Waiting for Harsh EU Response!
-
That something is a good idea doesn't mean it will last. Rational educated people don't seem to breed fast enough to replace themselves and are quickly emptying Europe of Europeans - what replaces them won't look much like Europe. And hoping that you can convert enough of the newcomers to your rational view given the history of integration in Europe is certainly not rational!
DRHuff wrote:
Rational educated people don't seem to breed fast enough to replace themselves
Something they are proud of.
DRHuff wrote:
what replaces them won't look much like Europe
That's how it is supposed to work; if Europeans can't adapt, they'll be replaced by something that does.
DRHuff wrote:
And hoping that you can convert enough of the newcomers to your rational view given the history of integration in Europe is certainly not rational!
I do not need to convert anyone; it may take a few centuries, but all religions will eventually be replaced.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
CAGW (DAGW, whatever you like to call it) is a crock, but I wish we could get off oil and ring fence these cunts and kick them back to the stone age where they belong.
Well, 2030 is the deadline [https://www.wired.com/2016/10/german-auto-industry-finally-maybe-done-gas/\](https://www.wired.com/2016/10/german-auto-industry-finally-maybe-done-gas/)
Quote:
The Bundesrat, which represents German states at the federal level, voted to ban all diesel and gasoline cars by 2030. Yes, in just 14 years, the country wants all new cars to be emissions-free.
-
Well, 2030 is the deadline [https://www.wired.com/2016/10/german-auto-industry-finally-maybe-done-gas/\](https://www.wired.com/2016/10/german-auto-industry-finally-maybe-done-gas/)
Quote:
The Bundesrat, which represents German states at the federal level, voted to ban all diesel and gasoline cars by 2030. Yes, in just 14 years, the country wants all new cars to be emissions-free.
I like electric, if only it was good enough, and right now it isnt. In the mean time... Genetically engineered algae that produce high levels of sugars. [^]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2863401/ Genetically engineered yeast that can take this to 20% alcohol. Distil this into alcohol. Fiat and WV have been making 100% alcohol cars for the Brazilian market for decades. We can switch to it overnight. It transports like petrol, is clean, can produce more power (supports a higher compression ratio) and is safe.
-
CAGW (DAGW, whatever you like to call it) is a crock, but I wish we could get off oil and ring fence these cunts and kick them back to the stone age where they belong.
Don't know what the acronym(s) stand for. None the less, if you note in my bio, it's "in real life . . . chemist". Even when oil was $3/bbl I was against burning it as fuel.* It's a valuable raw material and burning it is really stupid. It's damn hard to un-burn! A more modern twist to this is that the products made (from what wasn't burned) are themselves a pollution problem. They can be reused very efficiently. Solar? Wind? Geothermal? They're good where they can be implemented, but there's still a need for central power (for the rest of us) and nuclear power is the way to go. It would also probably prevent many of the global and proxy wars. * In later years, I worked in a "coal research" facility. Let me assure you that the stuff is filthy and belongs in the ground. It pollutes to such a high degree and on so many levels that it's daunting. It's an environmental disaster even before they burn it (I've seen strip-mines and the result of subsidence on homes). And of course, black lung.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Don't know what the acronym(s) stand for. None the less, if you note in my bio, it's "in real life . . . chemist". Even when oil was $3/bbl I was against burning it as fuel.* It's a valuable raw material and burning it is really stupid. It's damn hard to un-burn! A more modern twist to this is that the products made (from what wasn't burned) are themselves a pollution problem. They can be reused very efficiently. Solar? Wind? Geothermal? They're good where they can be implemented, but there's still a need for central power (for the rest of us) and nuclear power is the way to go. It would also probably prevent many of the global and proxy wars. * In later years, I worked in a "coal research" facility. Let me assure you that the stuff is filthy and belongs in the ground. It pollutes to such a high degree and on so many levels that it's daunting. It's an environmental disaster even before they burn it (I've seen strip-mines and the result of subsidence on homes). And of course, black lung.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Catastrophic, Dangerous, etc Nuclear failed to deliver the promise though, and ended up more expensive than coal and gas. And of course doesnt work for cars...
-
Catastrophic, Dangerous, etc Nuclear failed to deliver the promise though, and ended up more expensive than coal and gas. And of course doesnt work for cars...
Munchies_Matt wrote:
And of course doesnt work for cars...
Just how do you plan on charging those electric cars? As for dangerous - only because greedy businesses (or even greedier countries, like Japan) don't do proper maintenance of the plant and, the eventual spent fuel. That could be solved rather easily by making those responsible for disaster personally criminally liable for negligence. If you look at the "nuclear disasters" to date, they all have the hand of ignorance and greed in them. Three Mile Island? Poorly trained operators kept over-riding warnings as false alarms. Hiring idiots has since become illegal. Fukishima ? Besides a bad location, they Japanese basically cheaped out on waste disposal: using temporary storage as what amounted to permanent storage. Chernobyl? Poor construction and safety because the (Soviet) government had no actual accountability. I find it hysterical the Germany is getting rid of all of their nuclear power plants - which ultimately means replacing them with . . . fossil fuels! In case it comes to mind - using Hydrogen for fuel . . . where are you going to get it? Virtually all of they hydrogen on earth has already been burned. It's called "water". Unburning it will require energy - electric power in particular for electrolysis - and you may as well save a step (and added inefficiency) by just using electricity directly where it's needed.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
And of course doesnt work for cars...
Just how do you plan on charging those electric cars? As for dangerous - only because greedy businesses (or even greedier countries, like Japan) don't do proper maintenance of the plant and, the eventual spent fuel. That could be solved rather easily by making those responsible for disaster personally criminally liable for negligence. If you look at the "nuclear disasters" to date, they all have the hand of ignorance and greed in them. Three Mile Island? Poorly trained operators kept over-riding warnings as false alarms. Hiring idiots has since become illegal. Fukishima ? Besides a bad location, they Japanese basically cheaped out on waste disposal: using temporary storage as what amounted to permanent storage. Chernobyl? Poor construction and safety because the (Soviet) government had no actual accountability. I find it hysterical the Germany is getting rid of all of their nuclear power plants - which ultimately means replacing them with . . . fossil fuels! In case it comes to mind - using Hydrogen for fuel . . . where are you going to get it? Virtually all of they hydrogen on earth has already been burned. It's called "water". Unburning it will require energy - electric power in particular for electrolysis - and you may as well save a step (and added inefficiency) by just using electricity directly where it's needed.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Electric doesnt work for cars yet, too unreliable, slow to charge, limited range. It just cant deliver what petrol or alcohol can. The cost of nuclear is without accidents though, just the price per kilowatt, it actually is higher than coal or gas due to the complexity of processing the fuel.
-
Electric doesnt work for cars yet, too unreliable, slow to charge, limited range. It just cant deliver what petrol or alcohol can. The cost of nuclear is without accidents though, just the price per kilowatt, it actually is higher than coal or gas due to the complexity of processing the fuel.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Electric doesnt work for cars yet, too unreliable, slow to charge, limited range. It just cant deliver what petrol or alcohol can.
The range is limited - but most drives are rather short. Tesla sales would seem to prove you wrong. The one parked outside my office window (not mine, alas) has a rather happy owner. As for the cost of nuclear? It is not as cheap as hydro=electric, but I live in a fossil fuel supplied area and I assure you, having amongst the highest electric rates in the USA, it is not more expensive than nuclear. Furthermore, nuclear generated electricity is stably priced as it doesn't need refueling very often and thus rather immune to price fluctuations from market speculators and wars and stuff. The processing of the fuel - technology available in the 1940's - isn't not that complex. Using breeder reactors it becomes even easier and availability of fuel increases tremendously. (From 0.72 % U235 of natural abundance). We'd hardly have to mine the stuff in that case.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Electric doesnt work for cars yet, too unreliable, slow to charge, limited range. It just cant deliver what petrol or alcohol can.
