Jump to content

Shower thoughts


p1t1o

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, ColdJ said:

Is the only reason we haven't got refineries in the ocean using sun, wind, wave and tidal power to split Hydrogen and Oxygen out of the water that would then be piped back to land to be used in power stations to run the turbines and also be used in cars that would have 2 tanks, one for the hydrogen and one for the oxygen (solving the Nitrous Oxide problem) because the fossil fuel companies are desperate to hold on to their monopoly and politicians that could start things rolling are happy to keep getting money from them rather than secure the climate future of the planet?

Probably a little of that, but that system would require an entire new infrastructure which has never been built before. I think the battery-powered electric cars lend themselves as a simpler (though, of course, not perfect) climate solution - as you can plug them in to the existing electrical grid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, ColdJ said:

Is the only reason we haven't got refineries in the ocean using sun, wind, wave and tidal power to split Hydrogen and Oxygen out of the water that would then be piped back to land to be used in power stations to run the turbines and also be used in cars that would have 2 tanks, one for the hydrogen and one for the oxygen (solving the Nitrous Oxide problem) because the fossil fuel companies are desperate to hold on to their monopoly and politicians that could start things rolling are happy to keep getting money from them rather than secure the climate future of the planet?

 

23 minutes ago, cubinator said:

Probably a little of that, but that system would require an entire new infrastructure which has never been built before. I think the battery-powered electric cars lend themselves as a simpler (though, of course, not perfect) climate solution - as you can plug them in to the existing electrical grid.

There is still a lot of unknowns. Plus, over the last thirty years we have entered an age of hyper-legal liability.  Industry and science depend on a trial and error existence. The judicial system, when it acts properly, can act as the restraint to keep untested or unsafe technology from being introduced in society on a large-scale. But that's when it works. When it doesn't work, it can stop the introduction of new technologies fairly quickly before any real meaningful data can be gained. 

I compare green energy and the conversion to it as I would to general aviation at the turn of the last century. In its early days, aviation was a novelty and commercial aviation was still in its infancy in the early days. It was expensive to fly and only the wealthy could afford to do it. Plane crashes were common and on both sides of the Atlantic, the general public attitude was one of indifference because the common person thought the wealthy knew the risks and were willing to take them. It wasn't until World War I that the potential of aviation was truly unleashed by France, Prussia, Great Britain, and later in the war, the United States.

At the end of the Great War, commercial aviation  - and the use of aviation for mail - saw significant development. Much of its success was based off the failures and lessons learned from military aviation (this is often the case with technology and scientific discovery). Larger aircraft and aircraft designed for longer distances became commonplace and the price of commercial air travel decreased to where the middle-middle class and upper-middle class could afford air travel. Each accident, each plane crash, and each "mishap" resulted in lawsuits as more "common" people became impacted by faulty designs, inexperienced pilots, flight crews, and mechanics, and a lack of understanding of how aircraft perform in less-than-ideal weather. But the lawsuits did not destroy the commercial air industry - it actually enhanced it to the extent to where aircraft designers and engineers began anticipating worst-case scenarios in newer designs. I could continue this but it would become a lecture in the development of commercial aviation's continued development, both during and after WWII. :P

What we see now is runaway litigation that does not enhance technological development but impedes it.

*****

The consumer will have to be shown, much like today's commercial air consumer, that green energy cars, whether it is a hydrogen cell, an all-electric rechargeable car, or even a fusion-powered car, are safe, reliable, relatively hassle-free, and cost-effective. While the European consumer will most surely be easily swayed to convert to an electric or hybrid vehicle, Americans are more pessimistic for a variety of reasons to include frequent power outages during storms and other natural disasters, insufficient electrical generation on the west coast to meet consumer demands, and the vulnerability of the American power grid. Mandating (or demanding) that American consumer go out and buy a "green car" will only lead to resistance and increased reluctance to buy an alternative fuel vehicle.

Personally, I do a lot of traveling each year. Four times a year, I go to various places as part of my "side gig" and cannot fly because of my chronic hemiplegic migraines (airplane flights increase my risk of stroke and cause me a lot of pain). So, I drive myself. And often, where I am heading exceeds the operational range of rechargeable electric vehicles.  I don't have 8 to 10 hours to wait for the car to get a full charge with the schedule I have to keep. A hybrid is preferred but because of their costs, I can't run out and buy one until the price comes down more to my price range. If I could find one of the fusion cars of the future that generated its own energy, YES, I'd drive one of them!

Sure, each county has its own mass transit system but very few are as efficient as their European counterparts. In fact, where I live, to use mass transportation to go 6 miles (9.65 Km) from my house to where I work would take me four hours by bus (even being disabled, I can walk the six miles in about an hour and fifteen minutes) and would cost me $1.50 for each of the three bus changes (that would be about 1.27€ for each bus). The buses are never on time and are often as late as twenty minutes. And yes, if one bus is late there is a good chance you'll miss the next bus and will have to wait for it to come back around. This violates the three rules of mass transportation:

  • It must be easy to use.
  • It must be cost efficient for the rider.
  • It must be dependable and on-time.

I'm not trying to be difficult about the transportation thing. But I think we also need to remember that when it comes to mass transit and alternative fueled vehicles, we are a long way to developing even decent working solutions for those who fall in the middle and lower classes. And we certainly can't say then you don't deserve to drive, use mass transit since that may not be a viable option for people trying to get by.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

I think that may be one of the reasons that workers seem to be hard to find.

Yes, it probably is especially as the price of fuel goes up. We've had several local industries in the tri-state area who have tried to overcome the transportation needs of employees. One of them actually has purchased 12 passenger vans and hired drivers to pick up employees at certain local "hot spots" such as mostly empty strip malls, the back corners of Walmart parking lots, etc. It does help - especially when municipalities have no real incentive to improve their mass transit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

It still boggles my mind that there is no bus service at all to the industrial park where I work. Which is miles away from any residential area. I think that may be one of the reasons that workers seem to be hard to find.

Might be a good time to band together and create a private shuttle service for the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ColdJ said:

So yes, it is all doable and relatively easy to implement, just have to have enough of the general public get together and say we are aware and pull your finger out "Powers that be."

But it goes beyond the "powers that be." If there is money in alternative fuel vehicles and providing the energy for them in a quick, economical, and reliable fashion, the energy corporations (including "big oil") will jump on it. Just as they have with various requirements such as removing lead from gasoline/petrol, and required additives (Ethanol for the American market). The problem is there is simply not a large enough consumer demand to make the change in alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles worthwhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ColdJ said:

You may not have noticed the sharp rise in the worlds oil prices over the last decade because America actively supplements it to keep as close to status quo as possible but is happening, and when the public suddenly gets a very rude shock, they are going to be very demanding as to why something wasn't done sooner. Oil companies do not support things that put them out of business, what they have done is just enough for good PR. The guy who actively showed how Hydrogen implosion could be used to move a car cylinder was disappeared 30 years ago. Hopefully I won't be for mentioning it.

This conversation is starting to feel a lot like the ones I get pulled into at work. Alas, what do you do when it happens off-campus...

Crude oil is a commodity traded on the global stock market. The price of crude is set by two things , OPEC (a cartel of oil producing nations) and demand. The last four years in the United States, we witnessed gasoline fuels drop to thirty year lows for a very good reason - demand was low and for the first time since the late 1960s, the United States was the world's leading energy exporting nation. The open and mostly free commodity market dictated the price of crude oil. 

What happened after January is politically related, so I cannot go into a lot of detail. I will summarize it by saying that the amount of federal lands available for oil exploration was greatly reduced, land leases and oil permits, including off-shore permits were cancelled. Pipeline projects were cancelled, too. This reversed the trend and now reduced the global supply of oil which had been made of Mexican, Canadian, United States, and OPEC member nations. With the U.S., the former leading producing nation now out of the equation, OPEC became the new leader in global crude oil production. And unlike the United States, they set the price at $50 per barrel almost immediately. And the price has steadily increased since then. Many of the OPEC nations use crude oil to shape the foreign policy of other nations - like it or not. And I cannot get any further in this part of the conversation because it becomes geopolitical.

With that said, saying that oil companies are actively trying to keep the world dependent on fossil fuel technology is ignoring basic free market principles. Whether you like Elon Musk or not, he has done more for electric cars than any of the competitive car manufacturers. He has forced Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagon, and others to reassess how they see the electric car. Before Tesla, the car companies were treating electric cars as a fad market, much like they do with muscle cars. But now, they see the value and what the customer is willing to pay and are attempting to adjust to consumer buying trends.

The "big oil companies" are doing the same thing. BP Oil, Mobil-Exxon, Shell, and Citgo, as well as other oil companies, have had research divisions working on alternative fuels for the past 40 years. These energy companies understand that if they do not adapt to the changing consumer demands, they will not be viable as companies in the future. Corporations exist to make money; a corporation that cannot sell a product will not survive (Economic Darwinism). They are also looking into the use of other combustible liquids which can replace crude oil distillates and derived fuel formulas but can still give the same performance in internal combustion engines used today. This is wise foresight on the part of the oil corporations for one major reason - even if crude oil production was globally outlawed tomorrow, there's a large percentage of the world's population that would not be able to afford an electric vehicle and cannot rely on mass transit to get them to where they need to go. To say they should just do without for the sake of the planet is depraved indifference to the condition of the individual - something I cannot justify or ignore. My grandmother's brother, who remained in France after WWI, had a tattoo given to him during his time at Auschwitz which shows me why we must never forget the condition of the individual in favor of the demands of the masses.

