Global warming not only increases, but accelerates in a self-feeding reaction that extinguishes all life* on the planet Earth.
Care to elaborate? What study is this scenario from? Does it account for natural feedback systems (e.g. it gets hot, lots of water vapor in the air, AKA clouds, which reflect sun light/heat back into space)? What time line? Or are you just spouting unsubstantiated BS?
My very pro-environment professors all see ethanol as a big joke, at least when used as a fuel additive/replacement. They claim it takes almost twice as much energy to create ethanol than you get from burning it.
Just goes to show that being pro-environment and/or a professor doesn't exempt you from being a dumbass on any particular environmental issue.
Isn't that the same as solar cells, given that they require massive amounts of energy to make, output feeble amounts of energy on a per-cell basis
Aren't these arguments based on the solar cells being produced 30 years ago? The technology has improved steadily since then.
Enthanol/methanol are a far better automotive fuel than electricity, so if this replaces the (misguided) efforts to produce electric cars, that would be excellent.
Electric cars could actually do well in niche markets, but better still, how about a hybrid electric that runs on ethanol?
I have two big worries with electric cars. The biggest being the batteries - by necessity, the greater the energy density of the battery, the nastier the chemicals inside it have to be.
I believe NiMH batteries are generally considered non-toxic (and less toxic than standard lead-acid batteries).
The other great worry is that electric cars all must be recharged somewhere - how many new nuclear and coal power plants will have to be built to keep all these electric cars recharged?
Hopefully, new solar technology will play a role. But nuclear is emissions-free (there is the problem of spent fuel, but how that concentrated waste compares to waste from other generation methods is debatable), and coal is getting cleaner. I don't have numbers to compare the emissions generated by a coal plant for the energy needed to charge an EV, so it is hard to compare to the emissions from a gasoline powered car/truck/SUV over similar mileage. But I've heard it argued that the economics of scale probably favor the EV.
Besides, how much waste straw do you think is lying around?
No idea, but that is irrelevant. It appears that nearly any farm waste can be used, as well as other cellulose-based waste (e.g. wood chips, sawdust, yard waste) that people/companies often pay to have removed. It may not be the solution to the world's energy problems, but it is a lot more of a step in the right direction than you give credit for.
Actually, water does change density based on temperature. It is most dense at 4 degrees C. As it gets warmer, the density decreases. This site has some numbers. Based on the density variation from 20-40 degrees, a 1 degree global change would increase the volume of water in the worlds oceans roughly 300,000 cubic kilometers (I used 1 billion for current volume, for simplicity). Or (again, pretty rough calculations) about enough to raise sea level around 10 cm. Probably 1/2 to 1/4 of that is more realistic, though since the density change over that range is more significant than the lower range, where most ocean water probably fits.
Any water taken from polar ice is effectively melted. This is because it isn't "used up" as such unless you electrolyse it or something - it will sooner or later (probably sooner) find its way back to the sea via rivers or groundwater.
Not necessarily. If, for instance, you're irrigating desert into farmland, you will be binding a lot of water into the system.
It's simply that the oil will be pulled out as fast as we can sell it.
Absolutely true. But as the previous post pointed out, it will get more and more expensive to extract. So the price will go up. And we won't be able to sell it as fast. So no abrupt crash. It might not be comfortable, but it won't be "here today, gone tomorrow", either.
Or we could simply realize that as the problem gets worse economic pressures will naturally solve the problem.
Yeah, just like "economic pressures" delivered clean air, and fresh water, and clean food.
Apples and oranges. Pollution is an indirect cost vs. direct cost for power. Since burning fossil fuels is widely hailed as the greatest contributor to Global Warming, the problem is really the burning of fossil fuels. Here is how economic pressures solve the problem of fossil fuels:
Obviously, fossil fuels are finite resources. Cheap oil even moreso. As supplies diminish, scarcity (real, not the artificial OPEC type) comes into play, driving prices up. So let's say for the sake of argument that a unit of energy produced from fossil fuel today cost $X and the same unit of energy produced from renewable resources costs $Y. Currently Y > X by enough that renewables are not cost competitive for most applications. But we've already established that X is going to increase over time, and historically Y has decreased. The closer Y gets to X, the greater the number of applications for which renewables are cost effective and the more widely renewables will be adopted, which will in turn drive prices down for renewables due to greater economies of scale in the production of the hardware, etc... for renewable power generation. So Y keeps going down, X keeps going up, and eventually Y=X, then Y There are unanswered questions, mainly how fast is Global Warming happening and how fast will greener power sources become cost effective. And you probably have a lot better chance of figuring out the latter than the former.
What if we start harvesting polar ice now for areas with inadequate supplies of fresh water? Then we don't have to worry about flooding if we do get too warm, because the ice/water will already be used up!
Seriously, I wonder if population projections are part of these studies, and the possibility that we will be taking more water out of the system? What kind of population numbers are necessary to affect the water balance between artificial systems and the oceans?
