Green Technology: What WILL Happen

I see. And the government was not the one that funded most of the developments in aviation?

The government didn't fund anything. It purchased ever more developed aircraft thereby providing an incentive for private industry to invent ever more developed aircraft. Sometimes a governent, not always ours, gave out prizes for better technology or design.

There is a commercial on television produced by Best Buy promoting all their cell phones. Statements by all the men who developed the camera, instagram, voice technology, video streaming. No government funding. Cell phone towers were built by Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon. No government involvement. How many people really think that the cell phone and it's service was funded by the government.

Who did fund the transcontinental railroad? Did you ever look it up, or just believe the liberal pap that it was the government? Funding came from private investment, from Crocker, Stanford, Huntington and Hopkins, men who formed private limited liability companies and invested all they had to lay that track. The government's involvement was to give the railroads land grants, of which the government kept ownership of half the land. Later, as the railroad progressed, the government sold bonds to raise money. Bonds that had to be repaid before more bonds would be issued. A nice pay as you go program. In no case did the government hand out checks the way it is trying to do, and failing, with its ridiculous green energy programs. These programs have half the money given returned to democrats in the form of campaign donations which was the whole point of giving out the money to begin wiith.
What the hell are you talking about? It was the government that build the first jets, the first planes that went into space, the first non piloted drones etc etc

No the didn't. The first jet in the US was copied from a British design, the X-15 was built by North American and Reaction, and Reginald Denny developed the RPV, which we now call UAV or drone. Is there any subject you are not completely ignorant about?
 
:cuckoo:
For someone not the see the synergy between solar panels and high energy capacity batteries is quite beyond my understanding. An average home uses about a kw an hour, normal running. This could be cut down to one fifth that in an emergency. An EV with a battery that has a 100 kwh capacity could power that home for quite a while. And if that home had solar panels for charging that battery, then one would have indefinate independence if the grid were down. Also, if the solar installation were big enough, the combination of the battery and panels could make one completely independent of the grid.

It's funny. I put the more stupid and negative whackjobs on ignore so i usually don't see their posts. Gotta love a guy who calls someone elae stupid for considering electric cars to be included in what ia deemed "green technology"! I mean after all, how could anyone consider zero emmissions a "green" thing! Lol
He's juat a small minded contrarian who never poata anything of substance. Easy to ignore :)

Speaking of "small minded contrarians", that would include those who have been brainwashed to considered electric cars as "zero emissions"... Clearly TODAY -- an EV charged at a typical American home barely beats out an ICE (internal combustion engine for all our environmental gurus who don't know this) in terms of bad combustion polluting.. It's only "zero emissions" if it's already charged. Where do you think the energy comes from????

The calculus on using "your car to power your home" is a prime example of why I've lost patience with the eco-nauts. If EVERYBODY did this --- we'd have a toxic waste stream created larger than any other in history.. But ignoring the obvious un-greenness of that proposal -- the car powers NOTHING. If you drive it out of garage at night, the house goes dead. Your food rots, your clocks all blink 12:00....

To even CHARGE an EV from a solar grid is near impossible today. As the major manufacturers (Leaf/Volt etc) all require a NEW 220V 40A service....
From the Leaf manual:

If I want to "prewire" a new home for a future Nissan LEAF™ owner, what is required?
A The home charging dock will require a 220/240V 40 amp dedicated circuit connected to a breaker. The charging dock will need to be hard-wired directly to the circuit by a certified electrician.

What is the estimated time for full charging with 110v, 220v and fast charge stations?
A It takes about ~30 minutes to 80% at a 480 volt quick-charge station. Starting from a depleted battery, ~7 hours at 220/240V (depending on amperage), about 20 hours at 110/120V.

This WAAAAY exceeds the typical capability of home solar installation.. UNLESS you want 40 hour charging times for the car. Which leaves little juice for your Wii games.... 40 hours because you stayed up late last night and used too much power. A consideration that WILL NOT FLY with the American way of life.. Energy should be CHEAP and PLENTIFUL...

EVEN WITH a doubling of battery capacity, the ability to increase charge rates and discharge rates for future batteries has to be balanced against lifetime, safety issues, and the use of even MORE toxic materials.....

REAL problems to be solved.. Not a snapping of fingers.. Which is what TRUE "small-minded" contrarians are dreaming up and DEMANDING thru their political power vendors...

Right. I get it. I'm small-minded because I believe we can eventually develop some kind of energy that will be better than fossil-fuels. :cuckoo:
And those danm horseless carriages are just a fad!
Lemme guess. You're old, white, Conservative and Republican. Just a guess. LOL! Just kidding. It's not like it your views on energy have anything to do with politics... :lol:
 
No -- you MIGHT be small-minded if you deal in maybes and hope fairies about what might happen if we all hold our breathe in the dark together.. (see lights off for an hour on Earth Day) And APPARENTLY you attribute political motives to people who want to shake you and wake you the hell up.. This ain't CandyLand -- and cheesy-headed thinking on energy policy could KILL US... Literally -- or turn us into a 3rd world shithole of a country....

