A Gift for Fulmens


Aneko

 

Posted

And in all his efforts, the market still functions the same way it always has.


 

Posted

I guess you also believe green measures are pointless because pollution still increases.

Ah, to see everything in black and white. It must be so simple, relaxing.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by eryq2 View Post
And in all his efforts, the market still functions the same way it always has.
And how, exactly, do you think he's trying to get it to work?


Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihilii View Post
I guess you also believe green measures are pointless because pollution still increases.

Ah, to see everything in black and white. It must be so simple, relaxing.
Those work great, nothing in the world like them for putting money into friends and relatives of politicians pockets.

It must be nice to be able to believe the propaganda.

Oh just before you rant, hows solyndra doing, the national ignition facility, ITEF, or gasahol ?


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihilii View Post
I guess you also believe green measures are pointless because pollution still increases.

Ah, to see everything in black and white. It must be so simple, relaxing.
Some "green measures" are actually more harmful to the environment, such as the windfarms that kill more birds in 5 years than power lines did in 50.

You know I think I prefer to see things in black and white with some shades of grey to the pink tint you get from rose colored glasses.


-Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein.
-I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo Galilei
-When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty. - Thomas Jefferson

 

Posted

Best forum evAr!

Silas tries to do something for laughs, it instantly devolves into politics masquerading as other things. Epic lulz.

RagManX


"if the market were religion Fulmens would be Moses and you'd be L. Ron Hubbard. " --Nethergoat to eryq2

The economy is not broken. The players are

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miladys_Knight View Post
Some "green measures" are actually more harmful to the environment, such as the windfarms that kill more birds in 5 years than power lines did in 50.
This is flat-out false. Wind turbines kill 150,000 birds each year. Cats kill 500 million birds a year. 100 million birds die each year flying into the sides of glass buildings. Power lines kill 10 million birds and cars kill 11 million birds each year.

Why? Simply because there are a hell of lot more cats and glass buildings and power lines and cars than there are, or will ever be, wind turbines.

Check out the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...VlJ_story.html


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion View Post
This is flat-out false. Wind turbines kill 150,000 birds each year. Cats kill 500 million birds a year. 100 million birds die each year flying into the sides of glass buildings. Power lines kill 10 million birds and cars kill 11 million birds each year.

Why? Simply because there are a hell of lot more cats and glass buildings and power lines and cars than there are, or will ever be, wind turbines.

Check out the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...VlJ_story.html
Acre per acre wind farms kill more birds than powerlines.

Did you even read the article you linked to? It's 2 "green" organizations arguing over who is wrong. I also notice that they lump cats, a natural source of danger to birds, in with "human caused" threats in an attempt to fluff up their numbers. That doesn't bode well for the veracity of their numbers.

I'll also note that the power produced by those "safe green" wind farms is still transmitted along all the power lines mentioned. Wind farms haven't reduced threats to birds they've increased it. All they are really doing is moving the baseline. X amount of birds are killed each year by these things, our new "green, environmentally friendly" process only kills a fraction more than all these other things so its "OK".

I'll also note that these organizations tend to think of humans as outside the "natural environment" as if we have no right to be here or to use any of the planet's natural resources.


-Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein.
-I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo Galilei
-When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty. - Thomas Jefferson

 

Posted

Miladys_Knight, your reply is such a drastic and baffling misread of my post on so many levels.

I haven't said "all green measures are useful", nor have I said "no single green measure has ever been harmful to the environment".

I can only guess you either have little grasp on logic or emotional issues related to green measures. Either assumption doesn't bode well for you, but I think the least insulting would be the second one.

So, going with that let's replace my previous example with this one:

I guess you also believe medicine is pointless because people still die of cancer.


 

Posted

"Number of birds killed" is not the only, and perhaps not the most important measure of environmental impact. For example, I've never heard of a wind farm making someone's tap water flammable.

But in the spirit of the OP, here's a fun trick my high school chemistry teacher liked to demonstrate on new teachers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY24F...eature=related

EDIT: I mean, she would demonstrate it on their money, not on the new teachers themselves.


Avatar: "Cheeky Jack O Lantern" by dimarie

 

Posted

Seriously? Zero to sustainable energy arguments in three posts? Based on one of the worst antiwind arguments ever?

Riding the wild tangent for a minute...

Current wind turbine placement (unlike the turbines built in the early 80s) avoids migration paths; current wind turbine tower shapes don't have places for birds to build their nests. I will preemptively agree that one golden eagle or California condor hitting a wind turbine is not comparable to one pigeon hitting a glass skyscraper. And people are doing research on the alleged problem with exploding bat lungs.

But we are still talking about a situation where we could increase the number of wind turbines by a factor of 100 [from 1% of our power supply to 100%...] and kill 1/6 as many birds as tall buildings do.

Arguing that wind is intermittent, has a low capacity factor, and is not well matched to demand, or that wind proponents exaggerate the number and quality of usable wind sites... those are reasonable arguments and I might end up on one side or the other depending on how it's phrased.

