Moronic headline in the Daily Mail

[Pocster]

@SteamyTea I read all of that ... not ?

[SteamyTea]

6 minutes ago, pocster said:

@SteamyTea I read all of that ... not ?

Is that because you were seeing if the Zoe will get you to this place.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9428597/Some-loveliest-beauty-spots-plagued-influx-doggers.html

[pdf27]

1 hour ago, joe90 said:

not just electricity, any single source of power, it’s called diversity.

Electricity isn't the source of power though, it's a transport medium. Unlike oil, coal, etc. it's inherently diverse due to the different sources of generation - and there is also a significant demand diversity which you get in larger grids which also helps.

[Pocster]

15 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Is that because you were seeing if the Zoe will get you to this place.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9428597/Some-loveliest-beauty-spots-plagued-influx-doggers.html

One of my all time favourite g spots 

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, pdf27 said:

and there is also a significant demand diversity which you get in larger grids which also helps.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210401211639.htm

[SteamyTea]

3 minutes ago, pocster said:

One of my all time favourite g spots 

Small g, for gravity.

Is that why you get sucked into the black hole.

 

Get a reply in  quick before jack comes.

Edited April 5, 2021 by SteamyTea

[A_L]

1 hour ago, pdf27 said:

 

1 hour ago, Stones said:

Lots of possibilities, although the one question I have is where all the water will come from if we start producing Hydrogen on an industrial scale...

I litre of water contains 111g of hydrogen, which is ~4.5 kWh. I'm using 12,000 kWh per year of gas at the moment, that translates to ~3m³ of water - less than a 5% increase in my annual water bill.

 

And if we condense the exhaust gas (H₂O) and generate our own hydrogen from it, or use it to replace the quantity required for another use the net amount required falls to a fraction (to replace losses).! ? I,ll get my ...............

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, pdf27 said:

litre of water contains 111g of hydrogen, which is ~4.5 kWh. I'm using 12,000 kWh per year of gas at the moment, that translates to ~3m³ of water - less than a 5% increase in my annual water bill.

Does need to be very pure water for electrolysis or the platinum catalysts get corrupted.

Still, water is not the problem. Nor is platinum, we can sweep that up from the roadside or collect it from storm drains.

The problem is the 55 kWh needed to make a kilo of it, then dry it, store but, transport it, store again, then local metering it for sale. All while minimising the leakage.

Better off making ammonia, 1 nitrogen and 3 hydrogens, and a boiling point of -33⁰C, about where a HP cools to.

 

[SimonD]

30 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

 

A hydrogen fuel revolution is coming – here’s why we might not want it

..But all too often it has a dirty secret..

To fulfil hydrogen’s potential, more transport capacity will be needed generally, be it by tanker truck, ships or pipes – many of which will need upgrading to carry hydrogen without leaks.

 

I read this one a while ago. For me a lot of what is being said about hydrogen belies the fact that what most people are doing, many experts included, is viewing hydrogen or renewable energy, electricity in particular, as direct replacements to the existing model of energy distribution and use, with a bit of energy reduction tacked on at the end. It's as if there is a belief that we can swap out the dirty, dangerous and exceedingly costly fossil fuels and carry on the way we are with [insert your chosen energy preference here]. It's a technocratic approach to avoiding what is probably going to be inevitable and fundamental change. This may mean getting used to paying higher prices for energy as well as finding new models of business and economics, and behaviours, individually and socially.

 

Unfortunately people don't want to change because they mostly see change as requiring loss instead of affording opportunity.

 

At present there are actually no short or long-term viable options to allow us to carry on as we are. So, what if we do actually have to live our lives with less abundant energy available to us at the switch of a button. Would that really be such a bad thing?

[SteamyTea]

@SimonD

We have known what to do for 150 years, and known the costs of not doing it.

Technically we have been able to do it for the last 60 years.

But like anything in economics, and gardening, we leave it untill the costs are greater than the benefits. So we end up not doing it.

[AliG]

31 minutes ago, SimonD said:

At present there are actually no short or long-term viable options to allow us to carry on as we are. So, what if we do actually have to live our lives with less abundant energy available to us at the switch of a button. Would that really be such a bad thing?

Much of the argument for hydrogen seems to be based on the belief that electricity will be so cheap and abundant that we can squander it on changing water into hydrogen and then changing that hydrogen back into heat/electricity etc. The end to end efficiency of this is only around 30%. There are even proposals to create e-fuels and burn them in clean combustion engines, which is even less efficient, around 16%. These would be crazy proposals if it were not for the belief that incremental electricity costs will fall considerably.

 

Having looked into it, these do seem to be the only way currently to get to net zero carbon with current technology. If we only wanted to cut emissions by 90% then the use of hydrogen would be much diminished. The correct point to get to goes into the global warming debate, but people seem to believe we need to get to net zero or less. Note net zero is not zero, as it is assumed that around 10% of emissions are absorbed by forests. The other problem is that 10-15% of emissions come from agriculture and concrete/other industrial processes so cannot be easily eliminated.

 

I did notice that much of the research into the use of carbon is sponsored by the fossil fuel industry which does make me a little skeptical. For example maybe we could plant trees to soak up the last 10% of emissions. However there is not much money in this, nor a dying industry to push for this so it seems less talked about.

[ProDave]

4 minutes ago, AliG said:

Much of the argument for hydrogen seems to be based on the belief that electricity will be so cheap and abundant that we can squander it on changing water into hydrogen and then changing that hydrogen back into heat/electricity etc.

 

Didn't they say that about nuclear power, it would be so cheap there was no point in metering it?

[SteamyTea]

11 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Didn't they say that about nuclear power, it would be so cheap there was no point in metering it?

