiddler]

SNIP

I thought this was made quite clear in the italicized portion of my post, but after seeing how you completely missed the point, obviously I was wrong.

Let me try again.

The elements themselves are quite plentiful. Due to their nature, however, they tend to be dispersed. The fact that these elements are rarely found concentrated in minerals, or earths,as they used to be called, is why they were given the name "rare earth elements".

Once more, because this is subtle, these elements are called "rare earth elements" not because of scarcity, but because of the odd property they have of not concentrating in some mineral, or to use the old science term, earth.

Make sense now?

You should know that, for some reason, my browser does not depict the use of italics on this board, at least not in the skin I chose. Really. That's why I always use bold, even when I mean italics.

Secondly, why are you wasting time with this? Once again, you've made clear that these elements are relatively hard to find in exploitable form, something I already knew and said, and yet you want to split hairs about the use of "rare." Off-topic pedantry. Enough.

Here's how the relevant discussion went, if you're interested in participating:

People here talked about wind power. You posted an article about how mining for minerals used in wind power causes environmental damage. I said, that's bad but better than mining these minerals for other uses while also mining for coal, uranium, oil and gas, causing incomparably greater damage just in the mining, not to mention the consumption.

Furthermore, I said, since these minerals are scarce in exploitable form, China is smart to restrict their sale for export and use them for wind turbines and the like.

Now, do you have anything substantive to reply? What was your point about the eco-damage caused by mining for these minerals? Are you saying wind power is therefore a bad thing? Do you think it's a bad thing compared to the alternatives? What do you support? Thanks.

.

[charlie meadows]

http://bigthink.com/ideas/31635

Ray Kurzweil: Solar Will Power the World in 16 Years

Solar power, driven by exponentially-increasing nanotechnology, will satisfy the entire world's need for energy in less than twenty years.

Why Is It Groundbreaking?

Currently, solar power supplies less than 1% of the world's energy needs, which has led many to disregard its future significance. Where they're wrong is that they fail to understand the exponential nature of technology, says eminent inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil. Just like computer processing speed—which doubles every 18 months in accordance with Moore's law—the nanotechnology that drives innovations in solar power progresses exponentially, he says.

During his latest Big Think interview, Kurweil explained:

"Solar panels are coming down dramatically in cost per watt. And as a result of that, the total amount of solar energy is growing, not linearly, but exponentially. It’s doubling every 2 years and has been for 20 years. And again, it’s a very smooth curve. There’s all these arguments, subsidies and political battles and companies going bankrupt, they’re raising billions of dollars, but behind all that chaos is this very smooth progression."

So how far away is solar from meeting 100% of the world's energy needs? Eight doublings, says Kurzweil, which will take just 16 years. And supply is not an issue either, he adds: "After we double eight more times and we’re meeting all of the world’s energy needs through solar, we’ll be using 1 part in 10,000 of the sunlight that falls on the earth. And we could put efficient solar farms on a few percent of the unused deserts of the world and meet all of our energy needs."

Dangerous talk to some.

In my opinion, Moore's Law is not some incredible revelation about the nature and progress of technological innovation, it is first, last and only a marketing strategy. Any 16-to-20 year transition to worldwide solar power is subject to the auspices of ....