I mean who the hell wants to live in filth or on a polluted planet.. Your average Republican? All Libertarians? Anyone kinda fond of Capitalism?

First Problem is --- CO2 IS NOT a pollutant and we're not sure whether it's a principal contributor to climate change despite the wailings of idiotchilds like Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore.. Ever worry you might be solving a problem that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST???

I prefer to save the whales, cleanup REAL toxic sites, and use private property rights to ENCOURAGE smart use of the planet..
 
Last edited:
No -- you MIGHT be small-minded if you deal in maybes and hope fairies about what might happen if we all hold our breathe in the dark together.. (see lights off for an hour on Earth Day) And APPARENTLY you attribute political motives to people who want to shake you and wake you the hell up.. This ain't CandyLand -- and cheesy-headed thinking on energy policy could KILL US... Literally -- or turn us into a 3rd world shithole of a country....

I mean who the hell wants to live in filth or on a polluted planet.. Your average Republican? All Libertarians? Anyone kinda fond of Capitalism?

First Problem is --- CO2 IS NOT a pollutant and we're not sure whether it's a principal contributor to climate change despite the wailings of idiotchilds like Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore.. Ever worry you might be solving a problem that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST???

I prefer to save the whales, cleanup REAL toxic sites, and use private property rights to ENCOURAGE smart use of the planet..

Are you upset? I only ask because you seem upset. Let me get you a nice cup of tea and we can start again, shall we? There. That's better.
Let's look at it a different way then. Apparently, you're smarter than 90% of the world's scientists. I applaud you on your positive self-image. Nice. So let's say you're right. There is no such thing as global warming, pollution or whatever. But all those people think there is. And they want to buy things that will, in their minds, be nicer to the planet. There is a BIG demand for such things and the trend is growing because guess who likes all this green stuff the most? Young people. Yup, them youngins be lovin' the Green stuff!
Now if you find any flaw with any of the above, let me know and I'll be happy to cite all kinds of stuff that supports A) Lots of scientists aren't as smart as you and wrongfully believe in Global Warming, Pollution and so on and B) Young people support these beliefs at over 2:1 to their older counterparts.
So. To continue.
I believe that someone will eventually develop technologies that will make lots of people happy because it is better at stopping the Global Warming and pollution which do not exist.
I also believe that both the company and country that actually LEAD the way in such developments will benefit tremendously and financially.
So why are you SO opposed to the possibility of the USA being the country that LEADS in a much sought after technology?
We used to do that often.
 
No -- you MIGHT be small-minded if you deal in maybes and hope fairies about what might happen if we all hold our breathe in the dark together.. (see lights off for an hour on Earth Day) And APPARENTLY you attribute political motives to people who want to shake you and wake you the hell up.. This ain't CandyLand -- and cheesy-headed thinking on energy policy could KILL US... Literally -- or turn us into a 3rd world shithole of a country....

I mean who the hell wants to live in filth or on a polluted planet.. Your average Republican? All Libertarians? Anyone kinda fond of Capitalism?

First Problem is --- CO2 IS NOT a pollutant and we're not sure whether it's a principal contributor to climate change despite the wailings of idiotchilds like Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore.. Ever worry you might be solving a problem that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST???

I prefer to save the whales, cleanup REAL toxic sites, and use private property rights to ENCOURAGE smart use of the planet..

Are you upset? I only ask because you seem upset. Let me get you a nice cup of tea and we can start again, shall we? There. That's better.
Let's look at it a different way then. Apparently, you're smarter than 90% of the world's scientists. I applaud you on your positive self-image. Nice. So let's say you're right. There is no such thing as global warming, pollution or whatever. But all those people think there is.

Flacaltenn::>
I never said that about REAL POLLUTION.. Reading problem? or you're not taking the conversation seriously??

And they want to buy things that will, in their minds, be nicer to the planet. There is a BIG demand for such things and the trend is growing because guess who likes all this green stuff the most? Young people. Yup, them youngins be lovin' the Green stuff!

Flacaltenn::>
Young people will figure it out when the electric grid can't power their precise Ipads or the leftists get their carbon tax or Carbon credits. They'll figure it out when they start wondering when their "green investments" of $Trillions keeps producing nothing.

Now if you find any flaw with any of the above, let me know and I'll be happy to cite all kinds of stuff that supports A) Lots of scientists aren't as smart as you and wrongfully believe in Global Warming, Pollution and so on and B) Young people support these beliefs at over 2:1 to their older counterparts.
So. To continue.
I believe that someone will eventually develop technologies that will make lots of people happy because it is better at stopping the Global Warming and pollution which do not exist.
I also believe that both the company and country that actually LEAD the way in such developments will benefit tremendously and financially.
So why are you SO opposed to the possibility of the USA being the country that LEADS in a much sought after technology?
We used to do that often.