Yes, but only in the same way that Boris said we could spend £350m a week on the NHS. It was just to get them built. The hundreds of reports about the downsides are now long forgotten.

Remember that there was only 3 reports that said, in an extreme case, we were highly unlikely to go into an ice age, we never quote all the 1970s research that said the planet was warming. And that was 50 years ago almost.

 

One thing I really hope that comes out if the COVID crisis is that science research is more reliable than politian's opinions.

And arts graduates should never be allowed to comment on anything technical. Our media really is appalling. It is so had that even the scientific truth is now lumped in with fictional narrative. 

Edited April 5, 2021 by SteamyTea

[AliG]

15 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

One thing I really hope that comes out if the COVID crisis is that science research is more reliable than politician's opinions.

Watching the media recently, it has become increasingly clear that many scientists have opinions for hire. Either they like being on the TV or they hope it will make them some money. More rational scientists do not get as much air time. I am sure that the TV networks put out the feelers for a scientist who will agree with whatever scare story they want to promote today.

 

17 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

And arts graduates should never be allowed to comment on anything technical.

The woman commenting on heat pumps on Jeremy Vine chipped in at one point that she used to be an archeologist, so clearly knew what she was talking about.

 

But TBF it is very easy to get informed about almost any subject via the internet. There are many interesting science based YouTube channels for example that will explain things much better than the mainstream media. I am the vaccine expert at work, I am just interested and read a lot about it. I feel I know more than most of the commenters on TV. I am still cringing about Betty Boothroyd almost screaming on Sky that she had been promised a second vaccine in three weeks when she got her first one and they were putting her in danger by not giving her the second one. Quite what qualified her to comment on this I am not sure.

[AliG]

Too cheap to meter -

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter

[SteamyTea]

4 minutes ago, AliG said:

But TBF it is very easy to get informed about almost any subject via the internet

And even easier for many to be sucked into conspiracy theories, that are not theories at all.

Archilogy is one of the humanities, not a science (under Popper's definition). 

[AliG]

4 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

And even easier for many to be sucked into conspiracy theories, that are not theories at all.

True.

 

I have suggested that as an experiment I start a YouTube channel and just make random theories up with no real evidence at all. I actually suspect that many people have already cottoned on to this as a money making scheme.

 

After a year I could announce it was all a big joke.

 

The followers would no doubt think I had been nobbled as part of the conspiracies.

Edited April 5, 2021 by AliG

[Pocster]

5 minutes ago, AliG said:

have suggested that as an experiment I start a YouTube channel and just make random theories up with no real evidence at all.

I told admin many years ago I could build an underground house . They scoffed but threw tons of money at me to provide content . Everyone can be bought !

Edited April 5, 2021 by PeterW
Admin would like to advise this is Fake News... we have never invested in the money pit

[SteamyTea]

7 minutes ago, pocster said:

Everyone can be bought

True, plenty of aresholes for rent.

[SteamyTea]

13 minutes ago, AliG said:

have suggested that as an experiment I start a YouTube channel and just make random theories up with no real evidence at all

There is a small town near me where someone set up a Facebook page claiming they were opening up a burger and kebab House. The town is very snobby and up itself. Was just a windup. Worked well.

 

So do it, I am sure we can all contribute and document on a thread on here, to crush those doubters.

[SteamyTea]

@AliGStart with this.

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1="Vaccine+tracking"&OS="Vaccine+tracking"&RS="Vaccine+tracking"

It has vaccine, temperature and resonance in it.

 

[AliG]

A good COVID conspiracy theory is that the pandemic was created to once and for all show us who the most stupid and crazy people in society actually are.

[SteamyTea]

12 minutes ago, AliG said:

A good COVID conspiracy theory is that the pandemic was created to once and for all show us who the most stupid and crazy people in society actually are.

I have a theory that people that click on fake news links are easier to sell tat to.

Magnetic resonance water purification that utilises quantum vibrations is my starting point.

 

Or this.

 

A house on the moon would apparently cost £44,525,536.42

Feedback is our weekly column of bizarre stories, implausible advertising claims, confusing instructions and more

 

HUMANS 31 March 2021

New Scientist Default Image

Josie Ford

 

Lunar living

“Fancy buying a house on the Moon?”, an email that plops into Feedback’s inbox asks, continuing, before we have a chance to say, “Not particularly”, “It would cost you £234k a MONTH!”

 

“With Earth becoming increasingly populated and space technology advancing, it won’t be long before lunar living becomes the new normal,” this email, which appears to have come from a price comparison website, asserts. Yes, they were saying that back in ’69, too.

 

Mind you, recent revelations about lunar infrastructure developments such as kilometres-high concrete towers and fully operational sperm banks (20 March) might be enough to convince us this is an idea whose time has come.

 

Advertisement

Alas, “Living on the moon is not as simple as life on Earth” – a statement Feedback would definitely describe as the under-variety. Building and transport costs, land licences and a property markup of 27.61 per cent, plus such boondoggles as solar panels, industrial-strength heaters and meteor-proof windows, mean we are looking at a surprisingly precise £44,525,536.42 for a first-time buy. Plus £1 billion for the nuclear-powered option.

 

What planet are they on, we can only ask. Although, considering the pre-pandemic prices of some of the real estate we see from our London penthouse stationery cupboard, the answer might well be Earth.

 

 

 

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24933283-300-a-house-on-the-moon-would-apparently-cost-44525536-42/#ixzz6rAvqTNxz

Edited April 5, 2021 by SteamyTea

[AliG]

What COP would an ASHP get on the moon?

[SteamyTea]

9 minutes ago, AliG said:

What COP would an ASHP get on the moon?

1

 

But one of those Portuguese Thermodynamic solar panels that work in the dark may get very high CoP.

The Solar Constant is 1340 W/m².

Edited April 5, 2021 by SteamyTea