Right, right.. thermodynamics.. however from this MIT report it seems technology (current and past like The Geysers built in the 60's) is sufficient enough to make this viable and extremely cost-effective. You shouldn't dismiss it so readily.
Right, right.. thermodynamics.. however from this MIT report it seems technology (current and past like The Geysers built in the 60's) is sufficient enough to make this viable and extremely cost-effective. You shouldn't dismiss it so readily.
I never said anything about drill depth at The Geysers (logically fallacious argument/straw man
); I just stated the technology was available then and, with funding, will be now to make this viable.. All I am saying is that I think this energy resource is not given enough attention in the MSM or by our government when it seems EXTREMELY promising. The 18 panel members of the MIT report seem to think so too.edited for accuracy..
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
When you want to reduce particulate matter, clean coal is not comical. The link I posted shows that reduced particulate matter in the air extends your life.
Co2 (if you want to make it the only issue) in the atmosphere would need to reach a constant level of 450 to 500 ppm to have a negative impact on your health.
The study failed to mention, however, that 100% of those climatologists' paychecks are dependent on their answer.
Answer is right there, doesn't matter how much you parrot the same old worn out line.
It is comical to me when we could invest the research money for clean coal in geothermal instead.
I believe coal to gas is also much more efficient than just burning coal as it is easier to do a combined cycled and capture the waste heat.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
I had never really pondered the possibility, but that does look very promising, with future gains in efficiency though insulation advances and possibly even summering the means of conversion from heat to electricity down into the caprock and bellow.
I'm almost done with this MIT report, all 372 pages.. interesting stuff really. I wish this would get more attention from our politicians.
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
to just reduce CO2 emissions is to act in panic and without direction. Humanity's contribution likely stopped a global cooling age, which would have been catastrophic, but we can't keep on relying on luck.
Yes humanity affects global temperature change now, which is why we need global temperature FORCASTS. And based on those decide if we should aim at decreasing or INCREASING greenhouse gasses emissions...
One more thing, greenhouse gasses are not pollution. They don't damage anything, and CO2 is in fact are greatly beneficial to certain plants. What we should be concerned about is HUMANS though. Life and earth will stay here even if we cause a mass extinction event. Humans are the only ones in danger. So lets get a forcast system going, and start controlling the weather.
Now actual pollution, things that cause ecological harm, should be reduced.
Yes humanity affects global temperature change now, which is why we need global temperature FORCASTS. And based on those decide if we should aim at decreasing or INCREASING greenhouse gasses emissions...
One more thing, greenhouse gasses are not pollution. They don't damage anything, and CO2 is in fact are greatly beneficial to certain plants. What we should be concerned about is HUMANS though. Life and earth will stay here even if we cause a mass extinction event. Humans are the only ones in danger. So lets get a forcast system going, and start controlling the weather.
Now actual pollution, things that cause ecological harm, should be reduced.
Al Gore is the man.
Carbon credits are a scam.
They are creating a market by going green in order to make green.
Carbon credits are a scam.
They are creating a market by going green in order to make green.
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
it not foreseeable for humanity to produce more co2 than plants can produce... not at the foreseeable future. It just causes algal blooms and other outburst of simple plants life.
The only forecast I know of is "climateprediction@home", it needs to be ramped up, verified, distributed further, and done at different emission points so we could regulate a specific emission goal.
You do realize that that "forecasting" (or to be more specific, understanding how the climate has changed thorughout the history of our planet and predicting how the climate will change in the future) is what the science of climatology is all about, don't you?
I.e. there are litterarly thousands of scientists around the world that spend of all their time trying to forecast our future climate and they already have access to a LOT of computing power.
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
I am well aware. although I would hazard that they are less well funded than you think, and require a lot more computational power than you imagine. Climate prediction @ home was a way to leverage vast amounts of volunteer computers to do so on the small scale. Anyways, rather then focusing upon my imagined ignorance of the field, how about my actual suggestion? which was to use said forecasts to determine target emissions and either increase or decrease them to meet our goals for the global temperature and weather. Which is most likely going to mean cutting down on emissions, but not necessarily to eliminate them.
We should leave the notion of controlling the global temperature and weather to Storm from X-Men.
Can we get a poll of chiropractors to see how many of them think Chiropractic is real? Then we can poll biologist and doctor and say that as you get more knowledge of Chiropractic the more likely you are to believe it.
A climatologist will by definition believe in global warming the study is pointless.
A climatologist will by definition believe in global warming the study is pointless.
Way to be completely wrong.
Climatology is not the study of global warming, it is the study of earth's climate. It existed long before global warming was ever an issue. So no, a climatologist will not by definition accept global warming.
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
heh, interesting question about chiropractic. The question is less is it real, it should be "what does it do"... chiropractic adjustment can certainly feel good, like a massage, and help alliviate backpain and neckpain...
But:
1. most chiropractors fail to mention the health risks.
2. most chiropractors adjust healthy people that don't need it just to make more money.
3. most chiropractors claim it can "cure" things it cannot treat (like the flu).
4. most chiropractors push useless health supplements and other waste.
5. most chiropractors are not real doctors, and dispense bad and misleading advice to sick people. They should be relegated to the same station of a masseuse.
6. chiropractice does not follow the scientific method. it is an art, and the skill varies by the practitioner.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter