Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Your problem gslack. I have no need of such chemicals.
And once again we see the self-proclaimed man about the science, missing the entire point... Nice work oldsocks, way to show your stupidity.... Again...
And BTW, stop fantasizing about my manhood.... its creepy.
It's a quandary.
Primary source of mercury in our environment at present is the burning of coal, processing of metals, and volcanos. Two of those factors we can do something about.
So we can stop the world from burning coal (the most abundant, cheapest and widely used fuel source), and stop the processing of metals (used in everything from computers to houses all over the world)....
Amazing, a semi-literate post from gslack.
And replace them with what exactly? Solar power? a 10-17% conversion rate at best and limited by the weather and sunlight as well as complications regarding energy storage.
Those are the present rates. Due to go up by double rather quickly as the nano-tech panels start being manufactured. And the price will drop to half of the present lowest price, less than a dollar a watt.
Beaverton firm will produce cheaper quantum dots | Oregon Business News - OregonLive.com
Beaverton firm will produce cheaper quantum dots
By Chris Spitzer
August 10, 2009, 5:12PMThe price of dust is about to drop.
Not exciting, you say? This isn't ordinary dust - look very close, and you'll see billions of identical crystals, each speck just one-thousandth the width of a human hair. These "quantum dots" efficiently convert between light and electricity. They will play a key role in next-generation solar panels, photodetectors, video displays and lighting.
Voxtel Inc., a private Beaverton company just 10 years old, has developed a new manufacturing process that promises to significantly decrease the cost of dots. Their aim is to grab a role, for themselves and Oregon, in the emerging quantum dot market, projected to grow to more than $700 million by 2013.
Quantum dots are extremely flexible and efficient when it comes to gathering sunlight for cheap, clean solar energy. Voxtel's breakthrough could pack the power-generating potential of large traditional solar panels into packages small enough to carry. Imagine discreet solar panels woven in to your shirt or handbag. Dead cell phone and iPods would be a thing of the past.
"Solar power is exciting because you can create the energy where it's needed," says Brian Bower, who handles technical communications.
The high cost of quantum dots, $5,000 per gram at the low end, has been a barrier for two decades. Dots are conventionally made by a chemist one batch at a time.
Voxtel invented a continuous system that automatically pumps out dots in large quantities, and even works with materials more environmentally friendly than those before. Their target is around $10 per gram with the capacity to fabricate kilograms of dots per week from a single production line. It takes about a tenth of a gram to make a square foot solar panel.
And you also have thermal solar, capable of delivering power 24-7.
maybe wind power? Limited by available winds, EPA regulations and environmental concerns as well as safety issues.
Damned few safety issues, and cheaper even than dirty coal, now. And wind is capable of supplying a double digit percentage of power.
How about Hydrodynamic? Limited by availability of enough flowing water, building dams and facilities to harness it being dangerous to the local eco-systems, and the same types of EPA and environmental concerns.
Dams are hardly the only way to harness the power of water. Bouy generators are being tested off the coast of Oregon right now. There is a new technology being tested that will take advantage of currents in the ocean.
http://www.vortexhydroenergy.com/
Vortex Hydro Energy has exclusive license to commercialize a University of Michigan patented, hydrokinetic power generating device, the VIVACE converter, which harnesses hydrokinetic energy of river and ocean currents. This converter is unlike water turbines as it does not use propellers. VIVACE uses the physical phenomenon of vortex induced vibration in which water current flows around cylinders inducing transverse motion. The energy contained in the movement of the cylinder is then converted to electricity.
The VIVACE converter is a transformational technology. It taps into a vast new source of clean and renewable energy, that of water currents as slow as 2 to 3 knots previously off limits to conventional turbine technology that target rivers with water currents greater than 4 knots. The vast majority of river/ocean currents in the United States are slower than 3 knots.
And, if you care to do the research, you will find that there are many more projects with promise being tested.
