450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

[Oddball]

How does one lie in asking questions, Gomer?

Do you have any idea of the order-of-care protocols of EMS?

Lithum is a hazardous material, and exposure to the contents of lithium batteries would be considered a breach of the #1 concern of emergency medicine: Scene safety.

In moist air, lithium metal rapidly tarnishes to form a black coating of lithium hydroxide (LiOH and LiOH·H2O), lithium nitride (Li3N) and lithium carbonate (Li2CO3, the result of a secondary reaction between LiOH and CO2).[13]

When placed over a flame, lithium gives off a striking crimson color, but when it burns strongly the flame becomes a brilliant white. Lithium will ignite and burn in oxygen when exposed to water or water vapours.[14]

Lithium metal is flammable, and it is potentially explosive when exposed to air and especially to water, though less so than the other alkali metals. The lithium-water reaction at normal temperatures is brisk but not violent, though the hydrogen produced can ignite. As with all alkali metals, lithium fires are difficult to extinguish, requiring dry powder fire extinguishers, specifically Class D type (see Types of extinguishing agents).

Lithium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Skull Pilot]

tell me what's wrong with this picture.

80 mpg in a little death trap of a car is some kind of miracle but a diesel electric train can move a ton of freight something like 450 miles on a gallon of fuel.

Seems to me, the car manufacturers are missing something.

As an aside, there is not a combustion engine in existence that can match the pure torque and acceleration that an electric motor can produce.

Shit my 18 volt cordless drill can crank enough torque to break a wrist. I know.

i like the idea of electric motors but the limitations are still to great for most driving applications.

 

[Old Rocks]

tell me what's wrong with this picture.

80 mpg in a little death trap of a car is some kind of miracle but a diesel electric train can move a ton of freight something like 450 miles on a gallon of fuel.

Seems to me, the car manufacturers are missing something.

As an aside, there is not a combustion engine in existence that can match the pure torque and acceleration that an electric motor can produce.

Shit my 18 volt cordless drill can crank enough torque to break a wrist. I know.

i like the idea of electric motors but the limitations are still to great for most driving applications.

No, Skull, you are wrong on that. There are many electrics out there right now that are doing great in all kinds of conditions. The primary problem right now is a adaquete electrical storage system. Both the Lithium-Air systems, as well as some of the newer capacitor systems are showing some real promise in this department.

One of the capacitor manufactures, is stating a target price of $100 to $150 per kwh for their product. That is still a bit high, but manageable, none the less, for an reasonably priced auto.

 

[Old Rocks]

How does one lie in asking questions, Gomer?

Do you have any idea of the order-of-care protocols of EMS?

Lithum is a hazardous material, and exposure to the contents of lithium batteries would be considered a breach of the #1 concern of emergency medicine: Scene safety.

In moist air, lithium metal rapidly tarnishes to form a black coating of lithium hydroxide (LiOH and LiOH·H2O), lithium nitride (Li3N) and lithium carbonate (Li2CO3, the result of a secondary reaction between LiOH and CO2).[13]

When placed over a flame, lithium gives off a striking crimson color, but when it burns strongly the flame becomes a brilliant white. Lithium will ignite and burn in oxygen when exposed to water or water vapours.[14]

Lithium metal is flammable, and it is potentially explosive when exposed to air and especially to water, though less so than the other alkali metals. The lithium-water reaction at normal temperatures is brisk but not violent, though the hydrogen produced can ignite. As with all alkali metals, lithium fires are difficult to extinguish, requiring dry powder fire extinguishers, specifically Class D type (see Types of extinguishing agents).

Lithium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK, Einstein. I have over 40 gallons of gasoline under my van with the tanks full. In a wreck that would rupture the tanks, the reaction, if ignited, is far more than brisk. And it is a liquid that runs all over the place, not something that stays in place, like the contents of a lithium battery.

I see no more danger in the batteries than exists in present gasoline fueled vehicles.

 

[Oddball]

Gasoline is in a fuel cell and is very easy to notice when that cell has been ruptured.

