Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 9 of 9     «   Prev   6   7   8   9
EarlyGrayce

Registered:
Posts: 4,789
Reply with quote  #241 
Quote:
Originally Posted by uwApoligist
I disagree about magic anything.  We need market based solutions.  Wind and Solar are both very close.  We need to get our universities back to enjoying, thriving and delivering on base level physics challenges.  

We need them doing base level research work on storage as well.   

That low level physics will definitely result in startup companies.  They are chomping at the bit.  Batteries that can store 5% more based on weight/cost will 100% result in a new start up and be brought to market. 

Remember any percent increase in load that solar/wind takes on directly extends our known oil reserves.

Also we are only at the beginning of 2 very important technologies. 

First is satellite driven oil exploration.  This is super important and has been finding massive deposits of oil and gas.  

Second is fracking.  Which allows us to extract monumentally more oil and gas from existing fields and open fields thought to never be production grade.  While fracking has been around for 30-40 years, we are only just now understanding engineered fluids and what they can accomplish.  This is a very young field, and only some minor engineering/physics/chemistry has proven extremely useful. 

Have you considered the above points?



Good stuff, glad to see you back in the saddle. Fresh and turden missed you. And yes I have considered the above. I addressed fracking in an earlier post I think. 

Just the need for fracking should make the alarm bells go off. Even someone who hasn't really read up on fossil fuel extraction will understand that it is human nature to maximize profits, which requires extracting the cheapest-to-extract supplies first. That would be the liquid oil. Now that globally and locally we have drawn that down, fracking has come back into financial vogue.  People should be asking "why do we need to frack when we have so much new oil that  our satellite's are discovering?"  Fracking is expensive in many ways, and as typical in the oil extraction industry, the true costs are ignored and hidden; drilling three mile horizontal wells, pumping chemicals down into shale and the water table, huge waste 'storage' problems; unfortunately, fracking will allow us to briefly hammer the environment and stagger further down the abyss while continuing to ignore the reality of what the term 'finite supply' means to an ever-expanding demand.
We had an opportunity in the 1970's to alter the path that we are now on. We abandoned that opportunity so that we could continue our orgy of excess. We all chose a belief about what the future will bring, and we all joined one of the four groups that I mentioned in an earlier post. Ultimately,  as long as our leaders and our citizens refuse to say out loud that 1--we will soon run out of oil and 2-- we need to plan, create, and begin implementing a viable alternative to fossil fuels for harnessing and distributing energy throughout this country, then imo within 100 years we will indeed return to life similar in many ways to what it was in the 1500's Europe.

I love your techno-optimism, and I really hope that you are right. I fear that it is way too late for 'new' research into 'beginning' technologies to solve the scope, scale, and timeline of our problem.  Bottom line for me is, ANY further resources poured into any energy 'source' other than solar/wind/hydro that requires fossil fuels (including engineered fluids) is an indication that we continue to refuse to face our reality. Finite means Will Run Out. 

__________________
#PERVNADO
#DEMS2020
TerpAlum

Registered:
Posts: 785
Reply with quote  #242 
Who will teach the physics students when the grad students are gone, because they will be taxed on waived graduate tuition, after this tax bill passes? Who will be able to afford college in the future in general, based on many factors?


woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,034
Reply with quote  #243 
Bernie is your guy. Nominate him next time and see how well free everything does at the ballot box. I’m sure a lot of people will jump on the free college, free HC bandwagon. Not sure how you would propose extracting that kind of wealth from citizens and companies to pay for it all without killing the golden goose.
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
TerpAlum

Registered:
Posts: 785
Reply with quote  #244 
It is not about free.

It is about being able to have grad students, who teach underclassmen. The grad students get tuition waiver and a small stipend to teach. After tax bill passes, they will be taxed at about $70,000 when they get $18,000 salary. So those programs will have to figure out how to get teachers.

Middle class families use current tax deductions to put kids through college. That will be gone.
People who are working and going to school, with support from their employers, they will taxed on employer payments for their classes. We have people attending grad school and even one class is expensive and they may opt not to go.