Okay then Nuclear? Dangerous, at best and possibly catastrophic if something went wrong, toxic nuclear waste and the trouble of getting rid of it, the threat to local eco-systems and water supply limitations.
Actually, the primary charge against nuclear is it's cost.
And the simple fact coal is the most abundant and cheapest, easily accessible fuel we have right now. And in most third world countries the only source they can afford or have the ability to use.
Wrong. Many of the third world countries are in areas that have either abundant Geo-thermal or solar resources. Both of these are or will be cheaper than coal, without the attendant poisoning of the surrounding environment.
So coal has to stay for now.... What about metal processing?
There is no reason that the metals industry cannot prevent this pollution. Known technology.
Well we could use more plastics? Plastics which use dangerous chemicals in their processing, including those that can only be gotten from oil refining. Which again is like coal a fossil fuel. How about composites and carbon fiber products? Expensive even in the limited applications used today, also requires the use of dangerous chemicals and processes in the manufacture, often "classified" or trade secrets still and the process not shared globally yet, and most third world countries couldn't afford or be able to even do it yet. Which leaves us with wood, and that comes from trees which are what we are trying to save after all. At the core of all this we are still faced with the same problems we had with the coal issue. Cost prohibitive, technologically unfeasible for the developing countries, and just not practical right now.
And that describes the entire line of ECO-BS legislation they want to pass. If they pass their legislation it won't change anything but the costs to the end user, and create a new system of taxation easily manipulated by a wealthy few on the inside to create wealth from nothing. While they tell you how its saving the planet, they will still fly in private jets powered by petroleum, electric will still be predominantly generated the same ways, and oil will still power the worlds transportation until its either gone, or a newer, cheaper and better alternative is found... All that will change is a select few and government will get money from the taxation and regulations, and that will come from the people.
oil, coal, and all other energy companies and related industries will pass the new costs on to the end user. And a tax on CO2 IS a tax on life make no mistake....
Your problem gslack. I have no need of such chemicals.
And once again we see the self-proclaimed man about the science, missing the entire point... Nice work oldsocks, way to show your stupidity.... Again...
And BTW, stop fantasizing about my manhood.... its creepy.
I think that I indicated that there is nothing to fantasize about
Apparently I am one hell of a propagandist, as I have every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world agreeing with me
Primary source of mercury in our environment at present is the burning of coal, processing of metals, and volcanos. Two of those factors we can do something about.
So we can stop the world from burning coal (the most abundant, cheapest and widely used fuel source), and stop the processing of metals (used in everything from computers to houses all over the world)....
1.Amazing, a semi-literate post from gslack.
And replace them with what exactly? Solar power? a 10-17% conversion rate at best and limited by the weather and sunlight as well as complications regarding energy storage.
2.Those are the present rates. Due to go up by double rather quickly as the nano-tech panels start being manufactured. And the price will drop to half of the present lowest price, less than a dollar a watt.
Beaverton firm will produce cheaper quantum dots | Oregon Business News - OregonLive.com
Beaverton firm will produce cheaper quantum dots
By Chris Spitzer
August 10, 2009, 5:12PMThe price of dust is about to drop.
Not exciting, you say? This isn't ordinary dust - look very close, and you'll see billions of identical crystals, each speck just one-thousandth the width of a human hair. These "quantum dots" efficiently convert between light and electricity. They will play a key role in next-generation solar panels, photodetectors, video displays and lighting.
Voxtel Inc., a private Beaverton company just 10 years old, has developed a new manufacturing process that promises to significantly decrease the cost of dots. Their aim is to grab a role, for themselves and Oregon, in the emerging quantum dot market, projected to grow to more than $700 million by 2013.
Quantum dots are extremely flexible and efficient when it comes to gathering sunlight for cheap, clean solar energy. Voxtel's breakthrough could pack the power-generating potential of large traditional solar panels into packages small enough to carry. Imagine discreet solar panels woven in to your shirt or handbag. Dead cell phone and iPods would be a thing of the past.
"Solar power is exciting because you can create the energy where it's needed," says Brian Bower, who handles technical communications.