The range is limited - but most drives are rather short. Tesla sales would seem to prove you wrong. The one parked outside my office window (not mine, alas) has a rather happy owner. As for the cost of nuclear? It is not as cheap as hydro=electric, but I live in a fossil fuel supplied area and I assure you, having amongst the highest electric rates in the USA, it is not more expensive than nuclear. Furthermore, nuclear generated electricity is stably priced as it doesn't need refueling very often and thus rather immune to price fluctuations from market speculators and wars and stuff. The processing of the fuel - technology available in the 1940's - isn't not that complex. Using breeder reactors it becomes even easier and availability of fuel increases tremendously. (From 0.72 % U235 of natural abundance). We'd hardly have to mine the stuff in that case.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
You probably have green taxes on your coal supplied electricity pushing the price up. But I havent been keeping up with the prices, perhaps nuclear has come down (my understanding is based on prices I saw probably 20 years ago). THe question is how well does an electric car do in 20 years? Can it still hold a charge? New batteries every 7 years could be a major problem, and I believe it is.
-
You probably have green taxes on your coal supplied electricity pushing the price up. But I havent been keeping up with the prices, perhaps nuclear has come down (my understanding is based on prices I saw probably 20 years ago). THe question is how well does an electric car do in 20 years? Can it still hold a charge? New batteries every 7 years could be a major problem, and I believe it is.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
THe question is how well does an electric car do in 20 years?
Apply that standard to gasoline and diesel vehicles! They don't do very well. A few exceptions, at very high prices, but for the most part they're built to fail. From a google search: "price of nuclear vs fossil electric power"
The cost of producing nuclear-generated electricity in 2007 was 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with 2.4 cents for coal, 6.7 cents for natural gas and 10.2 cents for oil. In other words, the cost of nuclear-generated electricity was nearly one-third less than power produced at a natural gas plant.Feb 24, 2009
Now, I found this[^], but honestly, I can find whatever data you want to prove what you want. Comparisons like these are typically done with an agenda. Many years ago, however, when I lived in Chicago, they had mostly nuclear power for electricity at roughly $0.05/kwh whilst back in fossil-fuel southern NY, it was more like $0.15/kwh. Upstate NY, which had hydroelectric, was $0.02/kwh. All we need are more convenient waterfalls.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
THe question is how well does an electric car do in 20 years?
Apply that standard to gasoline and diesel vehicles! They don't do very well. A few exceptions, at very high prices, but for the most part they're built to fail. From a google search: "price of nuclear vs fossil electric power"
The cost of producing nuclear-generated electricity in 2007 was 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with 2.4 cents for coal, 6.7 cents for natural gas and 10.2 cents for oil. In other words, the cost of nuclear-generated electricity was nearly one-third less than power produced at a natural gas plant.Feb 24, 2009
Now, I found this[^], but honestly, I can find whatever data you want to prove what you want. Comparisons like these are typically done with an agenda. Many years ago, however, when I lived in Chicago, they had mostly nuclear power for electricity at roughly $0.05/kwh whilst back in fossil-fuel southern NY, it was more like $0.15/kwh. Upstate NY, which had hydroelectric, was $0.02/kwh. All we need are more convenient waterfalls.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
In todays world it is hard to know who to believe, there is so much spin, so many agendas, that you need to really dig into the data yourself. So yes, perhaps nuclear is cheaper. I am certainly not against it, nor is the idea of radiation scary (we live in an area with a lot of Radon gas, our house, 150 years old (lived there for 20 years, back now), is way above the safe limit :) ) I have heard stories of electric car batteries needing to be replaced just because the cars werent used that much, at a cost of 20,000 dollars. Thats a ridiculous amount compared to the running costs of a petrol car.
