(11-15-2016 12:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 12:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  How about this: the govt will pay to buy coal from coal miners ... and then just dump it.

Gives coal miners jobs, doesn't ruin the earth.

I wouldn't have a problem with just storing it for the future. Just in case we need it.

As I understand it, coal also has numerous other uses that doesn't have the same environmental impact as simply burning it... like water filtration which is a big issue I'd think these days. Could be wrong... not at all a chemist.

(11-15-2016 01:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Agreed that you're not qualified to comment on advanced physics research.

If you think a proper understanding of Moore's law is "advanced physics" than I'd wager you've not taken too many hard science classes above the remedial college level.

Comparing almost anything to moore's law is asinine. It's such a specific principle and it's far more "engineering / economics" than it is physics.

It's survived far past the point that I think even Moore would have expected because the materials science has evolved you see more Gallium arsenide and other compound III-V or II-VI materials used in wafers.

That and evolving dye technology have propped up Moors law. Which, by the way, in no way is a physical law like, say, Henry's or Newtons.

(11-15-2016 12:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Trump biggest thing, by far, is growing the economy and jobs via fossil fuel production.

So if it's just a stimulus anyway, which that is, then let's pay them to get the stuff and then just not burn it.

Give it up, nobody gives a schit if it is burned except you. We spend all this money (both the government and and consumers) for the environment and global warming is still coming unabated. What's the point. If we are all going to drown from rising seas, let's at least enjoy our lives in the meantime. Trump is going to kneecap the EPA bigly. Get over it.

(11-15-2016 01:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bull,

Ok fine. I'll sign off on increased coal production for the purpose of electricity generation, but only if the mining process is entirely automated.

Why? If automation is more efficient it will be what's used. If it's not then let the miners work.

Quote:Funny/sad thing is, you'd rather have that than the jobs stimulus scenario, because it fits with the prescribed Team® ideology.

I'd call you ignorant but that would be an insult to the ignorant.

My problem with how Obama used the stimulus, well a lot of it, was that he basically burned the money sustaining municipalities and unions who were living in an economically untenable way.

Gov. Jim Doyle put out a report that showed that retaining government (public) employment was paramount. Seventy-five percent of the 8,284 jobs attributed to the stimulus money were public sector positions.

If you put a gun to my head and a trillion dollars and said "spend" this...

I would have upgraded our electrical and telecommunications infrastructure. Aiming first and foremost at cities which were struggling. Redoing the electrical infrastructure in south east Michigan would have done nearly as much in the short term and a shaq load more in the long term than propping up government employment.

I used to work for USACE. The low/medium skilled folks on civil works projects make a good penny, and spend a lot of it in the local community while they work. Those projects also tend to go into local union halls and *hire* people to do the higher skill work when they are short.

So... You would have had money going into the communities and a tangible benefit when completed.

(11-15-2016 01:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 12:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 12:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  How about this: the govt will pay to buy coal from coal miners ... and then just dump it.

Gives coal miners jobs, doesn't ruin the earth.

I wouldn't have a problem with just storing it for the future. Just in case we need it.

As I understand it, coal also has numerous other uses that doesn't have the same environmental impact as simply burning it... like water filtration which is a big issue I'd think these days. Could be wrong... not at all a chemist.

It does, and it's not going anywhere.

(11-15-2016 01:10 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 12:59 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  van,

Unless you have a PhD in physics, I'm not going to take your word in that.

That's fine, all I have is an MS in engineering.

Question,

What do you think about these guys? I discovered them a while ago, and have been interested in what they are talking about, but am weary a bit.

http://phoenixenergynv.com/?page_id=12

It almost sounds like a perpetual motion machine... They wont release the math behind it, but they do "say" they are building a prototype somewhere in Massachusetts.

(11-15-2016 10:12 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  The people of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio have spoken. We need more coal.

Even if coal generated power plants for residential power is somehow curbed or replaced by NG or some other form there are plenty of stand alone factories and manufacturers that have their OWN coal power plants. Go look at the amount of coal a place like Newport News shipbuilding goes through on a regular basis. Pretty massive.

