Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 Fortunately, I'm fine. Your dad was a lousy shot, and it's 100% heritable. !@#$ you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 No, the lower your energy density, the fewer transportation nodes you want in the system. Shipping large amounts to a centralized place is more efficient than shipping small amounts all over the country. Is there anything you won't get backwards? You're utterly wrong. Let's say your goal is to burn leaves and other yard waste for electricity. Maybe hauling those leaves from Ohio to California would consume more energy than the leaves themselves would give back. But if you only have to haul them a short distance--20 miles say--you're using a lot less energy. You still have the challenge of building a plant that's a) relatively small, and b) reasonably efficient. But at least that's a possible task, whereas it may be impossible to get back the energy you'd spend moving those leaves or dead shrubs or whatever from place to place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 You're utterly wrong. Let's say your goal is to burn leaves and other yard waste for electricity. Maybe hauling those leaves from Ohio to California would consume more energy than the leaves themselves would give back. But if you only have to haul them a short distance--20 miles say--you're using a lot less energy. You still have the challenge of building a plant that's a) relatively small, and b) reasonably efficient. But at least that's a possible task, whereas it may be impossible to get back the energy you'd spend moving those leaves or dead shrubs or whatever from place to place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 More spam, because I'm an inconsiderate jerk who couldn't care less about ruining JSP's perfectly good thread. All that matters to me is my crusade against Holcombs_Arm. Thanks for expressing yourself so clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 You're utterly wrong. Let's say your goal is to burn leaves and other yard waste for electricity. Maybe hauling those leaves from Ohio to California would consume more energy than the leaves themselves would give back. But if you only have to haul them a short distance--20 miles say--you're using a lot less energy. You still have the challenge of building a plant that's a) relatively small, and b) reasonably efficient. But at least that's a possible task, whereas it may be impossible to get back the energy you'd spend moving those leaves or dead shrubs or whatever from place to place. Uh, no, I'm utterly right, because in the real world THAT'S HOW IT'S DONE. Only in your little idiot world does a multitude of smaller facilities with a multitude of transport actually increase efficiency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 1. The electric cars were expensive to produce. Those who made the movie felt costs could come down as a result of economies of scale. Instead, the project was abandoned. The movie was made in part by the former GM employees who were responsible for the electric car project. It also included testimonials from electric car customers; some of whom were famous celebrities. GM has issued a public explanation for why it abandoned its electric car project. This isn't some old wives' tale. The electric car was killed for the following reasons (among others) California had passed a law requiring a certain percentage of all vehicles to be zero emissions by a specific date. GM wanted to derail that law, believing it wouldn't be able to meet its requirements. Without functional zero emissions vehicles, it's a lot easier to say the law's requirements are impossible to meet. The electric car was too expensive to produce. Some law would have required GM to stock replacement parts for electric cars in all GM dealerships. It wanted to avoid this burden. GM had elected to pursue a more SUV-intensive strategy with the acquisition of Hummer. It no longer felt it needed the electric car. 3. I wasn't trying to reinvent the term "solar," merely making the observation that most energy ultimately comes from the sun. Again, if you see me using the term "solar," it will be in the traditionally accepted meaning of the term. 4. My point was that a lot of plant waste is simply left to rot. If we burned it in power plants, we could turn that potential energy into electricity. What percentage of our power needs could be met through that mechanism? I don't know, but it's well worth doing. I'm not advocating chopping down Yellowstone for this purpose; but I do have my eye on people's yard waste, on corn stalks, on forests which naturally burn down anyway, etc. If something's burning, it may as well be producing electricity. Lets see, the holcombs arm list of credible sources... 1. wikipedia 2. a movie on electric cars 3. celebrities when do we get to add: 4. The bum fred from the corner of 3rd and madison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Uh, no, I'm utterly right, because in the real world THAT'S HOW IT'S DONE. Only in your little idiot world does a multitude of smaller facilities with a multitude of transport actually increase efficiency. That's how it's done with coal. Dealing with something different from coal requires a different way of thinking. One which you apparently don't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Lets see, the holcombs arm list of credible sources... 