Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

SCO GRP INC (THE) Message Board

  • crunchie812 crunchie812 Sep 20, 2005 10:09 AM Flag

    OT: Now Hurricane Rita

     

    Looks like I lucked out again, its passing far enough to the south that I won't get anything more than tropical storm winds. The bad news is that this thing is likely to intensify all the way across the Gulf and smack Texas. I can't imagine how it would feel to be an evacuee from Louisisana in Texas, trying to sort out your life, and watching another monster storm bearing down on you.

    This topic is deleted.
    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • >>Alaska to a lesser degree, and Siberia to a much larger one are both huge greenhouse gas sinks. Thaw the permafrost and it releases ... methane ... 23x the greenhouse effect of CO2 by volume.<<

      I'm not sure whether this number is right. But that's nothing comparing to the next paragraph. Just remember that so far, we roughly doubled CO2 atmospheric concentration, increasing it by about 300 ppm (parts per million).

      >>We can stand more large hurricanes - just move inland. We (well, some of us) can stand a massive reduction in fresh water availability. I don't know how many of us are ready for a reduction from 19% atmospheric oxygen to 11% or 12%, and that is one of the uglier possibilities of exhuming all of this carbon dioxide.<<

      Here the crap really begins. Oxygen is 20.85% of all atmosphere. That is 208,500 ppm!

      Now, even if the permafrost methane really produces 23x300 = 6,900ppm CO2 by consuming oxygen, that would reduce the oxygen (O2)concentration by exactly the same amount. Simple calculation shows that 208,500 - 6,900 = 201,600ppm, meaning we would still have 20.16% oxygen in the atmosphere, instead of the present 20.85%. If you think you may die from such a decrease, never climb any hills nor enter big cities.

      >>
      We produce individual genius, but collectively we're no wiser than the cyanobacteria that changed this planets atmosphere from methane to a nitrogen/oxygen mix four billion years ago.
      <<

      Cyanobacteria do not turn methane into oxygen. They use CO2.

      The role of methane in the early Earth atmosphere is contested but even its proponents do not claim it was dominant in any era (it is believed that Earth lost its original methane and amonnia rich atmosphere very early in the giant collision which created our Moon). If you are interested in possible methane role in early atmosphere, see the article by James F. Kasting, its proponent, in July 2004 Scientific American. Even he believes the early (post Moon creation) atmosphere was mainly N2 and CO2. Methane came later as the _result_ of anoxic metabolism of metanogen bacteria.

      It is really worth reading real scientists, instead of some new age holistic idea mincers.

    • I don't understand the question, but surely superconducting quantum nanotubes are the answer.

      <esker mode>
      IAM dont SHOOR-LIE UNDERSTAMP teh KVETCHUN boot SORELY SOUP-R-CONDUCTINK QUANTAS NANNYTUBERS R teh ANSORES.
      </esker mode>

    • "A typical radio antenna can produce an astonishing level of power, perhaps an entire nanowatt. Parade, rain, sorry."

      Well, yes, but that's a single antenna; but I think with an array of appropriately-sized and -placed antennas, it's possible to make an essentially impedance-matched "surface" that'll reflect almost nothing, and I think the same would be possible at optical wavelengths. The trick is getting the energy out as current rather than dissipating it as heat...

      A. Korg

    • Alaska to a lesser degree, and Siberia to a much larger one are both huge greenhouse gas sinks. Thaw the permafrost and it releases ... methane ... 23x the greenhouse effect of CO2 by volume.

      We can stand more large hurricanes - just move inland. We (well, some of us) can stand a massive reduction in fresh water availability. I don't know how many of us are ready for a reduction from 19% atmospheric oxygen to 11% or 12%, and that is one of the uglier possibilities of exhuming all of this carbon dioxide.

      We produce individual genius, but collectively we're no wiser than the cyanobacteria that changed this planets atmosphere from methane to a nitrogen/oxygen mix four billion years ago.

    • My comment included destructive, because alot of coal is strip mined, Wyoming, and it makes a mess.

      GB may have turned from coal because of the North Sea oil.

    • <<A typical radio antenna can produce an astonishing level of power, perhaps an entire nanowatt.>>
      No production (except on recieve) it just radiates what you feed it.
      Ah typical; there's the rub.
      Wand on the top of your hand held , 5-10 watts

      Jim Creek Washington naval communications site.
      Maybe a 1,000,000.00 watts. All depends on the purpose.

    • read it yourself;
      h++p://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5742/1844?view=abstract

      They aren't restricting it to hurricanes that hit the US.

      PS the Economist is usually a pretty straight arrow news magazine.

    • << Fluidised Bed Boilers >>

      Tsk. There's no need for ad-homs against Laura and Maureen.

    • <<Bad part is, a lot of it is coal , and it is a dirty/destructive fuel.>>

      IIRC there was project in the '70s in the UK called something like "Fluidised Bed Boilers" which relied on a different way of burning Coal to increase boiler efficency. I believe the project was shelved becuase of a shift away from coal because of the '80s UK government policy (That Woman!) and a fall in Oil prices.

      Bruce S.

    • The wookie is not so much the concept of using hydrogen as an energy storage medium but the bleating that it would take so much effort to actually do something about it so they should focus everything there....

      I deliberately did not look at anything other than mature technology in the original post. In fact I used a really small-cap turbine. As early as 2001 the vast majority of utility grade turbines were rated 650kW or higher and the top end was 2MW with 6MW ones in development. Imposing a realistically stiff penalty of 65% electrolytic efficiency and consuming 40% of the H to liquify the rest for transportation you can get enough H to carry the equivalent energy as the gasoline refined from 5 barrels of crude every day out of a single 2MW tower and a body of water. Personally I think that you're right, other things need to be done right now but lets get this other stuff moving too. The tech for the supply exists now - wtf are they waiting for in using it?

    • View More Messages