So, coal isn't going anywhere anytime soon and while little enterprises like the quasar Mach noted above are great and all, good on them, I'd bet that plant they have generates about enough energy to keep one neighborhood lit. You'd have to have a "biodigester" every other block.

(11-15-2016 09:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  How much has the country saved going from 4.00 gasoline to 2.00 gasoline. That drop didn't happen overnight and the ramp back up will take awhile but only the most partisan won't see the effect all of these alternative fuels going online.

Biodigestors have been absolutely huge. Entire companies fleets of trucks have switched over to CNG.

http://www.quasarenergygroup.com/

You won't see Quasar on any failed renewable list. All with stimulus money and it's a game changer.

The reason oil prices went down is because, despite Obama's great efforts to stop them, entrepeneurs and large oil companies started producing more oil. We are self-sufficient in oil for the first time in decades.

(11-15-2016 11:46 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We've had some major breakthroughs with fusion. I posted on this last year. I think Saudi Arabia knows the gig is up in 10 years. They've opened the spigots because they know the gravy train will soon be over.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ethansiegel/...7cf29e1982

This is the youtube you need to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-LCfx9v4YQ
Fusion is comparable to Moore's Law.

Lockheed Martin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-LCfx9v4YQ

They've been talking about fusion breakthroughs since the late 70s. Its the holy grail of energy. Maybe if the Republicans can carry PA, fusion can happen. But it could be centuries away.

(11-15-2016 01:38 PM)muffinman Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 01:10 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 12:59 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  van,

Unless you have a PhD in physics, I'm not going to take your word in that.

That's fine, all I have is an MS in engineering.

Question,

What do you think about these guys? I discovered them a while ago, and have been interested in what they are talking about, but am weary a bit.

http://phoenixenergynv.com/?page_id=12

It almost sounds like a perpetual motion machine... They wont release the math behind it, but they do "say" they are building a prototype somewhere in Massachusetts.

You know... I want to laugh at the president of Zimbabwe for getting conned by a woman who could make diesel come out of a stone..

Then I see people go for this and solar roadways.

*** CONSERVATION OF ENERGY *** ITS THE LAW!

I'm not saying these guys are frauds, because the site does not explain how they are powering this. They are basically heating something up with induction and then using that heat energy the same way a steam engine would.

Now induction heat is pretty damn efficient.... In the range of 90% but they then do other things with that heat which add other inefficiencies.

They may in fact be onto a better more efficient way to treat water, which would be nice... But this is not a solution to our energy woes.

Guys,

I don't even know why I even link things. I don't understand the willfully ignorant. I LINKED THE TED TALK that shows graphs on how fusion is related to Moore's law.

WATCH THE FKIN TED TALK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I DIDN'T PULL IT OUT OF MY KEESTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THAT"S WHY I PUT IT THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You don't even have to read. JUST WATCH!!!

You guys are so incredibly frustrating.

(11-15-2016 01:57 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Guys,

I don't even know why I even link things. I don't understand the willfully ignorant. I LINKED THE TED TALK that shows graphs on how fusion is related to Moore's law.

WATCH THE FKIN TED TALK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I DIDN'T PULL IT OUT OF MY KEESTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THAT"S WHY I PUT IT THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You don't even have to read. JUST WATCH!!!

You guys are so incredibly frustrating.

Dude... It's a TED talk...

I have a f'ing engineering degree, I've done work on semiconductors, I've done VLSI design, and I've done some advanced physics coursework.

I don't need ted to draw some tenuous link between moore's law and physics...

(11-15-2016 01:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Agreed that you're not qualified to comment on advanced physics research.

I you and everyone are qualified to comment on anything. We all just throwing out our opinions

Ham #41,

Works for me. Though if those other uses had near the volume demand for coal that electricity generation uses, I don't think coal miners would've needed to vote for Trump out of desperation, in the first place.