-
In todays world it is hard to know who to believe, there is so much spin, so many agendas, that you need to really dig into the data yourself. So yes, perhaps nuclear is cheaper. I am certainly not against it, nor is the idea of radiation scary (we live in an area with a lot of Radon gas, our house, 150 years old (lived there for 20 years, back now), is way above the safe limit :) ) I have heard stories of electric car batteries needing to be replaced just because the cars werent used that much, at a cost of 20,000 dollars. Thats a ridiculous amount compared to the running costs of a petrol car.
Just a note on information rarely mentioned: The nuclear emissions from a coal-fired plan are not regulated. As it turn out, it's not uncommon for coal contain uranium an thorium. Uranium, is in fact, a rather abundant element but it's generally too widely dispersed to be mineable (hence it's value). Anyway, the point is, when you burn the coal the uranium and thorium are concentrated in the ash. Where I live, they actually forbade the disposal of coal ash because it was too radioactive. Moreover, most coal plant use a static precipitator to keep ash from going up the chimneys and decorating the neighborhood for miles around. Alas - a small amount of a radio isotope will nullify the effects of the precipitator so the plant's radioactive waste emission (unregulated - it is coal!) can exceed those of a nuclear plant. The $20K battery replacement is just like it sounds ("heard stories"). I've "heard stories" about all kinds of things . . . . . . .
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Just a note on information rarely mentioned: The nuclear emissions from a coal-fired plan are not regulated. As it turn out, it's not uncommon for coal contain uranium an thorium. Uranium, is in fact, a rather abundant element but it's generally too widely dispersed to be mineable (hence it's value). Anyway, the point is, when you burn the coal the uranium and thorium are concentrated in the ash. Where I live, they actually forbade the disposal of coal ash because it was too radioactive. Moreover, most coal plant use a static precipitator to keep ash from going up the chimneys and decorating the neighborhood for miles around. Alas - a small amount of a radio isotope will nullify the effects of the precipitator so the plant's radioactive waste emission (unregulated - it is coal!) can exceed those of a nuclear plant. The $20K battery replacement is just like it sounds ("heard stories"). I've "heard stories" about all kinds of things . . . . . . .
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Of course, Curie isolated these elements from pitch! :) Look at this: The most radioactive parts of the UK | MrReid.org[^] See that big red patch? Yep, thats Devon granite! :)
-
Of course, Curie isolated these elements from pitch! :) Look at this: The most radioactive parts of the UK | MrReid.org[^] See that big red patch? Yep, thats Devon granite! :)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Of course, Curie isolated these elements from pitch!
I hope that smiley was for a joke. If not, it was pitchblende[^], a mineral. Decidedly non-flammable.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Of course, Curie isolated these elements from pitch!
I hope that smiley was for a joke. If not, it was pitchblende[^], a mineral. Decidedly non-flammable.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
I might pretend it was intentional. :)
-
DRHuff wrote:
Rational educated people don't seem to breed fast enough to replace themselves
Something they are proud of.
DRHuff wrote:
what replaces them won't look much like Europe
That's how it is supposed to work; if Europeans can't adapt, they'll be replaced by something that does.
DRHuff wrote:
And hoping that you can convert enough of the newcomers to your rational view given the history of integration in Europe is certainly not rational!
I do not need to convert anyone; it may take a few centuries, but all religions will eventually be replaced.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
it may take a few centuries, but all religions will eventually be replaced.
the question is... with what? Better or worse?
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
it may take a few centuries, but all religions will eventually be replaced.
the question is... with what? Better or worse?
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Nelek wrote:
the question is... with what? Better or worse?
Rationalism, and that's for the better.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Nelek wrote:
the question is... with what? Better or worse?
Rationalism, and that's for the better.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
God hear you :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ;P ;P :laugh: :laugh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
God hear you :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ;P ;P :laugh: :laugh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :thumbsup::thumbsup:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.