Thanks for the tea -- your Koolaid is coming right up.. YES -- I'm upset. I'm a realist. I live in Engineering/Science. Not a hope fairy fan.

I'm only opposed to continuing the FAILED hope that CURRENT approved "alternatives" are worthy of more time and effort. I'm opposed to misappropriation of capital that SHOULD Be going to the search for NEW and genuinely valid ideas. I'm also opposed to the "bottom line" of the CO2 theory for Global Warming which is we should channel $TRILLIONS into CO2 mitigation. That's misuse of funds that could TRULY go to feeding, hydrating people and cleaning up the earth.. Get it??

Greenies have a SERIOUS historical credibility problem with their "technical" proposals for energy and pollution..

See the reversal on dams/hydropower for instance..
See the arrogant introduction of MTBE into our groundwater.
See the error of pushing Biomass Conversion as a "clean green alternative".
Ditto for Geothermal mining..

Tired of giving the "hopers" the lead on environmental issues. These should be tackled from a systematic, scientific, logical progression of research and production and market acceptance. YES folks are ready to buy them -- so the govt shouldn't be subsidizing them except for basic research grants.

Good concern for the "children" -- but it's time the adults took charge again.

BTW: I don't deny Climate change. But I'm seriously in doubt that we have identified the magnitude of the problem or even the real cause. Despite the Orwellian thought control from EPA -- CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Do YOU believe that it is? If you do -- why and how important is it compared to sulphur pollution, mercury pollution, waste stream control from EV batteries...
There are ample intelligient, capable opposition to the CO2 theory.. They are not waiting on my ingenious ideas and concepts.

:lol: :cool:
 
Last edited:
What is made from hemp and switchgrass, we needed it, YESTERDAY, all-wicked-ready.

Oh great, now here comes all the "ain't it great to be stoned!!" angles. Potheads unite!
Like I posted elsewhere, prison and petroleum industry are united, against legal hemp.

Petroleum industry includes winnutskis, who can go home and sell oil, and fuck off and get their food, when Ukraine wants to let any of that go, since wingnutski won't let the US re-green, for the Stalinist trend, to ban drugs and sell oil.

But Russia gets trouble, when global warming takes out the jet-stream:

Russian Meteorological Center: "There was nothing similar to this on the territory of Russia during the last one thousand years in regard to the heat." | ThinkProgress

Russia’s Fires & Pakistan’s Floods: The Result of a Stagnant Jet Stream? | 80beats | Discover Magazine

Global Warming Causes 300,000 Deaths a Year, Says Kofi Annan thinktank | Common Dreams

Moscow Deaths DOUBLE Amid Smog And Heat Wave (PHOTOS)

A thing called 'NOAA' says this wasn't global warming, but they are assholes, trying to circle back into how we don't need to re-green. We need to re-green, sorry about luck.
 
No -- you MIGHT be small-minded if you deal in maybes and hope fairies about what might happen if we all hold our breathe in the dark together.. (see lights off for an hour on Earth Day) And APPARENTLY you attribute political motives to people who want to shake you and wake you the hell up.. This ain't CandyLand -- and cheesy-headed thinking on energy policy could KILL US... Literally -- or turn us into a 3rd world shithole of a country....

I mean who the hell wants to live in filth or on a polluted planet.. Your average Republican? All Libertarians? Anyone kinda fond of Capitalism?

First Problem is --- CO2 IS NOT a pollutant and we're not sure whether it's a principal contributor to climate change despite the wailings of idiotchilds like Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore.. Ever worry you might be solving a problem that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST???

I prefer to save the whales, cleanup REAL toxic sites, and use private property rights to ENCOURAGE smart use of the planet..
Nimrod, see if you can read the links I paste, for once:

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Northwest Oyster Die-offs Show Ocean Acidification Has Arrived by Elizabeth Grossman: Yale Environment 360

Anything in excess can be a poison, and if it participates in an exchange, such as when CO2 mixes with ions, to make H2CO3, carbonic acid, the acid in quantity is poisonous, and it is a pernicious pollutant!

You are not much of a scientist, until you shut the fuck up and read something, worth reading. Read about carbonic acid. It comes from excessive CO2-emissions.

Warming and acidification are accelerating, hockey-stick graph, or not! Hey, when the melted glacial ice, the warming bodies of water, and the lands, formerly covered by permafrost release methane and more CO2, the warming AND the acidification go faster!

Your remark about how CO2 is not a pollutant is stupid, and at best, irrelevant. The carbonic acid buildup is the most dangerous, global warming-related phenomenon. Anybody who doesn't think so is not only an asshole, that asshole is a stupid, cocksure, fuck-tard of an asshole!