Bull #42,

You don't need a physics PhD to understand Moore's Law. But you do need one to comment on if Nuclear Fusion is following Moore's law. And we both agreed he did not possess that.

So your attempt at a distraction from that point is rejected.


Bull #44,

Of course it's more efficient. There's no questioning that.

Your proposal sounds reasonable me. I also think something similar to that will be the other big part of Trump's agenda during his term, infrastructure spending. Infrastructure + economy stimulus via fossil fuel production, that's what he's going to try to get done. Now we wait and see ...


Van #53,

We're able to comment, not qualified to.

(11-15-2016 11:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If that 'dramatic' progress comes at the expense of jobs or economic reality, then it really isn't progress since it can't be sustained. It is supposed to be a jump start, which by definition has a large initial boost, but then reality and economics must catch up, and often that means the progress takes a step backwards before continuing the economically unsustainable initial trajectory.

Maybe not econ 101, but certainly Econ 401

Compounding this is that coal jobs are in PA and WV while Solar jobs are in AZ and CA. How are you going to efficiently transport those jobs west and that energy east?

Solar jobs are everywhere. North Carolina and New Jersey in particular are huge solar markets on the east coast. NC is the 3rd largest solar market in the country.



More people work in solar than in coal. Now if you factor in jobs supported by coal vs solar, it is probably skewed in favor of coal, but for direct jobs, solar wins.

Throughout history, many jobs have been lost to changes in technology. People didn't like it, but they eventually moved or adapted.

(11-15-2016 11:27 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Maybe those Democrat voting, liberal Silicon Valley tech companies could invest some of their massive bankroll into clean energy.

But instead, we get Snapchat.

They already do.

Google has invested billions into clean energy. Apple has invested at least $850 million into solar farms. Facebook invested heavily in wind energy.

Virtually all large companies, not just liberal silicon valley companies, have clean energy initiatives. Walmart, for example, is one of the largest solar producers in the country.

"People didn't like it, but they eventually moved or adapted. "

OR, they voted for a POTUS candidate who lied to them, out of desperation.

(11-15-2016 11:43 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 11:36 AM)Claw Wrote:  Solar. Putting power generation on people's roofs is a dangerous proposition for firefighters. I am also very concerned with the health risks for the inhabitants. I don't believe that is the great idea everyone wants it to be.

The solar roadway thing looks very interesting though.

NO! for many, many reasons no...

The top two

1 - There is no glass strong and durable enough, and we're not even close
2 - The reason solar panels are tilted is because being flat is the worst possible orientation

I thought 1 was in actual use in Europe.

Your point on 2 is a good one. Did you see the kid's science project where he made solar collectors like leaves on a tree?

I'm glad coal is dying.

If they try to open up major new coal mines, I hope people go out there and pull a Standing Rock type of protest.

Gum up the works, fellas. Gum it up.

(11-15-2016 01:10 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 12:59 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  van,

Unless you have a PhD in physics, I'm not going to take your word in that.

That's fine, all I have is an MS in engineering.

Close enough for me

(11-15-2016 01:57 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Guys,

I don't even know why I even link things. I don't understand the willfully ignorant. I LINKED THE TED TALK that shows graphs on how fusion is related to Moore's law.

WATCH THE FKIN TED TALK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I DIDN'T PULL IT OUT OF MY KEESTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THAT"S WHY I PUT IT THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You don't even have to read. JUST WATCH!!!

You guys are so incredibly frustrating.

I do keep up with fusion research because it's success would disrupt my current line of work. Obviously, the process itself works, it's making the reaction reliably repeatable that is the hang up. Which is why I found the Moore's Law argument dubious. Getting more power out than put in is just one of the three hurdles needed to make fusion possible. It's something I want to happen but I see the problems that need to be overcome.

As an aside, I put zero stock in anything LockMart puts out. They build crappy ships and for 20 years have been working on delivering a fighter to the military without success. I put more faith in the guys at ITER.