In Australia there's a points system. A minor speeding infringement is 1 point.... If you lose 12 points in 3 years then your license is revoked for a minimum of 3 months (longer suspensions for more serious offences).
Many U.S. states have point systems as well. But the system you use doesn't really matter if there is not sufficient enforcement, which seems to be the case in much of the U.S. And if you do catch people and take away their licenses, there needs to be some serious consequences beyond that, otherwise people will just continue to drive anyway, license or no.
Compromised information systems are a real danger. Especially in the military where good vs. bad information can mean the difference between bombing an enemy position, or the Chinese embassy.
Where have Unions historically had the largest presence? Manufacturing, right? How has the job outlook in manufacturing fared over the last 20-30 years? IIRC, manufacturing jobs peaked in the mid to late 70's and are now down about 25% from that level. Percentage of workers in manufacturing has also declined over the years.
Really though, we don't need an I.T. union. I mean, if our jobs move overseas or whatever, we can always go get a manufacturing job, since the unions saved that industry, right?
Out of college, you should expect about 15% less than average....
Why? The average age for white collar professionals is something like 44 (it is over 50 for mainframe I.T. workers, IIRC -- good field to go into) which implies around 20 years of work experience (though not necessarily in current job function). With zero experience (the OP did not mention CO-OP or internship), $25-30K is probably not unreasonable depending on the local job market (cost of living around here is fairly low, so you might adjust upward a little if you're in a more expensive/higher paying area).
Then it is a sad commentary on our education system that you don't know it's "Summa Cum Laude". Hopefully, it was just a typo.
Aside from that, I basically agree. The job market is tight. But things seem to be turning around. Right now I definitely would not advise anyone to decline a job offer because you expect something better to come along (you should already have a better offer before you reject one). In the next few years that will probably change, but not yet.
What I am really wondering about is if this could also be used to refuel your hydrogen powered car. FREE fuel! Now that would make the investment easily pay off.
One of the problems with developing hydrogen fueled vehicles is storing the hydrogen. Having an enormous tank in your yard is one thing, towing it around behind your car is another. Of course, you can just compress it more, but then you add some risk by having a tank that still may be fairly large under extremely high pressure. This is of most concern when something collides with your vehicle, or vice versa. There are a number of ways to work around this, including just using the hydrogen from more complex hydrocarbons (i.e. petroleum products) in a fuel cell. Lots of people are working on hydrogen fueled cars. So far, I don't think anyone has put all the pieces together.
Oh and the cost.... well, the fuel may be free but you'll pay a lot up front (solar cells, water purification, fuel cell for the house, storage and/or fuel cell for the car). Do a cost benefit analysis before you sign...
Also, the word is that the Hindenburg's frame continued burning and that was the reason for all the carnage.
It was the fabric covering. And while it was indeed a disaster, only 36 people died (including one of the ground crew), meaning 62 of the passengers and crew survived.
Actually, it appears that hydrogen would be less dangerous than natural gas (both due to the fact that it has lower energy density and that is diffuses rapidly into the air), which millions of people use year in and year out without the disasterous results you anticipate. It is true that natural gas accidents occur, but I believe electrical fires and cooking accidents cause more house fires in the U.S. Not sure if the old fall-asleep-with-a-cigarette type is as common, but I hear more often about people buring down their houses with candles or kerosene heaters (usually trying to refill them while running or too hot) than I do about natural gas.
Well, real prescription drugs, sure. How many of those spammers do you think will send you anything, let alone real undiluted drugs produced in FDA (or similar agency) approved processes/conditions?
Slashdot Mirror
Care to elaborate? What study is this scenario from? Does it account for natural feedback systems (e.g. it gets hot, lots of water vapor in the air, AKA clouds, which reflect sun light/heat back into space)? What time line? Or are you just spouting unsubstantiated BS?
Just goes to show that being pro-environment and/or a professor doesn't exempt you from being a dumbass on any particular environmental issue.
Aren't these arguments based on the solar cells being produced 30 years ago? The technology has improved steadily since then.
Enthanol/methanol are a far better automotive fuel than electricity, so if this replaces the (misguided) efforts to produce electric cars, that would be excellent.
Electric cars could actually do well in niche markets, but better still, how about a hybrid electric that runs on ethanol?
I have two big worries with electric cars. The biggest being the batteries - by necessity, the greater the energy density of the battery, the nastier the chemicals inside it have to be.
I believe NiMH batteries are generally considered non-toxic (and less toxic than standard lead-acid batteries).
The other great worry is that electric cars all must be recharged somewhere - how many new nuclear and coal power plants will have to be built to keep all these electric cars recharged?
Hopefully, new solar technology will play a role. But nuclear is emissions-free (there is the problem of spent fuel, but how that concentrated waste compares to waste from other generation methods is debatable), and coal is getting cleaner. I don't have numbers to compare the emissions generated by a coal plant for the energy needed to charge an EV, so it is hard to compare to the emissions from a gasoline powered car/truck/SUV over similar mileage. But I've heard it argued that the economics of scale probably favor the EV.
No idea, but that is irrelevant. It appears that nearly any farm waste can be used, as well as other cellulose-based waste (e.g. wood chips, sawdust, yard waste) that people/companies often pay to have removed. It may not be the solution to the world's energy problems, but it is a lot more of a step in the right direction than you give credit for.
Actually, water does change density based on temperature. It is most dense at 4 degrees C. As it gets warmer, the density decreases. This site has some numbers. Based on the density variation from 20-40 degrees, a 1 degree global change would increase the volume of water in the worlds oceans roughly 300,000 cubic kilometers (I used 1 billion for current volume, for simplicity). Or (again, pretty rough calculations) about enough to raise sea level around 10 cm. Probably 1/2 to 1/4 of that is more realistic, though since the density change over that range is more significant than the lower range, where most ocean water probably fits.
Not necessarily. If, for instance, you're irrigating desert into farmland, you will be binding a lot of water into the system.
Absolutely true. But as the previous post pointed out, it will get more and more expensive to extract. So the price will go up. And we won't be able to sell it as fast. So no abrupt crash. It might not be comfortable, but it won't be "here today, gone tomorrow", either.
Obviously, fossil fuels are finite resources. Cheap oil even moreso. As supplies diminish, scarcity (real, not the artificial OPEC type) comes into play, driving prices up. So let's say for the sake of argument that a unit of energy produced from fossil fuel today cost $X and the same unit of energy produced from renewable resources costs $Y. Currently Y > X by enough that renewables are not cost competitive for most applications. But we've already established that X is going to increase over time, and historically Y has decreased. The closer Y gets to X, the greater the number of applications for which renewables are cost effective and the more widely renewables will be adopted, which will in turn drive prices down for renewables due to greater economies of scale in the production of the hardware, etc... for renewable power generation. So Y keeps going down, X keeps going up, and eventually Y=X, then Y There are unanswered questions, mainly how fast is Global Warming happening and how fast will greener power sources become cost effective. And you probably have a lot better chance of figuring out the latter than the former.
Seriously, I wonder if population projections are part of these studies, and the possibility that we will be taking more water out of the system? What kind of population numbers are necessary to affect the water balance between artificial systems and the oceans?
Many U.S. states have point systems as well. But the system you use doesn't really matter if there is not sufficient enforcement, which seems to be the case in much of the U.S. And if you do catch people and take away their licenses, there needs to be some serious consequences beyond that, otherwise people will just continue to drive anyway, license or no.
Compromised information systems are a real danger. Especially in the military where good vs. bad information can mean the difference between bombing an enemy position, or the Chinese embassy.
Really though, we don't need an I.T. union. I mean, if our jobs move overseas or whatever, we can always go get a manufacturing job, since the unions saved that industry, right?
Why? The average age for white collar professionals is something like 44 (it is over 50 for mainframe I.T. workers, IIRC -- good field to go into) which implies around 20 years of work experience (though not necessarily in current job function). With zero experience (the OP did not mention CO-OP or internship), $25-30K is probably not unreasonable depending on the local job market (cost of living around here is fairly low, so you might adjust upward a little if you're in a more expensive/higher paying area).
Then it is a sad commentary on our education system that you don't know it's "Summa Cum Laude". Hopefully, it was just a typo.
Aside from that, I basically agree. The job market is tight. But things seem to be turning around. Right now I definitely would not advise anyone to decline a job offer because you expect something better to come along (you should already have a better offer before you reject one). In the next few years that will probably change, but not yet.
One of the problems with developing hydrogen fueled vehicles is storing the hydrogen. Having an enormous tank in your yard is one thing, towing it around behind your car is another. Of course, you can just compress it more, but then you add some risk by having a tank that still may be fairly large under extremely high pressure. This is of most concern when something collides with your vehicle, or vice versa. There are a number of ways to work around this, including just using the hydrogen from more complex hydrocarbons (i.e. petroleum products) in a fuel cell. Lots of people are working on hydrogen fueled cars. So far, I don't think anyone has put all the pieces together.
Oh and the cost.... well, the fuel may be free but you'll pay a lot up front (solar cells, water purification, fuel cell for the house, storage and/or fuel cell for the car). Do a cost benefit analysis before you sign...
It was the fabric covering. And while it was indeed a disaster, only 36 people died (including one of the ground crew), meaning 62 of the passengers and crew survived.
Actually, it appears that hydrogen would be less dangerous than natural gas (both due to the fact that it has lower energy density and that is diffuses rapidly into the air), which millions of people use year in and year out without the disasterous results you anticipate. It is true that natural gas accidents occur, but I believe electrical fires and cooking accidents cause more house fires in the U.S. Not sure if the old fall-asleep-with-a-cigarette type is as common, but I hear more often about people buring down their houses with candles or kerosene heaters (usually trying to refill them while running or too hot) than I do about natural gas.
Well, real prescription drugs, sure. How many of those spammers do you think will send you anything, let alone real undiluted drugs produced in FDA (or similar agency) approved processes/conditions?
Allright, bend over!