We re-green, or else. And no, the carbonic acid buildup is not due, to assholes at the beach tossing the rest of their sodas, into the ocean. BTW, don't make a kid, with another D; remember what that nice Mr.Mencia said about that.
 
No -- you MIGHT be small-minded if you deal in maybes and hope fairies about what might happen if we all hold our breathe in the dark together.. (see lights off for an hour on Earth Day) And APPARENTLY you attribute political motives to people who want to shake you and wake you the hell up.. This ain't CandyLand -- and cheesy-headed thinking on energy policy could KILL US... Literally -- or turn us into a 3rd world shithole of a country....

I mean who the hell wants to live in filth or on a polluted planet.. Your average Republican? All Libertarians? Anyone kinda fond of Capitalism?

First Problem is --- CO2 IS NOT a pollutant and we're not sure whether it's a principal contributor to climate change despite the wailings of idiotchilds like Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore.. Ever worry you might be solving a problem that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST???

I prefer to save the whales, cleanup REAL toxic sites, and use private property rights to ENCOURAGE smart use of the planet..

Are you upset? I only ask because you seem upset. Let me get you a nice cup of tea and we can start again, shall we? There. That's better.
Let's look at it a different way then. Apparently, you're smarter than 90% of the world's scientists. I applaud you on your positive self-image. Nice. So let's say you're right. There is no such thing as global warming, pollution or whatever. But all those people think there is.

Flacaltenn::>
I never said that about REAL POLLUTION.. Reading problem? or you're not taking the conversation seriously??

And they want to buy things that will, in their minds, be nicer to the planet. There is a BIG demand for such things and the trend is growing because guess who likes all this green stuff the most? Young people. Yup, them youngins be lovin' the Green stuff!

Flacaltenn::>
Young people will figure it out when the electric grid can't power their precise Ipads or the leftists get their carbon tax or Carbon credits. They'll figure it out when they start wondering when their "green investments" of $Trillions keeps producing nothing.

Now if you find any flaw with any of the above, let me know and I'll be happy to cite all kinds of stuff that supports A) Lots of scientists aren't as smart as you and wrongfully believe in Global Warming, Pollution and so on and B) Young people support these beliefs at over 2:1 to their older counterparts.
So. To continue.
I believe that someone will eventually develop technologies that will make lots of people happy because it is better at stopping the Global Warming and pollution which do not exist.
I also believe that both the company and country that actually LEAD the way in such developments will benefit tremendously and financially.
So why are you SO opposed to the possibility of the USA being the country that LEADS in a much sought after technology?
We used to do that often.

Thanks for the tea -- your Koolaid is coming right up.. YES -- I'm upset. I'm a realist. I live in Engineering/Science. Not a hope fairy fan.

Have you considered that being ANGRY toward anyone who dares disagree with you even a bit, is not going to help you educate them? I mean, I have already acknowledged that you obviously have far more technical knowledge in this area than I could ever hope to.
What if you had just had a civil discussion with me?
Perhaps it wouldn't be as gratifying as all the well, the way you put things but then again, perhaps it could be even more rewarding to exchange ideas in a civil manner. I would think that as a scientist, you of all people would appreciate such opportunities.


I'm only opposed to continuing the FAILED hope that CURRENT approved "alternatives" are worthy of more time and effort. I'm opposed to misappropriation of capital that SHOULD Be going to the search for NEW and genuinely valid ideas. I'm also opposed to the "bottom line" of the CO2 theory for Global Warming which is we should channel $TRILLIONS into CO2 mitigation. That's misuse of funds that could TRULY go to feeding, hydrating people and cleaning up the earth.. Get it??

I wasn't aware that I discussed economics at all. I could have - it's been a long thread.

Greenies have a SERIOUS historical credibility problem with their "technical" proposals for energy and pollution..

See the reversal on dams/hydropower for instance..
See the arrogant introduction of MTBE into our groundwater.
See the error of pushing Biomass Conversion as a "clean green alternative".
Ditto for Geothermal mining..

Tired of giving the "hopers" the lead on environmental issues. These should be tackled from a systematic, scientific, logical progression of research and production and market acceptance. YES folks are ready to buy them -- so the govt shouldn't be subsidizing them except for basic research grants.

Good concern for the "children" -- but it's time the adults took charge again.

BTW: I don't deny Climate change. But I'm seriously in doubt that we have identified the magnitude of the problem or even the real cause. Despite the Orwellian thought control from EPA -- CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Do YOU believe that it is? If you do -- why and how important is it compared to sulphur pollution, mercury pollution, waste stream control from EV batteries...
There are ample intelligient, capable opposition to the CO2 theory.. They are not waiting on my ingenious ideas and concepts.