BTW, you're still dodging the question viz. the hazardous nature of the electrolytes, save for the lithium plates themselves.

That you see no more danger here is a product of your myopia, not mine.

 

[Toronado3800]

Disposing or recycling the batteries is a problem

Up to each to decide if its worth the trouble

Thanks to my desire to shift pollution and buy batteries from japanese instead of buying oil which raises the value of middle eastern oil it's probably worth it.

 

[mdn2000]

I have not thrown out enough batteries in my life, how about a car that uses the equivalent of a lifetimes worth of batteries just to run to the store to buy batteries for my radio.

I see Old Crock posted a link, what a joke, every link I follow of Old Crock's ends up showing old crock does not know how to read, Old Crock has cried wolf way too much for me.

How about the fact that you are a total doofus.

OLD CROCK, here is an example of Old crock being a doofus-doofus x's 10

old crock, if your the smart one how come you have yet to respond in LOL, this is your source showing that you cherry pick articles, Old Crock's own source states geothermal is too expensive yet Old Crock repeatedly disagrees with sources Old Crock continues to use

How about the one where Old Crock thought you could smelt steel with only electricity and posted a source that proved himself wrong, that was real funny

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/92812-lol-7.html

Old Crock, whats your deal, you forget this entire thread, too much pot smoke out there on the left coast or are fucking with me. I got to scratch my head and wonder if your an idiot are you just have to get the last word in. So this again proves Old Crock goes off half cocked and for fun I will respond once again by this time I will simply qoute the same article with no cherry picking of the article. Old Crock, boy are you dumb, next time you post something Old Crock you should not be so lazy and read the whole article, or maybe you should use the scroll bar, on the right of the window, its used to scroll to writing and words that dont fit on your computer screen.

So to help I will post the entire first page of Old Crocks article, first old crocks original cheery picked paragraph.

It would seem, according to this article in the Scientific American, that Geothermal is shaping up to be our cheapest source of energy. Clean, cheap, and 24/7.


Can Geothermal Power Compete with Coal on Price?: Scientific American

Although the environmental benefits of burning less fossil fuel by using renewable sources of energy—such as geothermal, hydropower, solar and wind—are clear, there's been a serious roadblock in their adoption: cost per kilowatt-hour.

That barrier may be opening, however—at least for one of these sources. Two recent reports, among others, suggest that geothermal may actually be cheaper than every other source, including coal. Geothermal power plants work by pumping hot water from deep beneath Earth's surface, which can either be used to turn steam turbines directly or to heat a second, more volatile liquid such as isobutane (which then turns a steam turbine).

Now the whole 1st page of old crocks article.

Although the environmental benefits of burning less fossil fuel by using renewable sources of energy—such as geothermal, hydropower, solar and wind—are clear, there's been a serious roadblock in their adoption: cost per kilowatt-hour.

That barrier may be opening, however—at least for one of these sources. Two recent reports, among others, suggest that geothermal may actually be cheaper than every other source, including coal. Geothermal power plants work by pumping hot water from deep beneath Earth's surface, which can either be used to turn steam turbines directly or to heat a second, more volatile liquid such as isobutane (which then turns a steam turbine).

Combine a new U.S. president pushing a stimulus package that includes $28 billion in direct subsidies for renewable energy with another $13 billion for research and development, and the picture for renewable energy—geothermal power among the options—is brightening. The newest report, from international investment bank Credit Suisse, says geothermal power costs 3.6 cents per kilowatt-hour, versus 5.5 cents per kilowatt-hour for coal.



That does not mean companies are rushing to build geothermal plants: There are a number of assumptions in the geothermal figure. First, there are the tax incentives, which save about 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. Those won't necessarily last forever, however—although the stimulus bill extended them through 2013.

Second, the Credit Suisse analysis relied on what is called the "levelized [sic] cost of energy," or the total cost to produce a given unit of energy. Embedded within this figure is an assumption that the money to build a new geothermal plant is available at reasonable interest rates—on the order of 8 percent.

