- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Messages
- 11,963
- Reaction score
- 3,543
- Location
- Naperville, IL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
A VERY important thing to remember is that CO2 is not a pollutant.
They aren't government controlled per se, but it takes a huge amount of money to erect them. The government helps pay for a lot of it.
I would prefer localized power generation, however, its near impossible to get anyone to support it.
Localized power generation would be more adaptable to market conditions and can come from varying sources (solar, micro-nuclear, coal, etc.).
Hell, even Edison agreed that we should be using DC instead of AC.
Well, a VERY important think to actually know is that CO is a pollutant.
They should really put word limits on these things. Seriously. If you can't fit it into 2,000 words it's worthless.
Ok, I see what you mean now. The main thing that I liked with DC over AC was that all of the equations and problems related to it were much simpler.
Why won't people support more local power generation?
Hell, even Edison agreed that we should be using DC instead of AC.
Well, a VERY important think to actually know is that CO is a pollutant.
There is healthy skepticism. And there is moronic denialism.
Ok, I see what you mean now. The main thing that I liked with DC over AC was that all of the equations and problems related to it were much simpler.
Why won't people support more local power generation?
DC has many added benefits like the fact that it is safer if you get electrocuted.
Edison was wrong.
There, that's all solved.
We use AC because transmission losses are dominated by the current transmitted. The use of alternating high voltage allows the use of transformers to create the current locally, instead of shipping the electrons all over the place direct.
Not true.
AC current spasms the muscles, and a person will let go.
DC current goes one way, the muscles contract, and you don't let go.
Or so my electrician pals in the Navy told me.
Edison isn't wrong is you want to have local, competitive, free market power supplies.
AC is great for regional areas but not good for competitive markets.
Your buddy is right but it seems that AC has a higher chance of stopping your heart.
But you can restart a heart, no?
And the longer you hold onto it, the more damage you would take.
If green energy were practical, private industry would already be buying into it. The fact tha they're not is a very telling commentary.
Says who exactly?
Keynes. And your opinion is rather irrelevant. Especially when the ideal world you want leads to 1990s Somalia when applied to reality.
Keynes did not write the law of this country. He's not God either.
Indeed he is not. But he is still correct regardless. Keynes described four jobs of the government, one of which was public works. I don't see how anything in your reply is of any value. Socrates never wrote the laws of the country nor that we know of, is God. But his method of the dialectic is an excellent learning tool. The notion that we should reject something for your reasons is asinine.
Incorrect. Your statement is a failure to understand capitalism. Private industry allocates capital to where it knows it can make the required rate of return. Merely because something is practical does not equate to private industry investment.
If the required rate of return is unknown or above what can be reasonably assumed, private industry does not engage in it.
Space tourism was practical, but not sufficiently profitable for a very long time.
Health care for the poor is practical, but the profits are so tiny that it's not worth doing.
The senate that gave zero support to Kyoto. Not a single vote.The Cap and Tax bill is going to die in the Senate.
CO is a pollutant, CO2 is not. Huge difference. We breathe out CO2 and it is useful to plants. CO is harmful to both us and plants (probably fungi too).
I was trying to teach my self basic electronics and I couldn't finish the book because I don't know calculus. I was trying to get a head start on my part of my major.
Your absolutely right.
In some ways it can be counted as local and it other ways it isn't.
The plant closest to me is about 20 miles away, so it can kinda be considered local.
It isn't really practical to use AC to generate power locally when you can use it to generate power regionally.
DC has many added benefits like the fact that it is safer if you get electrocuted. The electric chair was invented to prove how dangerous AC power generation could be.
But like I said earlier, you'd have to retrofit every home with a true sine wave inverter until people bought all new tvs, computers, other electronics, nearly everything. Not many want to do that.
True sine wave inverters are expensive.
Edison was wrong.
There, that's all solved.
We use AC because transmission losses are dominated by the current transmitted. The use of alternating high voltage allows the use of transformers to create the current locally, instead of shipping the electrons all over the place direct.
Not true.
AC current spasms the muscles, and a person will let go.
DC current goes one way, the muscles contract, and you don't let go.
Or so my electrician pals in the Navy told me.
Depends on the concentration....plant life reaches a saturation point above which it cannot use any more CO2. Just like Oxygen for us, too much, and it is bad for us.
If plants grew on CO2 alone, it might work for us, but give plants too much CO2 without the water, sunlight, nutrients from the soil, etc. and the plants will just die.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?