Teachers' miniscule deduction for supplies will be gone in HS and elem schools.

STEM will be negatively impacted by the tax bill.

Corporations don't always research or innovate in the things our society needs--that is where universities (and organizations like NSF, which is a government agency) come into play.
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,592
Reply with quote  #245 
Quote:
bluedog: Oil-and-gas consumption will always be the order-of-the-day........It will never run-out...........


First, hope I didn't delete one of your beloved dots when cut `n pasting to quote you.

I'm confused. I know there is some reference to a bottomless cup of wine in the bible. Was that story like all the others and merely a metaphor? Was Matty really referring to an oil field?

__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
EarlyGrayce

Registered:
Posts: 4,789
Reply with quote  #246 
Terp, take your socialist sh1tpie nonsense to another thread. I think that there's one where fresh has some advice for you.
__________________
#PERVNADO
#DEMS2020
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 10,009
Reply with quote  #247 
Quote:
I'm confused.


I know..........It's because of where you get your information...........Mankind can't help you anymore than you can help yourself...........
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #248 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlyGrayce



Good stuff, glad to see you back in the saddle. Fresh and turden missed you. And yes I have considered the above. I addressed fracking in an earlier post I think. 

Just the need for fracking should make the alarm bells go off. Even someone who hasn't really read up on fossil fuel extraction will understand that it is human nature to maximize profits, which requires extracting the cheapest-to-extract supplies first. That would be the liquid oil. Now that globally and locally we have drawn that down, fracking has come back into financial vogue.  People should be asking "why do we need to frack when we have so much new oil that  our satellite's are discovering?"  Fracking is expensive in many ways, and as typical in the oil extraction industry, the true costs are ignored and hidden; drilling three mile horizontal wells, pumping chemicals down into shale and the water table, huge waste 'storage' problems; unfortunately, fracking will allow us to briefly hammer the environment and stagger further down the abyss while continuing to ignore the reality of what the term 'finite supply' means to an ever-expanding demand.
We had an opportunity in the 1970's to alter the path that we are now on. We abandoned that opportunity so that we could continue our orgy of excess. We all chose a belief about what the future will bring, and we all joined one of the four groups that I mentioned in an earlier post. Ultimately,  as long as our leaders and our citizens refuse to say out loud that 1--we will soon run out of oil and 2-- we need to plan, create, and begin implementing a viable alternative to fossil fuels for harnessing and distributing energy throughout this country, then imo within 100 years we will indeed return to life similar in many ways to what it was in the 1500's Europe.

I love your techno-optimism, and I really hope that you are right. I fear that it is way too late for 'new' research into 'beginning' technologies to solve the scope, scale, and timeline of our problem.  Bottom line for me is, ANY further resources poured into any energy 'source' other than solar/wind/hydro that requires fossil fuels (including engineered fluids) is an indication that we continue to refuse to face our reality. Finite means Will Run Out. 

The myth that fracking goes directly into the water table is easily proven false.  Oil deposits are always a mix heavy, and light hydrocarbon fluids.  They accumulate in that location because the geology of that location forms a basin that holds those types of liquids.  Most early fracking was forcing benzine into the Oil deposit layer. Benzine is already present in these formations, and was likely pumped from the same well, just reintroduced under pressure.  

Modern fracking is not that far from chemically treated pool water with some salt and some sand.  Oil and gas production industry is heavily regulated and monitored.  There have been spills in the past, and they remain a cause for vigilance, reporting and regulation.  But in general the oli and gas industry remains a vital part of our modern lives energy cycle. 

The reasons the the efforts in the 70's faltered were pure economics.  The reason that things are turning now is economics.  It is just not realistic to think that even something as massive as our federal government could significantly change the economics of energy.  Even if the federal government stopped doing everything else, free college, free healthcare, defense, they could really only make a minor dent in the economics of energy.  Energy represents about 20% of the GDP, it is massive.  Government can and should encourage continued improvements in our approaches, but cannot significantly alter the economics. 