:lol: :cool:

Hmmm. I'm not sure what to say here. I don't believe I am subect to Orwelian mind control because I'm not absolutely convinced about Global Warming. Seems to me the planet has done that before without our help. So I don't know.
I don't know if CO2 is a pollutant. I have heard that too much of it in the atmosphere has negative effects but again, unlike you, I'm not a scientist - and unlike most people here, I don't claim to be an expert in everything.

Just a thought. I have learned much and even changed my views on a few things from the education I have received by the more civil posters here. In a couple areas, my views have become more Conservative. In one, I have become more Liberal.
This can be a place for you to yell at all the idiots who don't know what you know OR it can be a place for you to share what you know, when you find someone who is open minded.

For example, I have a friend in Austria (one of my favorite countries) who claims he has a great big BMW 7 series that runs on water or hydrogen. I think he's messing with me. What do you think?
And if that works, wouldn't it be a good thing?
 
The Republicans tend to support petroleum excesses, including the monstrous fracking,

What is "the monstrous fracking"? Did you mean to say kraken? Hydraulic fracturing has been going on since the late 1940's, at what point in time did it become "monstrous" rather than "just another thing they've been doing in the oil field for more than half a century"?
 
No -- you MIGHT be small-minded if you deal in maybes and hope fairies about what might happen if we all hold our breathe in the dark together.. (see lights off for an hour on Earth Day) And APPARENTLY you attribute political motives to people who want to shake you and wake you the hell up.. This ain't CandyLand -- and cheesy-headed thinking on energy policy could KILL US... Literally -- or turn us into a 3rd world shithole of a country....

I mean who the hell wants to live in filth or on a polluted planet.. Your average Republican? All Libertarians? Anyone kinda fond of Capitalism?

First Problem is --- CO2 IS NOT a pollutant and we're not sure whether it's a principal contributor to climate change despite the wailings of idiotchilds like Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore.. Ever worry you might be solving a problem that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST???

I prefer to save the whales, cleanup REAL toxic sites, and use private property rights to ENCOURAGE smart use of the planet..
Nimrod, see if you can read the links I paste, for once:

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Northwest Oyster Die-offs Show Ocean Acidification Has Arrived by Elizabeth Grossman: Yale Environment 360

Anything in excess can be a poison, and if it participates in an exchange, such as when CO2 mixes with ions, to make H2CO3, carbonic acid, the acid in quantity is poisonous, and it is a pernicious pollutant!

You are not much of a scientist, until you shut the fuck up and read something, worth reading. Read about carbonic acid. It comes from excessive CO2-emissions.

Warming and acidification are accelerating, hockey-stick graph, or not! Hey, when the melted glacial ice, the warming bodies of water, and the lands, formerly covered by permafrost release methane and more CO2, the warming AND the acidification go faster!

Your remark about how CO2 is not a pollutant is stupid, and at best, irrelevant. The carbonic acid buildup is the most dangerous, global warming-related phenomenon. Anybody who doesn't think so is not only an asshole, that asshole is a stupid, cocksure, fuck-tard of an asshole!

We re-green, or else. And no, the carbonic acid buildup is not due, to assholes at the beach tossing the rest of their sodas, into the ocean. BTW, don't make a kid, with another D; remember what that nice Mr.Mencia said about that.

THanks for pointing this out. YOU --- are quite acidic and your demeanor is an instant turn-off to any scientific or rational discussion of ocean acidification. BUT -- I admit, I worry MORE about this aspect of building CO2 than the temperature angle, land species inability to handle G-warming, or other deaths from superstorms..

THis SHOULD be studied sooner rather than later so that we can assess the consequences.
You should calm down and realize that rather than the 30% change in PH that we've seen in a century or 2, you'd need another 900% in H+ acidity to turn the ocean truly acidic.

So calm down, read the history of why you don't hear about "acid rain" anymore and realize that MAN is contributing 30GT of CO2 per year into the atmosphere, while the ocean and land is contributing about 770GT/year into the atmosphere. A difference of just 5% in natural CO2 from the ocean or land would far outweight the anthropogenic contribution.

It's still ridiculous to consider CO2 as a pollutant. Because there are ZERO, ZILCH, NADA health effects pertaining to sequestered or atmospheric CO2. But IF we are affecting the ocean chemistry in ways that affect marine fauna and flora, you would have the most powerful argument for limiting CO2 emissions.. And maybe keep the dream alive of hobbling the world economy by restricting available energy sources.

BTW -- CO2 absorbed in the ocean acts as a plant stimulator just like it does on land. There is likely evidence that this buffering effect would result in INCREASED seagrass, kelp and other plants capable of absorbing the CO2 before the chemistry is capable of PH lowering..
 
Last edited:
As long as green technology is consumer driven it will evolve at a logical pace consistent with development and affordability. If the left wing politicians get involved and taxpayer funds are authorized based on political agenda or political payoffs all bets are off.