But BIRDS?!? 5000 birds died last year from one fireworks celebration, in one city, on one night. (see also.)


Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.

So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion View Post
Cats kill 500 million birds a year.
It's the Circle of Life.


'I don't like the look of it at all,' said the King: 'however, it may kiss my hand if it likes.'
'I'd rather not,' the Cat remarked.
'Don't be impertinent,' said the King, 'and don't look at me like that!' He got behind Alice as he spoke.
'A cat may look at a king,' said Alice.

 

Posted

Cats kill 500 million slow and stupid birds a year. It's just like the market! If you want delicious birdfood at Peck It Nao prices, you pay more.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihilii View Post
Miladys_Knight, your reply is such a drastic and baffling misread of my post on so many levels.

I haven't said "all green measures are useful", nor have I said "no single green measure has ever been harmful to the environment".

I can only guess you either have little grasp on logic or emotional issues related to green measures. Either assumption doesn't bode well for you, but I think the least insulting would be the second one.

So, going with that let's replace my previous example with this one:

I guess you also believe medicine is pointless because people still die of cancer.
You really should take off the rose colored glasses. You are wrong on so many levels and are resorting to misdirection because your position is weak. Think of the children (especially those dying of cancer).

Edit - In all seriousness do you really want to talk about medicine? If you do we need to talk about abortion medicine killing the unborn, plastic surgery, and botox. My dad, my granddad, my grandma, and my high school sweet heart all died of cancer. I work in the medical field in a residential care facility. I know first hand and see on a daily basis just how lacking our medical knowledge is. The only thing that is a real blessing is medicines that relieve pain.

My point is simply that too many people see the word "green" and react with their emotions instead of their logic. Those who buy into the propaganda begin spouting the virtue of their position without ever investigating it for veracity or delving farther than the surface issues. My favorite bit of "green" trite is "organically" grown foods. I can't remember the last time I ate an inorganically grown banana.

Let me just give you a couple more of my favorite "green" non-sequitors.

Electric cars and hydrogen fuel cells. Electric cars run on.... you guessed it, electricity. The hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cells is made by hydrolizing water using..... you guessed it, electricity. Most of the electricity in the US is produced in coal burning power plants. Coal is one of the most polluting fuel sources known to man. Burning coal produces all the same pollutants that poorly tuned automobile engines do and more, and far worse ones, like coal dust and mecurcy vapor. Not only that but a measureable amount of energy is lost in battery storage and fuel cells just from generator inefficiencies (2 in the case of electric cars the source and the point of use) and heat loss from transmission through power lines fuel cells actually produce less power than was used in the hydrolyzing process.

People think electric is green but they rarely delve into the dirty secrets of it's origin.

Flourescent bulbs vs incandescent. Flourescent bulbs do indeed use less electricity however the bulb itself is toxic and far less evironmentally friendly than the incandescent versions. There are also people, plants and animals that suffer harm from flourescent lighting. (I am one of them. The flickering of flourescent triggers migraines).

Leaving all that aside most people don't realize that the country's electrical infrastructure is mostly 1960s technology. Our power grid isn't capable of handling more than about 10% of our total power usage being produced by wind and solar cells.


-Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein.
-I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo Galilei
-When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty. - Thomas Jefferson

 

Posted

WTH, I'll jump in. Electric cars plug in, and yes, coal produces most of the power to plug into in the US... but the scale of the sources of 'plugging in' can be changed rather quickly once the infra is in place; setting up 150k safe hydrogen (an alternative path) stations is a bit more involved, for example. Other alternatives are equally problematic. Someone is currently developing a tech that may make power transmission 10-20x more efficient; this will make a difference for solar and nuclear sources... Oil is a bad energy source right now, so is natural gas, but it's the one with all the money behind it, and the infra, so we have little choice... for NOW.

Please Milady's, green tech may not be perfected, but it's a step on the right path. We may not be able to get to the goal if we wait YET ANOTHER 20 years to take another substntial step. I hope science beats politics in this race, though that is a tough goal, but maybe opening our eyes to the damage done by Fossil sources will help.


Arc #6015 - Coming Unglued

"A good n00b-sauce is based on a good n00b-roux." - The Masque

 

Posted

TL/DR: I know way too much about this. . .

We're currently at about 1% wind [up from something like 0.2% three years ago]. It's not exactly a looming threat. The problem with the grid carrying solar and wind, as far as I know, is mainly that both are intermittent, nondispatchable and have low capacity factors.

INTERMITTENT: Solar tends to cycle on and off over sub-minute periods, which is a hell of a thing to try to build a system around. Wind is slightly longer-scale but mostly because the turbines are so big that smaller episodes of turbulence get eaten by rotational momentum.

NONDISPATCHABLE: You have to match power supply to demand. Baseload, peaking plants, etc. Wind blows when it feels like it, sunlight is more predictable in SOME places but, with cloud cover, can easily vary by a factor of 5 or so. In Texas they have a ton of wind that blows mostly at night and a lot of turbines using it; the price of electricity in Texas sometimes goes NEGATIVE at night as a result.