The high cost of quantum dots, $5,000 per gram at the low end, has been a barrier for two decades. Dots are conventionally made by a chemist one batch at a time.
Voxtel invented a continuous system that automatically pumps out dots in large quantities, and even works with materials more environmentally friendly than those before. Their target is around $10 per gram with the capacity to fabricate kilograms of dots per week from a single production line. It takes about a tenth of a gram to make a square foot solar panel.
3.And you also have thermal solar, capable of delivering power 24-7.
maybe wind power? Limited by available winds, EPA regulations and environmental concerns as well as safety issues.
4.Damned few safety issues, and cheaper even than dirty coal, now. And wind is capable of supplying a double digit percentage of power.
How about Hydrodynamic? Limited by availability of enough flowing water, building dams and facilities to harness it being dangerous to the local eco-systems, and the same types of EPA and environmental concerns.
5.Dams are hardly the only way to harness the power of water. Bouy generators are being tested off the coast of Oregon right now. There is a new technology being tested that will take advantage of currents in the ocean.
Vortex Hydro Energy
Vortex Hydro Energy has exclusive license to commercialize a University of Michigan patented, hydrokinetic power generating device, the VIVACE converter, which harnesses hydrokinetic energy of river and ocean currents. This converter is unlike water turbines as it does not use propellers. VIVACE uses the physical phenomenon of vortex induced vibration in which water current flows around cylinders inducing transverse motion. The energy contained in the movement of the cylinder is then converted to electricity.
The VIVACE converter is a transformational technology. It taps into a vast new source of clean and renewable energy, that of water currents as slow as 2 to 3 knots previously off limits to conventional turbine technology that target rivers with water currents greater than 4 knots. The vast majority of river/ocean currents in the United States are slower than 3 knots.
6.And, if you care to do the research, you will find that there are many more projects with promise being tested.
Okay then Nuclear? Dangerous, at best and possibly catastrophic if something went wrong, toxic nuclear waste and the trouble of getting rid of it, the threat to local eco-systems and water supply limitations.
7.Actually, the primary charge against nuclear is it's cost.
And the simple fact coal is the most abundant and cheapest, easily accessible fuel we have right now. And in most third world countries the only source they can afford or have the ability to use.
8.Wrong. Many of the third world countries are in areas that have either abundant Geo-thermal or solar resources. Both of these are or will be cheaper than coal, without the attendant poisoning of the surrounding environment.
So coal has to stay for now.... What about metal processing?
9.There is no reason that the metals industry cannot prevent this pollution. Known technology.
Well we could use more plastics? Plastics which use dangerous chemicals in their processing, including those that can only be gotten from oil refining. Which again is like coal a fossil fuel. How about composites and carbon fiber products? Expensive even in the limited applications used today, also requires the use of dangerous chemicals and processes in the manufacture, often "classified" or trade secrets still and the process not shared globally yet, and most third world countries couldn't afford or be able to even do it yet. Which leaves us with wood, and that comes from trees which are what we are trying to save after all. At the core of all this we are still faced with the same problems we had with the coal issue. Cost prohibitive, technologically unfeasible for the developing countries, and just not practical right now.
And that describes the entire line of ECO-BS legislation they want to pass. If they pass their legislation it won't change anything but the costs to the end user, and create a new system of taxation easily manipulated by a wealthy few on the inside to create wealth from nothing. While they tell you how its saving the planet, they will still fly in private jets powered by petroleum, electric will still be predominantly generated the same ways, and oil will still power the worlds transportation until its either gone, or a newer, cheaper and better alternative is found... All that will change is a select few and government will get money from the taxation and regulations, and that will come from the people.
oil, coal, and all other energy companies and related industries will pass the new costs on to the end user. And a tax on CO2 IS a tax on life make no mistake....
10.EcoBS. As in it is better to poison our children than to cut into the profit of major corperations. We surely see the limits of your morality.
