Not signed in (Sign In)
Categories
- Main Junction
- CROSSED
- London Zoo
- Freakangels
- Music
- Printheads
- Culturegasm
- Web Nuggets
- WorldWeird
- Blogs
Welcome, Guest
Vanilla is a product of Lussumo:
Documentation and Support.
-
- CommentAuthorKosmopolit
- CommentTimeAug 30th 2009
@Prestwick: I omit a lot of articles on renewables etc but a couple of weeks back New Scientist had an article about the US Navy working on formulating fuel from carbon dioxide and hydrogen from sea water.
While they talk about the environmental benefits etc, you jsut know what they dream about a nuclear ship the size of an aircraft carrier that can pump out an unlimited supply of diesel and jet fuel anywhere in the world. -
Yes, these are purely practical and selfish reasons why they're developing this stuff. Less fuel for power generators means more capacity for ferrying around the important things such as men, and supplies. Because war and armed forces are two things which will probably be with us for a long time, its an area of carbon emissions that hasn't really be lobbied properly yet.
-
- CommentAuthorKosmopolit
- CommentTimeSep 10th 2009
This is promising: organic Rankine cycle technology extracts power from low-temperature sources.
They use commercial refrigerator technology as much as possible so the costs are quite low. The additional cost to recover energy from the hot waste water being pumped out of the mine in the example they use in the article is around 1 cent per kilowatt hour.
You could probably put a couple of domestic solar hot water collectors on your roof and get at least a decent percentage of your total household power using this technology.
link -
- CommentAuthorKosmopolit
- CommentTimeOct 1st 2009
Production of solar cells grew 80% last year with 60% of them being installed in Europe.According to the analysis, global PV production increased to about 7.3 GW in 2008, an 80% rise on the previous year.
Europe's production of solar cells rose from 1.1 GW to 1.9 GW, while the installed capacity increased threefold to 4.8 GW. This was mainly led by Spain, where installed capacity almost quintupled from 560 MW in 2007 to 2.5–2.7 GW.
The cumulative installed PV electricity generation capacity in the world was around 15 GW, with Europe accounting for more than 60% of this (9.5 GW).
The study, conducted by the JRC Institute for Energy (IE), gives an overview of current activities in research, manufacturing and market implementation in this sector. The report shows that European PV production has grown on average by 50% per annum since 1999 and its market share has increased to 26% in 2008. In terms of electricity generation, photovoltaics contributed in 2008 for about 0.35 % of Europe's final electricity consumption.
However, the report does note that global investment in renewable energies and energy efficiency was hit by the financial crisis in late 2008 and early 2009, “but is now showing signs of a strong recovery.” Identifying a significant slowdown in investment in the second half of 2008 (-10% in the third quarter; -23% in the fourth), that continued in the first quarter of 2009 (down 47% compared with the fourth quarter of 2008), this trend started to reverse in the second quarter (+83% compared with the first quarter of 2009).
The analysis names China as the new leading producer of solar cells, with an annual production of about 2.4 GW, followed by Europe with 1.9 GW, Japan with 1.2 GW and Taiwan with 0.8 GW. Should this trend continue, China might be expected have secured about 32% of world-wide production capacity by 2012.
link -
-
CommentAuthorgroundxero
- CommentTimeOct 1st 2009
-
-
@groundxero: Heh. One of those neanderthal* midwestern senators once claimed that global warming was invented by the Weather Channel as a way of drumming up ratings.
* No offense to actual neanderthals. -
- CommentAuthorMarty Nozz
- CommentTimeOct 10th 2009
I'm all for cleaner energy resources and conserving our resources, but I'm so tired of the climate change we're all gonna die scare tactic. People are still banging on about Global warming when we're experiencing a cooling phase. Why can't all the media and politicians just say "hey, having a clean environment is a good thing, let's all work to help with that." No it's "We gotta change our way or we'll destroy the planet."
I'm with John Coleman. -
- CommentAuthorKosmopolit
- CommentTimeOct 10th 2009
"People are still banging on about Global warming when we're experiencing a cooling phase."
This would be a valid point if we were, in fact, experiencing a cooling phase.
Look at the thick red line, not the skinny black line.
What does it tell you? -
- CommentAuthorKosmopolit
- CommentTimeOct 10th 2009
The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for June, breaking the previous high mark set in 2005, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Additionally, the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for June was second-warmest on record. The global records began in 1880.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090725120303.htm -
-
CommentAuthorWilliam George
- CommentTimeOct 10th 2009
I don't know how people can call it "the Global Warming Scam" since it's supported by hard data. Nor does it seem to lead to the perpetrators of the scam getting rich... the point of a scam. There's far more money in being a big oil lobbyist.Why can't all the media and politicians just say "hey, having a clean environment is a good thing, let's all work to help with that." No it's "We gotta change our way or we'll destroy the planet."