In today's economic climate, that just isn't the case. "In general, there is financing out there for geothermal, but it's difficult to get and it's expensive," Geothermal Energy Association director Karl Gawell told ScientificAmerican.com recently. "You have to have a really premium project to get even credit card interest rates."

That means very high up-front costs. As a result, companies are more likely to spend money on things with lower front-end costs, like natural gas–powered plants, which are cheap to build but relatively expensive to operate because of the cost of the fuel needed to run them.

"Natural gas is popular for this reason," says Kevin Kitz, an engineer at Boise, Idaho–based U.S. Geothermal, Inc, which owns and operates three geothermal sites. "It has a low capital cost, and even if you project cost of natural gas to be high in future, if you use a high [interest rate in your model] that doesn't matter very much."

Natural gas, which came in at 5.2 cents per kilowatt-hour in the analysis, is also popular because it can be deployed anywhere, whereas only 13 U.S. states have identified geothermal resources. Although this limits the scalability of geothermal power, a 2008 survey by the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the U.S. possesses 40,000 megawatts of geothermal energy that could be exploited using today's technology. (For comparison, the average coal-fired power plant in the U.S. has a capacity of more than 500 MW.)

Old Crock's article explains that the Credit Suisse report is flawed, that geothermal is more expensive than stated, so thanks old crock.

OLD CROCK PROVES GEOTHERMAL IS TOO EXPENSIVE.

There is something wrong with devoloping geothermal, one it is expensive, two exenspensive equals disproportunate use of earths natural resources to develop, extremely polluting.

Quick note on pollution, while I searched for informaiton on this most articles and a lot of reports are very specific in refering to "emissions" as in air emissions. Very few speak of the solid toxic waste that is produced. A second point is almost all the reports speak of emmissions at the plant, the well head is not included as part of a plant but remember each plant is unique so this is not true of every plant. A third point is that the majority of the reports does not mention normal maintenance when the plant is not operating, each plant must be shutdown and have systems inspected, repaired, and cleaned, scheduled maitenance. Fourth no mention is made of un-scheduled maintence, no mention of emmisions at the well head, no mention of emmissions when pipes burst and systems fail.

There is a reason not to develop geothermal energy, Geothermal is a mature technology developed and refined over a hundred years, the first geothermal power plant was built 100 hears ago.

There is not much if anything else to know, you sink a well with the same rig used for oil, pump deadly toxic brine to the earth, flash the steam in a heat exchanger and drive a turbine.

Geothermal brine destroys all it touches and that makes geothermal use 1000's of tons of steel pipes, the energy used to smelt steel is not renewable hence a geothermal plant needs fossil fuel to supply new pipes on a daily basis, the work never ends, constantly replacing miles of pipes.

Geothermal is not renewable, its expensive, polluting, and a tired old form of energy.

 

[Annie]

"Another journal which (quite oddly) also published the Soon et al study, “Energy and Environment”, is not actually a scientific journal at all but a social science journal. The editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christensen, in defending the publication of the Soon et al study, was quoted by science journalist Richard Monastersky in the Chronicle of Higher Education somewhat remarkably confessing “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?”.

RealClimate: Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition

hmmmm....This is not another journal.

Why not actually look at the papers reather than focus on trying to discredit.

You cannot discredit the majority of them and other than opinion have not discredited any others.

Interesting that those most strenuously arguing for AGW, often site the same journals and forum mentioned repeatedly in the emails.

That alone would make me wonder.

 

[FactFinder]

I thought that with the revelations that CRU was colluding to denegrate the value of opposing views that these peer reviewed articles take on even more importance and cannot be dismissed with the same sort of trivial hype that was coming from the criminals.

Yes there is valid science that shows a wealth of information about our climate that has ablsoutely nothing to do with so called man made causes.

 

[Oddball]

Disposing or recycling the batteries is a problem

Up to each to decide if its worth the trouble

Thanks to my desire to shift pollution and buy batteries from japanese instead of buying oil which raises the value of middle eastern oil it's probably worth it.

Guess nobody told you how environmentally destructive cadmium and zinc mining are.

There's no free lunch or free electricity.