Apparently I am one hell of a propagandist, as I have every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world agreeing with me
Wind Energy Costs much does wind energy cost
How much does wind energy cost?
Over the last 20 years, the cost of electricity from utility-scale wind systems has dropped by more than 80%. In the early 1980s, when the first utility-scale turbines were installed, wind-generated electricity cost as much as 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. Now, state-of-the-art wind power plants can generate electricity for less than 5 cents/kWh with the Production Tax Credit in many parts of the U.S., a price that is competitive with new coal- or gas-fired power plants.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is working with the wind industry to develop a next generation of wind turbine technology. The products from this program are expected to generate electricity at prices that will be lower still.
More reading:
The Economics of Wind Energy is a fact sheet that discusses this topic in greater depth.
Tne Economics of Wind Energy, British Wind Energy Association
Solar Panel Drops to $1 per Watt: Is this a Milestone or the Bottom for Silicon-Based Panels? - Popularmechanics.com
A long-sought solar milestone was eclipsed on Tuesday, when Tempe, Ariz.-based First Solar Inc. announced that the manufacturing costs for its thin-film photovoltaic panels had dipped below $1 per watt for the first time. With comparable costs for standard silicon panels still hovering in the $3 range, it's tempting to conclude that First Solar's cadmium telluride (CdTe) technology has won the race. But if we're concerned about the big picture (scaling up solar until it's a cheap and ubiquitous antidote to global warming and foreign oil) a forthcoming study from the University of California-Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory suggests that neither material has what it takes compared to lesser-known alternatives such aswe're not kiddingfool's gold.
Even if the solar cell market were to grow at 56 percent a year for the next 10 yearsslightly higher than the rapid growth of the past yearphotovoltaics would still only account for about 2.5 percent of global electricity, LBNL researcher Cyrus Wadia says. "First Solar is great, as long as we're talking megawatts or gigawatts," he says. "But as soon as they have to start rolling out terawatts, that's where I believe they will reach some limitations."
Even if it were true, any scientist knows consensus (not that there is one) means nothing to science. Poseur.Apparently I am one hell of a propagandist, as I have every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world agreeing with me
I admit I have a 'bias', it's a very strong one and it's one I will defend until my last breath. It was taught to me as a child. It's called morality, knowing right from wrong and always choosing human capital over material capital; property and possessions. It is the same bias Jesus Christ had.
It is not nonsense or tricking when human beings are damaged or their life is extinguished. It is WRONG, immoral and criminal. It is as simple and clear as Luke stated in the Bible. You can call it an agenda, a bias, naive or self righteous.
Luke 16:13-15
[13] No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money)
[14] The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.
[15] He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight.
And we still don't see any defense of your excuses for Al Gore.... Okay so I guess the higher morality you speak of only applies when it suits you... Fair enough...
Lets discuss your convenient morality shall we?
You made a claim regarding a senator opposing or fighting against legislation regarding formaldehyde. You even made wide and sweeping claims regarding that senators moral and ethical behavior on the matter. Completely ignoring the fact he is but ONE senator, and any senator could go and force the issue if they so chose to do so. Any senator be they democrat or republican can push the issue. But none of them have, yet your article likes to point out one republican senator and point the finger like its all him alone. That is a PR snowjob and that is immoral and unethical.
I pointed out the problems and practices with Al Gore when he was a senator and as Vice-President regarding environmental policies versus his direct vested financial interest in any such policies made. The reason was to point out that even IF the article is accurate and the senator was helping the Formaldehyde industry based on his personal financial gain, Al Gore from your side was doing the same thing. And showing the fallacy in believing one side more ethical or morally upright than the other. This would be a big problem with a person of a real moral and ethical backbone...
You then made an excuse to defend the practices of Al Gore. I gave verifiable evidence showing those excuses to be bogus. And your response was to ignore it and try to change the subject or scope of the debate into; first, a debate over right-wing environmental support or lack of it, and second (now) a debate over morality and or ethics.
So in reality all you have done is try and claim some moral high-ground based on a complete and total fallacy. And you try to quote scripture and give little anecdotes to back it up, all the while ignoring the complete lack of any real ethical or moral fiber in the side you choose.
Please spare me the scripture citing, and high talk of morality and ethics or right and wrong. Just because they tell you they are the good guys and the others the bad guys, doesn't make it true. And especially if they act in a manner so opposite of such a claim.
Even if it were true, any scientist knows consensus (not that there is one) means nothing to science. Poseur.Apparently I am one hell of a propagandist, as I have every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world agreeing with me
Play your broken record elsewhere. This is a thread about the chemical industry. Morons annoy me.
The mercury that will hurt you in seafood (and the fatty Great Lakes fish, especially - higher solute concentration in Great Lakes and organomercury compounds are fat soluble) are organomercury compounds.As the vapors of elemental Hg and organomercury compounds will cause severe neurological damage, he is right.
Don't Eat 10 cans/day of Tuna?
No, its much easier to indicite an entire industry, and send manufacturing to China.
I admit I have a 'bias', it's a very strong one and it's one I will defend until my last breath. It was taught to me as a child. It's called morality, knowing right from wrong and always choosing human capital over material capital; property and possessions. It is the same bias Jesus Christ had.
It is not nonsense or tricking when human beings are damaged or their life is extinguished. It is WRONG, immoral and criminal. It is as simple and clear as Luke stated in the Bible. You can call it an agenda, a bias, naive or self righteous.
Luke 16:13-15
[13] No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money)
[14] The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.
[15] He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight.
And we still don't see any defense of your excuses for Al Gore.... Okay so I guess the higher morality you speak of only applies when it suits you... Fair enough...
Lets discuss your convenient morality shall we?
You made a claim regarding a senator opposing or fighting against legislation regarding formaldehyde. You even made wide and sweeping claims regarding that senators moral and ethical behavior on the matter. Completely ignoring the fact he is but ONE senator, and any senator could go and force the issue if they so chose to do so. Any senator be they democrat or republican can push the issue. But none of them have, yet your article likes to point out one republican senator and point the finger like its all him alone. That is a PR snowjob and that is immoral and unethical.
I pointed out the problems and practices with Al Gore when he was a senator and as Vice-President regarding environmental policies versus his direct vested financial interest in any such policies made. The reason was to point out that even IF the article is accurate and the senator was helping the Formaldehyde industry based on his personal financial gain, Al Gore from your side was doing the same thing. And showing the fallacy in believing one side more ethical or morally upright than the other. This would be a big problem with a person of a real moral and ethical backbone...
You then made an excuse to defend the practices of Al Gore. I gave verifiable evidence showing those excuses to be bogus. And your response was to ignore it and try to change the subject or scope of the debate into; first, a debate over right-wing environmental support or lack of it, and second (now) a debate over morality and or ethics.
So in reality all you have done is try and claim some moral high-ground based on a complete and total fallacy. And you try to quote scripture and give little anecdotes to back it up, all the while ignoring the complete lack of any real ethical or moral fiber in the side you choose.
Please spare me the scripture citing, and high talk of morality and ethics or right and wrong. Just because they tell you they are the good guys and the others the bad guys, doesn't make it true. And especially if they act in a manner so opposite of such a claim.
Morality is beliefs regarding appropriate behavior, while ethics is the formal study of morality.
Putting property before people is not moral. It is immoral and unethical.
I see it every day on this board from right wingers. They prove what John Kenneth Galbraith said: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
And they consistently reinforce a comparison I heard Ted Sorensen make: "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
In regards to Al Gore, I don't believe he is a saint. But I also don't believe he is a fraud or that he is immoral or unethical. Ironic, on the Elk Hills oilfield deal Occidental wasn't simply handed the deal; its offer — $3.65 billion — was twice as high as that of the nearest of its 22 competitors. If Al were truly involved in an inside deal, he would have saved Oxy 1.83 billion dollars.