That's reasonable. So are you against oil subsidies and tax breaks? I'm not assuming, I'm jsut curious.

The freaking world runs on oil. Commodity prices depend on oil. We need oil to heat our homes in the winter. Why wouldn't I support subsidies that keep the energy flowing?

Nearly EVERYTHING a Consumer "consumes" requires Oil to to bring those goods to market.
 
{IndieLogic________}

Hmmm. I'm not sure what to say here. I don't believe I am subect to Orwelian mind control because I'm not absolutely convinced about Global Warming. Seems to me the planet has done that before without our help. So I don't know.
I don't know if CO2 is a pollutant. I have heard that too much of it in the atmosphere has negative effects but again, unlike you, I'm not a scientist - and unlike most people here, I don't claim to be an expert in everything.

Just a thought. I have learned much and even changed my views on a few things from the education I have received by the more civil posters here. In a couple areas, my views have become more Conservative. In one, I have become more Liberal.
This can be a place for you to yell at all the idiots who don't know what you know OR it can be a place for you to share what you know, when you find someone who is open minded.

For example, I have a friend in Austria (one of my favorite countries) who claims he has a great big BMW 7 series that runs on water or hydrogen. I think he's messing with me. What do you think?
And if that works, wouldn't it be a good thing?

I'm also here to discuss stufff. I'm hoping that the time I spend is MORE productive than watching the Hatfields and McCoys on TV tonight. Kinda more violent here tho..

Starting out in OP about conspiracies and Fox News and Saudi Princes -- You my sometimes chatbuddy aren't completely innocent of copping an attitude either... What really sets me off is the implication that scientists and engineers are just foot-dragging pessimists. That it's obviously time to make cars fly on water -- so what's the problem Flacaltenn? Why haven't you done that yet? Too Republican or Too old FlacalTenn -- which is it? Yeah -- you said that.

Anyways....

The 7 Bimmer is probably a fuel cell proto or limited production. Could run on hydrogen. Technology's been around for 20 or 30 years.. Apollo Capsule was powered by fuel cells.

Problem is -- We can't just grab hydrogen from the atmosphere. Just storing it takes energy to maintain fuel density and compression. It's too light. That's why the Hindenburg could float that well and shine sooo brightly.. I'd be all for a hydrogen fueled transport sector. But the way things are -- you need a LOT of excess energy laying around to produce it. That's not gonna happen in "conservation" frame of mind. If electricity was CHEAP and PLENTIFUL rather than RARE and EXPENSIVE as the eco-nauts want it -- we COULD supply enough hydrogen to do fuel cells. Assuming not too many lawyers got involved with the few explosions that would result.. Or you could run fuel cells on nat gas --- but what does that solve?

Wish I could be the optimist that can snap fingers and get energy policy sometimes. Must be nice...
 
Last edited:
{IndieLogic________}

Hmmm. I'm not sure what to say here. I don't believe I am subect to Orwelian mind control because I'm not absolutely convinced about Global Warming. Seems to me the planet has done that before without our help. So I don't know.
I don't know if CO2 is a pollutant. I have heard that too much of it in the atmosphere has negative effects but again, unlike you, I'm not a scientist - and unlike most people here, I don't claim to be an expert in everything.

Just a thought. I have learned much and even changed my views on a few things from the education I have received by the more civil posters here. In a couple areas, my views have become more Conservative. In one, I have become more Liberal.
This can be a place for you to yell at all the idiots who don't know what you know OR it can be a place for you to share what you know, when you find someone who is open minded.

For example, I have a friend in Austria (one of my favorite countries) who claims he has a great big BMW 7 series that runs on water or hydrogen. I think he's messing with me. What do you think?
And if that works, wouldn't it be a good thing?

I'm also here to discuss stufff. I'm hoping that the time I spend is MORE productive than watching the Hatfields and McCoys on TV tonight. Kinda more violent here tho..

Starting out in OP about conspiracies and Fox News and Saudi Princes -- You my sometimes chatbuddy aren't completely innocent of copping an attitude either... What really sets me off is the implication that scientists and engineers are just foot-dragging pessimists. That it's obviously time to make cars fly on water -- so what's the problem Flacaltenn? Why haven't you done that yet? Too Republican or Too old FlacalTenn -- which is it? Yeah -- you said that.

Anyways....

The 7 Bimmer is probably a fuel cell proto or limited production. Could run on hydrogen. Technology's been around for 20 or 30 years.. Apollo Capsule was powered by fuel cells.

Problem is -- We can't just grab hydrogen from the atmosphere. Just storing it takes energy to maintain fuel density and compression. It's too light. That's why the Hindenburg could float that well and shine sooo brightly.. I'd be all for a hydrogen fueled transport sector. But the way things are -- you need a LOT of excess energy laying around to produce it. That's not gonna happen in "conservation" frame of mind. If electricity was CHEAP and PLENTIFUL rather than RARE and EXPENSIVE as the eco-nauts want it -- we COULD supply enough hydrogen to do fuel cells. Assuming not too many lawyers got involved with the few explosions that would result.. Or you could run fuel cells on nat gas --- but what does that solve?