CAPACITY FACTOR: If you have a 1000 MW coal plant, you get very close to 24000 MW-hours a day. It can run at full power nearly all the time. 90%, 95%, 98% capacity factor. If you have 1000 MW of wind turbines you usually get more like 8000 MW-hours a day. (30% capacity factor, more or less.) They run at partial power, they only run when they have enough wind, and so forth. Now a peaker gas plant also runs 10-30% of the time but it runs WHEN YOU NEED IT.

The solution to all of these problems is high-efficiency low-cost energy storage. Whoever can solve this will be very rich. Deservedly so. (I know of a couple candidate technologies and I'm rooting for them.)

People say the problem is politics; that's mostly wishful thinking, because politics can be changed by votes. We're already subsidizing renewables by 30% or more and in most cases, you can't make money building renewables even when you buy your dollars for fifty cents. That's a technology that just plain costs too much to build.

(On the optimist side, the cost of solar panels went down something like 44% last year.)


Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.

So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.

 

Posted

Great Gift....


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miladys_Knight View Post
I also notice that they lump cats, a natural source of danger to birds, in with "human caused" threats in an attempt to fluff up their numbers.
The domestic housecat is an invasive species in North America and much of the rest of the world.

Cat population, an estimated 93 million to 133 million in the US, according to that university website, is far larger than it would naturally be, as well. Predators in the wild are typically far outnumbered by prey animals, as it takes a lot of prey animals to support a predator population.

Both the worldwide distribution of cats and their huge population bloom are human-caused. To that extent, the cat problem is definitely human-caused, even if cats themselves are not.


If we are to die, let us die like men. -- Patrick Cleburne
----------------------------------------------------------

The rule is that they must be loved. --Jayne Fynes-Clinton, Death of an Abandoned Dog

 

Posted

I have solar panels in my yard. They make my folks money during the day time. Wind turbines are the devil.

In relation to the OP, there was also a Looney Toons episode with a "Place Dirty Money Here" Trash can outside of (what I think was) Yosemite Sam's mansion. I am too lazy to find it though.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by galadiman View Post
WTH, I'll jump in. Electric cars plug in, and yes, coal produces most of the power to plug into in the US... but the scale of the sources of 'plugging in' can be changed rather quickly once the infra is in place; setting up 150k safe hydrogen (an alternative path) stations is a bit more involved, for example. Other alternatives are equally problematic. Someone is currently developing a tech that may make power transmission 10-20x more efficient; this will make a difference for solar and nuclear sources... Oil is a bad energy source right now, so is natural gas, but it's the one with all the money behind it, and the infra, so we have little choice... for NOW.

Please Milady's, green tech may not be perfected, but it's a step on the right path. We may not be able to get to the goal if we wait YET ANOTHER 20 years to take another substntial step. I hope science beats politics in this race, though that is a tough goal, but maybe opening our eyes to the damage done by Fossil sources will help.
I am not at all against non-polluting/renewable sources of power.

I am against political and other organizations that come up with something, don't put enough thought or effort into it to assure that it does what it is supposed to instead of cause more (or a different kind of) harm, and then try to ram it down our throats because of all the money they spent on it whether it works or not.

To give you a bit of background, I live in rural Iowa. There are many ethanol plants in this state. Powerlines crisscross the state and most birds use them as perches. The only ones that are injured or killed by the powerlines are the ones whose wing spans are wide enough that they can touch 2 lines at the same time.

We have lots of other types of renewable and cheap power here. Lots of new homes in this area use Geothermal. Which is new technology.

The thing that really irritates me is that just 6 miles from where I live there is an old hydro electric dam (hydro electric is proven and safe technology) that they no longer use. It's a legacy from the early 1900s and the electric railroad that used to run through here. It generated enough power to run all the trains and there was enough left over to supply electricity to all 15,000 customers in the local area with a bit left over to sell back to the power company.

When the railroad switched to deisel engines they stopped using it and in the late 1950s a safety inspector left a door open when he made his anual inspection (to make sure that there was no harm to fish and wildlife from the unused plant) and the generators were flooded out and destroyed. The dam itself is still in excellent condition, all the plant needs is a new set of generators but that isn't going to happen here. There is too much red tape required to get the property from the railroad, the local power company doesn't want to lose the money they earn from expensive sources of power, and a local safety group wants the dam dismantled and destroyed because 3 years ago a single idiot (1 single idiot in the last 60 years too) failed to read the warning signs, went over the dam, and was sucked under water by the currents and drowned.

It would cost about as much for new generators as it would to put up a single wind turbine and would supply all the electrical power (and then some with modern generators and no trains drawing power) for the local community, but it won't happen because people are too self absorbed with their own agendas and politicians are more interested in lining their pockets and those of their friends and special interest groups than helping their constituents.


-Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein.
-I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo Galilei
-When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty. - Thomas Jefferson