New study on wind energy

Page 3 of 9  
snipped-for-privacy@verizon.net wrote:

But it'll be a while. A long while.
At the population density of Hong Kong, the earth's population, some six billion people, would fit in the state of Georgia.
Which, come to think on it... would be a terrible thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So we should just ignore the problem and go along procreating at an unsupportable rate? Just sentence our future off spring to starvation and subsistance living?
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Funny, I never figured you for a leftist. How about you first!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Harry K wrote:

Alarmist! The people in Hong Kong aren't starving!
And even if your projections of gloom do appear on the horizon, there's always sustenance in the form of sea plankton energy bars.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

let me guess, was it two or three times your momma dropped you on your head?
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I just read an article that claims that leading oceanographers
http://www.stateoftheocean.org /
believe that irreversible damage has already occurred to the earth's oceans.
"The 27 participants from 18 organisations in 6 countries produced a grave assessment of current threats - and a stark conclusion about future risks to marine and human life if the current trajectory of damage continues: that the world's ocean is at high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history."
Sounds like something straight out of "Soylent Green." With the top predators slowly vanishing from the oceans, we may soon have nothing BUT plankton to eat and if the oceans become too acidic, we might not even have that food source.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

and there would be no land to provide food
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You mean all of the world's food comes from Georgia?? Who knew.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

of
feeding
help
or
offspring,
Correct. I shudder when Bill Gates talks about all the lives he's "saving" in the third world by improving AIDS awareness and AIDS health care. He appears unconcerned about how all these "saved" people and their offspring are going to eat when they can't feed themselves as it is. Tunnel vision. When the late Sam Kinison said "you've got to move to where the food is" he was being more truthful than humorous.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No.
If you know of a combustion process that produces only CO2 I'd like to know about it. I didn't say CO2, I said pollution.

It's ridiculous to think we can take tungsten, helium, iron, copper, tin, lithium, etc out of the ground and scatter them through landfills without using them up.
Yes, with advances in technology we can dig deeper and extract more. To think that this can go on forever is wishful thinking.
Mining landfills is in our future. It won't be pretty.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

CO2 is poisonous to us in excessive quantities, just as is Oxygen, Water, etc. Nature has adjusted to the what was the average CO2 content back before the industrial revolution. It is now adjusting to our adding to it and we are not going to like the result.
As to reducing our part in it? Ain't gonna happen. Best we can do is not increase our contribution above what it is today. Nothing we can do will reduce it withough totally wrecking industry.

Availability of resources has zip to do with whether we are depleting them. We are. The supply of any mineral, oil, etc. resource you can name is finite.
The truth of the matter is that we (humankind) meet every definition of a parasite. All take and no give. Even our funeral practices do everything possible to keep even our worn out bodies from decomposing thus denying even that little bit from returning to nature. The world would be a much better place without us.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Harry K wrote:

depleting them? what are they being transmogrified into?
they are simply being moved around and either aggregated or diluted to some degree.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So you are going to recombine all those gases emitted by cars into the original oil? Same for a lot of the other resources, one use and it is gone forever. When it comes to moronic, your post qualifies.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree we are depleting resources but the mining for materials and fossil fuels is two completely different categories. Mineral resources are not actually being depleted. For the most part all the elements on the planet are still on the planet. Just because we dig up some copper, use it for something, and then bury it in a landfill doesn't reduce the copper. We could dig it back out of that landfill and use it again. Or we could quit burying it in the landfill and start recycling it which is more practical than digging it back up. But who knows, maybe some day our descendants will be setting up mines where we buried stuff.
Fossil fuel is a energy resource. It is the result of plants capturing the energy in sunlight and it being turned into hydrocarbons. Which is the chemical storage of energy. Like a battery. We are converting that stored energy into heat energy for the most part. Energy like matter is never lost but after we're finished, the heat energy contributes to the gradual equilibrium of the energy state in the universe which makes it of no further use to us. The issue is that we're converting that stored energy at a tremediously faster rate than it was stored. Years of our use equals millions of years of capture. So no matter how good we get at finding the hydrocarbons we will eventually use them all up. Will that happen in 50 years or 500 years is debatable but most people would agree the practical number is somewhere between those two. Bottom line we really are using up the energy in fossil fuels.
As to the co2, we are also raising the co2 level. That's a fact. The bydrocarbons were buried in the ground. We're releasing them and breaking them up and combing the freed carbon with oxygen to produce co2. Who knows maybe we will be the start of the next cycle that produces new hydrocarbons for some other lifeform to dig up a couple hundred million yeasr from now. On the short term the consequences might not be so good for us.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Mostly true but we never recover 100% of the original elements and never will. The 'pie in the sky' types keep pointing to new discoveries as if those "new discoveries' will continue to be made for infinity.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We can recover enough that we don't really have to worry about running out of things like copper and iron.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The iron in landfills turns to iron oxide and mixes with the other materials. I don't believe it's sufficiently concentrated to be practically recovered.
Not sure about copper.
There's lots of other important stuff in landfills that will be really hard to get back, like tungsten.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is still loss even in recycling. First _all_ of a recyclable is never recoved. I suspect iron and copper probably get the highest percentage back while stuff like aluminum and plastic are a low percentage return. Second, even whil processing there is loss.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No individual bins here but we do have a central one in town. The problem is that people can't read apparently. "plastic milk jugs only" seems to mean "thow anything at all in here, stupid".
Hawrry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Harry K wrote:

Nothing lasts forever. The Romans denuded all of North Africa and much of Europe and used the wood for charcoal. Just as the trees were about to run out, it became practical to mine and exploit coal. (The industrial revolution was fueled by coal).
While in some places coal is still very economical, oil proved to be more versatile and, in many instances, cheaper.
Heck, the archetype villain, John D. Rockefeller, and his example of monoply, Standard Oil, drove the price of Kerosene down from $3.00/gallon to a nickle. In less than three years. Of course the people who sold "renewable" energy (i.e., whale oil) squealed and were eventually put out of business, but for the rest of us, the night was brightened.
Point is, as with trees and whales, even renewables face the same problems as truffles. There is only so much and only so many pigs to find it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.