Wish I could be the optimist that can snap fingers and get energy policy sometimes. Must be nice...

So then if you were given an ultimatum: Find the next energy source. Do it within 30 years. make it commercially viable and reasonably safe. Or we kill your dog.

What direction would you head in and why?
 
{IndieLogic________}

Hmmm. I'm not sure what to say here. I don't believe I am subect to Orwelian mind control because I'm not absolutely convinced about Global Warming. Seems to me the planet has done that before without our help. So I don't know.
I don't know if CO2 is a pollutant. I have heard that too much of it in the atmosphere has negative effects but again, unlike you, I'm not a scientist - and unlike most people here, I don't claim to be an expert in everything.

Just a thought. I have learned much and even changed my views on a few things from the education I have received by the more civil posters here. In a couple areas, my views have become more Conservative. In one, I have become more Liberal.
This can be a place for you to yell at all the idiots who don't know what you know OR it can be a place for you to share what you know, when you find someone who is open minded.

For example, I have a friend in Austria (one of my favorite countries) who claims he has a great big BMW 7 series that runs on water or hydrogen. I think he's messing with me. What do you think?
And if that works, wouldn't it be a good thing?

I'm also here to discuss stufff. I'm hoping that the time I spend is MORE productive than watching the Hatfields and McCoys on TV tonight. Kinda more violent here tho..

Starting out in OP about conspiracies and Fox News and Saudi Princes -- You my sometimes chatbuddy aren't completely innocent of copping an attitude either... What really sets me off is the implication that scientists and engineers are just foot-dragging pessimists. That it's obviously time to make cars fly on water -- so what's the problem Flacaltenn? Why haven't you done that yet? Too Republican or Too old FlacalTenn -- which is it? Yeah -- you said that.

Anyways....

The 7 Bimmer is probably a fuel cell proto or limited production. Could run on hydrogen. Technology's been around for 20 or 30 years.. Apollo Capsule was powered by fuel cells.

Problem is -- We can't just grab hydrogen from the atmosphere. Just storing it takes energy to maintain fuel density and compression. It's too light. That's why the Hindenburg could float that well and shine sooo brightly.. I'd be all for a hydrogen fueled transport sector. But the way things are -- you need a LOT of excess energy laying around to produce it. That's not gonna happen in "conservation" frame of mind. If electricity was CHEAP and PLENTIFUL rather than RARE and EXPENSIVE as the eco-nauts want it -- we COULD supply enough hydrogen to do fuel cells. Assuming not too many lawyers got involved with the few explosions that would result.. Or you could run fuel cells on nat gas --- but what does that solve?

Wish I could be the optimist that can snap fingers and get energy policy sometimes. Must be nice...

So then if you were given an ultimatum: Find the next energy source. Do it within 30 years. make it commercially viable and reasonably safe. Or we kill your dog.

What direction would you head in and why?

Now you're serious.. I'm jazzed..

I've already given you the policy. Energy should be CHEAP and PLENTIFUL --- not RARE and EXPENSIVE. That takes the leftist ulterior motive of hobbling business growth and assuming economic control right out of the picture. Nothing GREAT gets accomplished in the dark except sex.

So the emphasis turns from conservation to production. Let the market determine which lightbulbs folks want. I'll bet MOST will turn to LED bulbs in the next 5 years anyway.. Cut out the subsidies to GE/Westinghouse for building crap they were gonna build anyway. Take the $150 tax credit these phony green giants get for each green washer/dryer and use it to fund the following...

For electricity production, I'd emphasize nuclear power. We have 30 YEARS of development sitting on the shelf not being used because of political reasons. Complete Yucca Mtn for waste storage. Start a quick 4 year demonstration of the best technologies available. Provide Federal land, siting and quick approvals of the 3 best designs and light them up. So as not to SHOVE this technology down people's throats -- TEST THEM, STRESS THEM and PROVE the safety issues. In remote testing grounds, we could push them to the limits and observe what happens. Our 50 or so existing nuke plants are SO OLD, that we'd need 100 new ones in a couple decades to start phasing out coal, tearing down the dams to free the salmon and mitigating our CO2 emissions.

None of that helps with the transportation energy problem unless you want to charge 200Million Electric Vehicles which you MIGHT NOW have the power to do with nuclear. TRULY becomes a zero emissions technology. But better than that -- let's shift crony capitalism dollars from opportunistic leeches in the "green alternatives" to hydrogen research and development. Fuel cells are a much better LONGER term solution than EVs because of fill-up times, range, reliability. Also takes stress off the grid from all the transportation that is required.
ALso gets rid of the ugly problem that no one is facing up to yet of BILLIONS of tons of toxic EV battery recycling and waste.