At no point in history has the human race ever done anything due to it being a good idea. Self interest has always driven everything we've done. Even if future science shows that what the data was showing was interpreted wrong, the many many reasons for cleaning up will never be attempted without the fear of loss of comfort, or of death, driving it. -
-
pretty much what William George said. It's hard for people to fathom doing something to fix a problem that they won't face in their lifetimes. Think of it as procrastination on a world scale heh
-
- CommentAuthorMarty Nozz
- CommentTimeOct 11th 2009
Yeah, not buying it. I remember back in the 70s when everyone was facing freaking out over Global cooling and a new ice age was going to be what was going to kill us all. Climate change in a natural process. The human effect upon it exists, but not the scale many keep claiming. The whole thing just sounds like a scam on too many levels. I don't trust the a lot of the sources for the data presented supporting Global Warming nor many of the methods used to gather said data.
Nothing against you guys, I just don't agree with it. I still picked my car out based on best gas mileage and do my bit to keep my area clean. -
Damn; can't relocate the link. I remember reading an article whose main point was that the global cooling scare was a media-generated rogue-meme-type hype; few if any actual scientists made the claim. Anyone wanna do my homework for me? :)
-
- CommentAuthorKosmopolit
- CommentTimeOct 11th 2009
Ironically,the main proponent of the impending ice age scare of the 1970's was Nigel Calder - who happens to be a climate change skeptic. -
-
CommentAuthorWilliam George
- CommentTimeOct 11th 2009
Yeah, not buying it. I remember back in the 70s when everyone was facing freaking out over Global cooling and a new ice age was going to be what was going to kill us all.
One of the main beauties of science is how unreliable it is. New data comes along and replaces the old data. Sometimes the new data supports previous theories. Sometimes it shows the previous interpretation was wrong. Current data suggests heating up.
And if what Nygaard up above says is true, none of this matters since there were no claims of global cooling to begin with.Climate change in a natural process.
Sure is! Over a very long time. Not a century.The human effect upon it exists, but not the scale many keep claiming.
In that case: I shouldn't flush my toilet unless there's whole lot of poo in it because small poos haven't made much of an impact in the growing smelliness of my bathroom.The whole thing just sounds like a scam on too many levels.
And the reward of such a scam is...? Remember, scams must have rewards.I don't trust the a lot of the sources for the data presented supporting Global Warming nor many of the methods used to gather said data.
Such as? -
-
Idk when the science is all on one side and the people who would have the most to gain if things continued the way they are are on the other...it gets tough to decide who is being truthful :-)
The thing I find interesting is that the sceptics never seem to put out scientists to validate their points. Does mainstream America not ever notice this? -
- CommentAuthorVerissimus
- CommentTimeOct 11th 2009
I still picked my car out based on best gas mileage and do my bit to keep my area clean.
The first part of that statement contradicts the second part. -
- CommentAuthorMarty Nozz
- CommentTimeOct 11th 2009
@William: The people who would gain from the scam are those who are selling the "carbon offsets", Government because they can use this to install new regulations, and of course Al Gore who has used this as a way to make people still care about him.
Many of the groups producing the data stand to gain quite a bit by way of grants. They say there's a problem and they get money thrown their way to find a solution. This is why I find Coleman's opinion to hold a great deal of weight. It's in his best interest to be as accurate as he possibly can be in regards to weather, so I trust his opinion.
@Verus: If they had a car that ran on good intentions, I'd buy it, but they don't.
To all: I do greatly appreciate the civility demonstrated. Lesser forums would have devolved to named calling by now. Thank you. I do know I'm not going to change anyone's mind on the subject, and I'm steadfast in my belief on the matter. I've added my two cents, so I'm pretty much done. -
- CommentAuthorKosmopolit
- CommentTimeOct 26th 2009
Associated Press decided to get an independent opinion on claims of "global cooling".
So they hired four independent statisticians, gave them the NOAA average global temperature data set without telling them what it was a data set for and here's what they found:
Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.
Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.
Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."
link -
More:
Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural VariationScienceDaily (Oct. 25, 2009) — The possibility that climate change might simply be a natural variation like others that have occurred throughout geologic time is dimming, according to evidence in a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper published October 19.
The research reveals that sediments retrieved by University at Buffalo geologists from a remote Arctic lake are unlike those seen during previous warming episodes.