The energy sector, "big oil" included are innovators as much as producers. The energy industry does change to meet consumer demands and expectations, much like the cell phone industry. Just as the cell phones we use today are a far cry from the early cell phones of the late 1980s, the way petroleum is distilled to produce gasoline has changed. And moving forward, it will be a combination of the auto industry AND the energy companies working together to transition the world from petroleum based fuels to more green variants, including electric, hybrid vehicles, and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Googled "anonymous" reversed: "suomynona"

Got a bunch of serious links like this one.

https://www.names.org/n/suomynona/about

Quote
  1. According to a user from Greece, the name Suomynona is of Egyptian origin and means "Suomynona was a name assigned to females in Egypt during the Hellenistic period. Suomi (meaning wise, smart in some Egyptian dialect) + Nona (meaning godmother in Greek)".
  2. A user from Greece says the name Suomynona is of Egyptian origin and means "Wise, fertile, caring, gentle".
  3. According to a user from Greece, the name Suomynona is of Arabic origin and means "The daughter of the archaic deity Valantis who fell in love with Christos (an angel of fire). First used around 45 BC".

and other serious stuff.

***

Still trying to think positive about humans.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take an angry tiger voice, for example this one

Spoiler

 

and listen at 4x speed, then at 10x speed (I used Audacity).

P.S.
Idk about copyright, etc, so haven't uploaded this.

Downloaded by an mp3 convertor, then Audacity, Ctrl-A, Effects / Change Speed, "4".

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once upon a time there lived a girl.
They called her Mary.

The girl was very feisty, controversial, petty, and was fond of muck-raking.

When she had grown up, she started suing. 
And they called her Mary Sue.

The part she loved the best were marriage and divorce processes.
And they called her Marry Sue.

But once she met a worthy opponent.
It was a Wall-Mart lawyer, and they called him Marty Sue.

So, two loving hearts had married and sued.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lewie said:

Genghis Khan has the same number of syllables as Stacy’s mom.....

*quietly sings ‘Genghis Khan has got it going on’*

You have touched on a favourite pastime. The substitution. Such as .

Kevin is a place on Earth - by Belinda Carlile

Who wants to live for Trevor - Queen.

I'm sexier than Noah- LMFAO

How you like me Cow - The Heavy

I'm learning to sigh. - The Foo Fighters.

It's a long way to the shop if you want a Chiko Roll. - ACDC

God gave Rocklea Road to you. - Kiss

And many more :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2021 at 6:47 PM, ColdJ said:

Oil companies do not support things that put them out of business, what they have done is just enough for good PR.

Businesses are in business of making money. They'll pivot to anything that makes money. Fossil fuel companies are some of the biggest investors in renewables and other energy types.  Some of it is PR, sure. But a lot of it isdiversifying portfolio., future-proofing, and making use of complementary technologies. If a natural gas power plant stopped buying your natural gas because right now it doesn't make financial sense to burn natural gas, sure, you can try to sink an abysmal amount of money in destroying whatever innovation is happening and try to reverse that trend. Or you can just position yourself to be the one who will be selling that power plant hydrogen instead. You already have the pipelines and the relationships with power companies, why not keep making money off of that?

Sure, businesses often do stupid or near-sighted things, but these businesses don't stay in business for long. Because, again, the purpose of business is continuing to make money. And if the tech changes, adapting to it is the way to go. Saying that the reason we don't run the world on renewables is some oil company conspiracy is tin foil hat level of nonsense. They are part of the reason why environmental regs aren't as up-to-date as they should be, and that puts us a little behind, but it's not the main chunk of the problem. The main chunk is that this kind of conversion costs a lot of money. And no business is going to invest into it without a promise of return. As the technologies mature and risks go down, investments go up. And this simply takes time. We are hitting the acceleration part of the S-curve, but we're still decades out from it taking full effect.

What should be happening to speed it along is a lot more investment and pressure from governments, which might include taxing fossil fuel companies to finance said investments. And sure, businesses lobby against any such regulation, but that only works because the public is indifferent. The truth is, an average person doesn't give a rat's behind that they are being slowly boiled alive. And that ain't going to change. The only reason this isn't necessarily a doomsday scenario is because it is economically self-limiting. As more fossil fuels are extracted, the costs will go up. We didn't invent off-shore drilling and fracking out of boredom. Impending environmental catastrophes will only make it more expensive. Renewable infrastructure will be cheaper in the long run and can even survive collapse of global trade, unlike the fossil fuel infrastructure. So eventually we'll be switching to renewables. It's just a question of whether it happens before environmental change leads to global economic collapse and subsequent loss of countless lives or as a consequence of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Businesses are in business of making money.

Just a reply to say I read what you wrote and understand and even agree with a lot of it. I personally see a bigger picture through many years of research into what is already available and an awareness of inventions and processes that have been bought up and disappeared by the fossil fuel companies so as to to not be competed against and then pull them back out at the vital time as if they invented them themselves when the need becomes undeniable. But I came to an agreement when this was first debated, not to continue debating, as this was not the place for it. I will go back and edit my comments out so as not to start this up again.

Being a fan of your avatar and having had the pair as a desktop wallpaper for many years, I will just add.

"Gee Brain, what are we going to do today?"

"Why the same thing we do everyday Pinky, try to take over the world"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...