Continue to develop oil/nat gas reserves DOMESTICALLY to send OPEC a message and put AMERICANS to work.

These 2 changes buys us time.. It would also GREATLY reduce greenhouse gases and TRUE pollution.

THEN -- after 30 years and a greener earth, I'll give you a better plan.. Just don't hurt my dog....
 
Last edited:
{IndieLogic________}



I'm also here to discuss stufff. I'm hoping that the time I spend is MORE productive than watching the Hatfields and McCoys on TV tonight. Kinda more violent here tho..

Starting out in OP about conspiracies and Fox News and Saudi Princes -- You my sometimes chatbuddy aren't completely innocent of copping an attitude either... What really sets me off is the implication that scientists and engineers are just foot-dragging pessimists. That it's obviously time to make cars fly on water -- so what's the problem Flacaltenn? Why haven't you done that yet? Too Republican or Too old FlacalTenn -- which is it? Yeah -- you said that.

Anyways....

The 7 Bimmer is probably a fuel cell proto or limited production. Could run on hydrogen. Technology's been around for 20 or 30 years.. Apollo Capsule was powered by fuel cells.

Problem is -- We can't just grab hydrogen from the atmosphere. Just storing it takes energy to maintain fuel density and compression. It's too light. That's why the Hindenburg could float that well and shine sooo brightly.. I'd be all for a hydrogen fueled transport sector. But the way things are -- you need a LOT of excess energy laying around to produce it. That's not gonna happen in "conservation" frame of mind. If electricity was CHEAP and PLENTIFUL rather than RARE and EXPENSIVE as the eco-nauts want it -- we COULD supply enough hydrogen to do fuel cells. Assuming not too many lawyers got involved with the few explosions that would result.. Or you could run fuel cells on nat gas --- but what does that solve?

Wish I could be the optimist that can snap fingers and get energy policy sometimes. Must be nice...

So then if you were given an ultimatum: Find the next energy source. Do it within 30 years. make it commercially viable and reasonably safe. Or we kill your dog.

What direction would you head in and why?

Now you're serious.. I'm jazzed..

I've already given you the policy. Energy should be CHEAP and PLENTIFUL --- not RARE and EXPENSIVE. That takes the leftist ulterior motive of hobbling business growth and assuming economic control right out of the picture. Nothing GREAT gets accomplished in the dark except sex.

So the emphasis turns from conservation to production. Let the market determine which lightbulbs folks want. I'll bet MOST will turn to LED bulbs in the next 5 years anyway.. Cut out the subsidies to GE/Westinghouse for building crap they were gonna build anyway. Take the $150 tax credit these phony green giants get for each green washer/dryer and use it to fund the following...

For electricity production, I'd emphasize nuclear power. We have 30 YEARS of development sitting on the shelf not being used because of political reasons. Complete Yucca Mtn for waste storage.
Wait. In MY backyard?!?!?! I dunno. Have you seen that movie "The Hills Have Eyes"? Okay, let's hear the rest...

Start a quick 4 year demonstration of the best technologies available. Provide Federal land, siting and quick approvals of the 3 best designs and light them up. So as not to SHOVE this technology down people's throats -- TEST THEM, STRESS THEM and PROVE the safety issues. In remote testing grounds, we could push them to the limits and observe what happens. Our 50 or so existing nuke plants are SO OLD, that we'd need 100 new ones in a couple decades to start phasing out coal, tearing down the dams to free the salmon and mitigating our CO2 emissions.

Actually, from what I understand, Nuke is the safest technology out there, record-wise. So I'm not opposed to it the way my Liberal friends are.

None of that helps with the transportation energy problem unless you want to charge 200Million Electric Vehicles which you MIGHT NOW have the power to do with nuclear. TRULY becomes a zero emissions technology. But better than that -- let's shift crony capitalism dollars from opportunistic leeches in the "green alternatives" to hydrogen research and development. Fuel cells are a much better LONGER term solution than EVs because of fill-up times, range, reliability. Also takes stress off the grid from all the transportation that is required.
Now see, this is very interesting to me. And as I am the type of person to read about absolutely everything (don't get me started on nano-tech!), this is probably reading agenda.

ALso gets rid of the ugly problem that no one is facing up to yet of BILLIONS of tons of toxic EV battery recycling and waste.

I think that most people like me, are not even aware this will become a problem.

Continue to develop oil/nat gas reserves DOMESTICALLY to send OPEC a message and put AMERICANS to work.

These 2 changes buys us time.. It would also GREATLY reduce greenhouse gases and TRUE pollution.

THEN -- after 30 years and a greener earth, I'll give you a better plan.. Just don't hurt my dog....

Thanks for the education. The dog is safe.
For now.
 

Forum List

Back
Top