I think the unrealistic economic expectations of some concepts that have been pursued in the past results in their failure.  Worse is that those failures sucked significant capital investment from they system.  That capital would have likely flowed into more economically viable solutions.  The government is horrible at investing in things like this, as we saw in the Solyndra debacle. 

It would be much better if the government would offer several billion in physics and chemistry research grants targeting solar panel efficiency, solar panel production cost reductions, solar panel longevity, battery storage, alternative energy storage, distributed grid energy systems.   Innovations in these areas can easily change the economics of energy production and you will see things improve greatly.

Life will never return to the way it was in the 1500's Europe.  It was not that great.  Famine killed of millions.  Plague/disease killed off millions more.   Life expectancy was like 27 years.  Infant mortality rate was like 15-20%.  

Humans, led by responsabile Americans, will continue to innovate, including innovations in energy production.  It will be an economical viable transition from our current energy consumption

Most of the growth in energy consumption is because we are modernizing parts of the world that have not yet been modernized.  Africa, India, China, Russia all have vast areas and great numbers of people that are being brought into modern society and as a result are consuming more energy.   If it is no longer economically viable to bring those societies forward to modern world standards, then that would stop and energy demand would flatten.  The reason these areas are growing in energy consumption today, is because the world energy production can meet their needs in a cheap enough fashion.  

I am actually impressed with where we have gotten to from an renewables standpoint.  15% of US electrical generation is now renewable.  That is significant.  2% of the worlds energy consumption is renewables.  We are now investing like $400 Billion a year in developing new renewable energy production sites.  We are seeing both the scope and scale of renewable projects grow significantly.  You can only do that with something producing that $400 Billion, with the current wind fields, and solar fields that are generating operating revenue that can then be invested back into building new fields. 

10 years ago someone building a 10 million dollar wind farm was massive news.  Now you see several 100 Million dollar projects going in.  At this same time you have seen the cost of a large wind generator, for example, drop to almost 1/10th of what it cost 10 years ago.  So that 100 Million dollar project is going to produce almost 10x the electricity, just based on cost of turbines.   Those turbines are 30% more efficient.  Our ability to place those wind turbines has improved significantly as well.  So that 100 Million dollar project is going to product like 13 or 14x what that 10 million dollar investment would have produced in the past. 

You are also seeing the reengineering of the distribution network required to keep our electrical grid operating with renewables taking on significant parts  of the load.  The fast start natural gas turbine electrical plants that are getting distributed everywhere are required to allow wind and solar to produce.  You have to be able to let the wind ramp up when there is wind, or solar when there is sun, and be able to replace those renewables when there is no wind or sun.  
 
This is really now a economies of scale problem more than raw innovations problem.






__________________
Who gives a F if the japs are listening to her blathering about women's issues?  
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 10,009
Reply with quote  #249 
When a fracking-well is drilled, the hole that's bored in the ground is drilled to a depth past the water table..........Then, pipe is cemented in the bore-hole..............Only when that cementing is done does the drilling continue...........Nothing coming back through that pipe can get in the water table..........Even if it were to leak through the pipe, the cement would prevent that from happening..............
TerpAlum

Registered:
Posts: 785
Reply with quote  #250 
OK Earlybird, the tax deductions our country gave families for education years ago (and that are being taken away now) are some socialist thing...Maybe you should lobby against that expanded child care credit the repubs are putting in the tax bill.

But not the corporate welfare that the removal of these benefits give companies (and that allowable deduction for private airplanes), that's fine and dandy....got it.

Oh, since all this pie in the sky technology will come out of companies out of the kindness of their hearts...oh I see you all want the government to invest in that. Is that socialist?
EarlyGrayce

Registered:
Posts: 4,789
Reply with quote  #251 
Terp. As far as I can tell from your various posts, you don't seem smart enough to find the theme of this thread and to add meaningfully to it. There is a tax reform thread that would better suit your purpose. 
__________________
#PERVNADO
#DEMS2020
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,776
Reply with quote  #252 
Maybe she can start her own thread. Why do they like to hijack people's work?
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.