Who's looking forward to a 60 state America!!!

Page 2 of 2 First 12

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    You mean it is not valid to analyze sparse data from isolated weather beacons from 1950-2000, compared with contemporary global climate trends?

    What I find hilarious is this: Google "Fossil fuel consumption since 1900" and then Google, "Climate tracking since ~1925" (when they began oceanic measurements in earnest) and see if a correlative pattern appears. If the 'CO2 Theory' is correct, the exponentially increased consumption of fossil fuels immediately proceeding the IR should coincide with a steady increase in temperature.

    (hint: It doesn't).
    Oh, it's fun.

    Some of the conclusions scientists come with, and the experimentation and data used to come up with such conclusions are, in my opinion, outlandishly funny.

    If you look at the histories of some fields or look into some of the newly developed fields of study, the research is kinda funny. I've been doing a bunch of research on hydrogen fuel cells for one of my classes, and it's pretty funny stuff once you factor in economics.
    1) Hydrogen cannot be produced at any rate of economic feasibility without producing loads of Carbon Dioxide.
    2) Hydrogen cannot be mass-produced with a high enough purity that it won't destroy the hydrogen fuel cell.
    3) Any sized air leak will turn your car into the Hindenburg.

    And don't get me started on ethanol. It's only purpose is making ugly chicks temporarily attractive, and so Pharm companies can make "prescription-strength" fish oil.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by thesinner View Post
    1) Hydrogen cannot be produced at any rate of economic feasibility without producing loads of Carbon Dioxide.
    2) Hydrogen cannot be mass-produced with a high enough purity that it won't destroy the hydrogen fuel cell.
    I'd argue that these two aren't true of using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, but unless we had a lot more nuclear power plants its not cost effective either (and still would burn coal or fossil fuels to create the electricity)
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by thesinner View Post
    I wish Katie Couric and Sarah Palin made out.
    Even better.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by thesinner View Post
    Oh, it's fun.

    Some of the conclusions scientists come with, and the experimentation and data used to come up with such conclusions are, in my opinion, outlandishly funny.

    If you look at the histories of some fields or look into some of the newly developed fields of study, the research is kinda funny. I've been doing a bunch of research on hydrogen fuel cells for one of my classes, and it's pretty funny stuff once you factor in economics.
    1) Hydrogen cannot be produced at any rate of economic feasibility without producing loads of Carbon Dioxide.
    2) Hydrogen cannot be mass-produced with a high enough purity that it won't destroy the hydrogen fuel cell.
    3) Any sized air leak will turn your car into the Hindenburg.

    And don't get me started on ethanol. It's only purpose is making ugly chicks temporarily attractive, and so Pharm companies can make "prescription-strength" fish oil.
    Everybody loves alternative fuels; nobody loves energy turnover ratios - specifically, that it takes more crude-oil to produce 1L of hydrogen-fuel than it does 1L of 81 Octane.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Everybody loves alternative fuels; nobody loves energy turnover ratios - specifically, that it takes more crude-oil to produce 1L of hydrogen-fuel than it does 1L of 81 Octane.
    Oh yeah.

    They've been trying to "make it happen" with hydrogen fuel cells for like 100 years now.

    I'd argue that these two aren't true of using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, but unless we had a lot more nuclear power plants its not cost effective either (and still would burn coal or fossil fuels to create the electricity)
    1) You need to put it through a transformer because powerplants produce alternating current. You need direct current or else the anodes and cathodes will flip-flop a billion times per second and nothing gets accomplished. When AC gets transfered into DC, the voltage you maintain isn't even in the same order of magnitude.
    2) Time is money. Reaction rates are determined by concentration of BOTH reactants. In order to reduce water into H2 and O2, you will need an assload of amperage.

    Electrolysis is expensive as hell for macro-scale production. Hydrocarbon Reformation is much more efficient and less expensive, but purity and wastes are an issue.
    •   
       


  6. 50, maybe 60, who's counting?


    I say the more the merrier haha
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 40
    Last Post: 11-06-2009, 12:13 PM
  2. Replies: 308
    Last Post: 07-27-2009, 02:25 PM
  3. Forward.
    By l0ck in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-23-2009, 02:08 PM
  4. What State Do You Live In? ANDRAULIC STATE! (Sponsored)
    By fightbackhxc in forum Supplement Logs
    Replies: 368
    Last Post: 07-17-2009, 12:00 PM
  5. Replies: 105
    Last Post: 07-07-2009, 01:55 AM
Log in
Log in