1. wikipedia 2. a movie on electric cars 3. celebrities when do we get to add: 4. The bum fred from the corner of 3rd and madison It's this kind of spam that JSP doesn't want to see in this threads. And I can't blame him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 It's this kind of spam that JSP doesn't want to see in this threads. And I can't blame him. No, you catweasel, I don't want YOUR spam in my threads. If you didn't respond, they wouldn't spam. I don't know how many more times I have to say it until you get it through that concrete melon of yours. As an illustration, this thread has 108 or so posts in it. I'd wager that 80+ of them are related to you somehow. You're the cause of spam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 That's how it's done with coal. Dealing with something different from coal requires a different way of thinking. One which you apparently don't understand. Somehow bushes can only be burned locally...unlike coal...because they're bushes...and not coal... You get too hung up on labels. We're not talking about coal vs. leaves. We're talking about the efficiency of energy producing systems using fuels with different energy budgets. Doesn't matter if it's coal, or leaves, or hamsters. The constraints on the system don't change, just their relative values. But look at me...trying to explain systems theory to a boy who as we speak probably has a Lego block jammed up his nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 No, you catweasel, I don't want YOUR spam in my threads. If you didn't respond, they wouldn't spam. I don't know how many more times I have to say it until you get it through that concrete melon of yours. As an illustration, this thread has 108 or so posts in it. I'd wager that 80+ of them are related to you somehow. You're the cause of spam. "Catweasel"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 "Catweasel"? Yogi Berra moment. You'll have to pardon me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Yogi Berra moment. You'll have to pardon me. Oh, no, it was great. I think I liked it better than "Energizer Bunny of stupid". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 Oh, no, it was great. I think I liked it better than "Energizer Bunny of stupid". Well, for someone as adept in pernicious asshattery as HA, it felt suitable at the moment I typed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Somehow bushes can only be burned locally...unlike coal...because they're bushes...and not coal... You get too hung up on labels. We're not talking about coal vs. leaves. We're talking about the efficiency of energy producing systems using fuels with different energy budgets. Doesn't matter if it's coal, or leaves, or hamsters. The constraints on the system don't change, just their relative values. But look at me...trying to explain systems theory to a boy who as we speak probably has a Lego block jammed up his nose. At least I didn't have some bird use my face as its very own dumping grounds . . . If you want to explain systems theory to someone else, I suggest you first develop an understanding of it yourself. If you had the slightest idea as to what you were talking about, you'd realize that the lower the relevant energy density for a fuel source, the lower the optimal transportation distance is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 No, you catweasel, I don't want YOUR spam in my threads. If you didn't respond, they wouldn't spam. I don't know how many more times I have to say it until you get it through that concrete melon of yours. As an illustration, this thread has 108 or so posts in it. I'd wager that 80+ of them are related to you somehow. You're the cause of spam. Well, if you insist on blaming someone other than the spammers for their spam, then I can't stop you. Good luck to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 Well, if you insist on blaming someone other than the spammers for their spam, then I can't stop you. Good luck to you. OUT! OUT! OOOOOOUT!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 If you want to explain systems theory to someone else, I suggest you first develop an understanding of it yourself. Oh, I'm pretty sure I know more about it than most of the people on the board. I don't think anyone here's under the delusion that I know less about it than you. If you had the slightest idea as to what you were talking about, you'd realize that the lower the relevant energy density for a fuel source, the lower the optimal transportation distance is. TOTAL transportation distance. If you have a multitude of smaller facilities, you have a larger transportation network, and a LONGER DISTANCE, you idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 OUT! OUT! OOOOOOUT!!! Give up. You can spend months explaining it to him, and he still won't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Oh, I'm pretty sure I know more about it than most of the people on the board. I don't think anyone here's under the delusion that I know less about it than you.TOTAL transportation distance. If you have a multitude of smaller facilities, you have a larger transportation network, and a LONGER DISTANCE, you idiot. You are not thinking correctly. Pave more roads. that will fix your network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts