Gene Frenkle

Even if their dates are dudes?

If only McCain has made the Gov fill one of these out...

Well, you continue to be quite full of yourself at least. Which is it, hideously expensive or a violation of every law of physics? It can't be both. Incidentally how does it violate, say, General Relativity or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Those are laws of Physics, right Professor? Everything is impossible until someone figures out how to make it otherwise. As an asshat, I don't pretend to understand all of the particulars of this, but I've read enough now to know that you're at least mostly full of sh--. Randomly... Man could not fly until he did. The speed of sound could not be broken until it was. The atom could not be split until it was. Low Earth orbit could not be reached until it was. Man could not walk on the moon until he did. I think you're being intellectually dishonest at the very least. Outside of that, I'd simply have to question your stated credentials. As a 'physicist', you seem awfully closed-minded, especially considering all of the incredible advances in physics in the past century. I don't think I want my kids reading your textbooks if this is the attitude you take when writing them. Anyway, it seems that there are really no great technological barriers to overcome, and certainly no impossibilities. Here's an excerpt from an article on economist.com outlining, among other things, how the transmission of DC current over vast distances (specifically related to the problem of transmitting power from alternative energy sources): http://www.economist.com/specialreports/di...tent=readBottom It seems to me that I've offered up quite a bit of proof, while you, the 'physicist', have offered nothing but unsupported arguments from authority and weak insults. Please enlighten the masses as to how this is impossible or just get back to work on the next version of your textbook. Or fling another lame-ass insult, your choice. One thing I am absolutely certain about - you may claim to be a Physicist, but you are no Albert Einstein.

Then there's this (from the same Wiki page): Superconducting cables High-temperature superconductors promise to revolutionize power distribution by providing lossless transmission of electrical power. The development of superconductors with transition temperatures higher than the boiling point of liquid nitrogen has made the concept of superconducting power lines commercially feasible, at least for high-load applications. [26] It has been estimated that the waste would be halved using this method, since the necessary refrigeration equipment would consume about half the power saved by the elimination of the majority of resistive losses. Such cables are particularly suited to high load density areas such as the business district of large cities, where purchase of a wayleave for cables would be very costly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission I guess the lesson I learned today is that it's easy to say something is impossible or violates every law of physics. It's also easy to accept everything you read on a message board as gospel, especially if it coincides with your preconceived notions and/or worldview. Thankfully, it's also easy to use Google as an alternative to the above.

Did you read the article? It seems to be a commonly accepted measurement, but I'm just a moron, so don't take it from me. Here's the Wiki page I found the link on. Check out the Loses section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission Reading is fun even if Einstein is rolling over in his grave!

Really? The oil industry you say? Forgive my skepticism. And in reality, it would be almost nothing like the Air Force ditching jet fighters for biplanes from WWI. It would be more like the Air Force continuing to use biplanes from WWI just until they finish developing jet fighters as a viable alternative.

Incidentally, the distance from NYC to LA is approximately 2444 miles (3933 kilometers), not that we'd actually have to transmit power from NYC to LA or vice-versa in any case.

After some research (as opposed to just regurgitating whatever is posted on this board), I fail to see the impossibility of long-distance power transmission. The exploitation of remote energy sources at low cost (e.g. hydro or mine-mouth, coal-fired plant suitable for producing electricity at a cost of the order of 10 - 25 mills/kWh) is now feasible and economical for distances never before entertained. For example, transmission systems can be set-up over a distance of as much as 7000 km in d.c and 3000-4000 km in a.c. such that, by offering an acceptable reliability level for the receiving system concerned, present costs small enough (from 5 to 20 mills/kwh) as to make advantageous the exploitation of those sources, when compared to generation at 30 - 35 mills/kWh located in the vicinity of load centers. The unit cost of the electric power, transmitted by d.c, shows only small increases when increasing transmission distance: for every additional 1000 km the increase is of the order of 1.5 and 2.6 mills/kWh for transmission of 10 GW and 2.5 GW respectively. By consequence, variations in the cost of energy produced close to consumption centers (as determined by market prices) that may even be smaller than those registered during the past ten years, results in shifts of hundreds (or thousands) of km in the competitive distances of remote sources. http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/t...ems/index.shtml Did we find a way to violate every law of physics? I can't wait for faster-than-light travel!

Sorry, it's much easier to shoot big ideas down. Why fix it if it ain't broke?

Wow, you're a !@#$ing ahole for sure. Right, the constructive thing to do is to try to discredit Gore's plan by cherry picking the part you deem unrealistic instead of discussing the merits of what he's talking about long-term. Whatever makes you think you're right I guess. Repeating the same thing over and over again must make it true. I forgot the strict code that's so closely followed on this board. All threads must stay strictly on topic. Sorry for straying so far. Off. Topic. !@#$ing myopic retard.

fixed

I think you missed the point or are just trying to be intimidating. Either way the analogy I think you're making is between two completely different types of power plants. I'll leave it to you to worry about my use of the word analogy - as if that has absolutely anything to do with this discussion. Putting your childish ad hominem attack aside, how the hell can you honestly argue that construction and development costs are the only thing that should be taken into account here? The financial and environmental costs and benefits over time mean everything here, unless you're only worried about your own brief window of existence. All manufacturing has a carbon cost right up until the point where you start getting your energy from solar, wind nuclear, etc... At that point concrete production, silicon refining and carbon fiber manufacturing start to leave a much smaller footprint. Are you saying that we should continue to use polluting, diminishing resources like coal and oil and not pursue these other things because of the carbon footprint created in the production of solar panels and windmills? WTF does that get us except even more carbon in the atmosphere and an increasing dependence on external sources of fuel?

Promise?

A buck a watt over what period of time? You're right it would be more expensive at first, but I'm sure you could imagine that the construction costs would lessen as the technologies are further developed and become more efficient. I'd also think you might be able to imagine that the cost of fueling these types of plants would be orders of magnitude less than coal plants, as there would be no need to mine the fuel source, transport it from wherever you're getting it or process it upon arrival. Once these types of plants are online, your only concern would be maintenance. Depending on development/construction costs and energy conversion efficiency, these types of plants would likely eventually pay for themselves. I think your analogy is a bit off. There are many factors to consider here and we should not give up on striving towards these goals simply because it is hard.

Personally, I don't give two ***** about what you have to say. It just seems a waste of everyone's time to read the same tired comments time after time after time. Perhaps I can create a bot for you that will scan PPP and insert random lame Obama quips of your design after any post entered by anyone you designate a libtard. And trust me - being subjected to silly, irrelevant nonsense posts is WELL worth not having to put up with the people you would prefer to have in office. I'm sure you must be doing quite well if you're still supporting these failed political ideals, but most of the rest of us are at least indirectly glad that you're not happy at the moment. I'd imagine that you voted for Bush twice and would be proud to tell anyone you meet. Thanks again for that.

Holy !@#$ing sh--! Put Al Gore's name on anything and the usual suspects come out and shoot it down without any !@#$ing thought. There are many reasons to get off of oil even if you don't "believe" in global warming. Do it for whatever reason you like. Wow, never thought of it that way. Great points. Try harder - you're better than that. Well if you can't conceive of it, it must not be possible. Your facts certainly back up your point. Actually, the best, most efficient accessible source of energy (pound for pound) is (debatably) nuclear (or nucular for the non-sciency types) fission or fusion. a.k.a. the Sun and nuclear power plants. Now if only we could harness those things... Yea, we get it - McCain lost and you're not happy about it. Time to let it go.

I couldn't agree more. The woman is obviously a bumbling idiot. The people who are incited by her ridiculous rhetoric make her look like a frigin Mensa scholar. Gotta love "Real America" - you know, the America that wants to kill the President.

Saying Obama pals around with terrorists is SO last week...

Some sort of Kool-Aid reference in your signature would probably save you a lot of typing. Carpal Tunnel is a B word! Perhaps it's time for a new catch phrase? Maybe switch it up with some theme music? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T0GRjxOP98 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghxn38bX7w0

Aw, he was really just looking to slip Bubba in there. The other 3 names were pulled out of a hat. Lincoln? Really?

It's all over but the cryin'

Yes, that was for you. :whores:

I think he was saying that Clinton and W should not be included in the poll because enough time has not yet passed to decide how effective their presidencies were. Doesn't mean we can't talk about it here, though.

With time running out on our current Commander in Chief, I thought this might be a good topic. Personally, I don't think I've seen enough Presidents to have a truly informed opinion on the matter, but I did find this article interesting: http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html I'm sure it's just written by a bunch of commie liberal college types (who are really only into whores and beer pong) - or at least that's the response this will get from some. But considering his abysmal approval rating, are these historians really that far off? Would this election still be considered so important if the man wasn't a complete failure in so many ways? Who was worse than George W. Bush? Let the sh-- storm begin!

Good Ol' Joe's gonna have a tough time paying for any medical costs with no job and no income. Do you think he's for cutting unemployment and welfare too? He is a near perfect example of voting against your own economic interests - not a smart man.