Stealing a Tesla in 30 seconds

[Its DJOver]

We are focused on making the generation of power and consumption of energy more efficient through innovative engineered solutions. Power generation requires a smorgasbord of sources. And for intermittent renewables to become efficient one needs to integrate stored energy systems into the equation. 

It is unrealistic to demand that we stop burning complex hydrocarbons.

I know that we have impacted the earth in doing so but who is willing to give up the benefits?

Like so much in contemporary society, there is a lot of yelling about the problem but precious little effort in solution-definition.

Immediately, you're absolutely correct, but should there not also be long term reduction goals that can be realistically met?  If the integration of renewable's is at a pace that allows for timely reduction without benefit loss can be achieved, would that not be ideal?  Now determining that pace seems to be the trillion dollar question, but we appear to at least have a pace...

[Jon]

Immediately, you're absolutely correct, but should there not also be long term reduction goals that can be realistically met?  If the integration of renewable's is at a pace that allows for timely reduction without benefit loss can be achieved, would that not be ideal?  Now determining that pace seems to be the trillion dollar question, but we appear to at least have a pace...

We just had had a validation study completed by Southwest Research Institute which verified a 50% uptick in indicated thermal efficiency for a methane-based hydrogen generation system. What this means is that the energy output or yield of a unit of base fuel is increased by half.

What once yielded 100 calories/joules/BTUs/therms/kW/dynes now delivers 150. More to follow but we did this for both stoichiometric and lean burn systems.   

You need to alter your paradigm to look for ways of increasing effective yield. That's the real solution.

[Jockey]

Immediately, you're absolutely correct, but should there not also be long term reduction goals that can be realistically met?  If the integration of renewable's is at a pace that allows for timely reduction without benefit loss can be achieved, would that not be ideal?  Now determining that pace seems to be the trillion dollar question, but we appear to at least have a pace...

Do we, though?

Our country's policy is too actively encourage the use of more coal and oil.

[Its DJOver]

Do we, though?

Our country's policy is too actively encourage the use of more coal and oil.

I was thinking more on a "humanity" scale.  This problem cannot be solved by any one country so it's not fair to look to any one country to solve it.  There are certainly more progressive areas of the world than others, but even in areas where you'll find your "drill baby drill" bumper stickers, there are steps being made to integrate more sustainable ideas.

[rocket surgeon]

If a viable solution can be discovered to something that is pretty universally accepted as happening, then does it matter where the funding originated from?

they(the global warming alarmists) are not looking for a solution.  if they really thought we had a problem, wouldn't they be the first to discard most, if not all the carbon emitting "things" they could, because my God, we only have 12 years to live otherwise.  they need the "scientists" to keep finding things to support the junk science so they can continue to divert money to "green things"  who is profiting from the "green things"?  in other words, re-distribute our money to unproven, inefficient, expensive "green things"  if the "scientists" find the solution to global blah blah, they will not have a reason to keep axking for money to "save" the planet, eyn'a?

follow the money

[Its DJOver]

they(the global warming alarmists) are not looking for a solution.  if they really thought we had a problem, wouldn't they be the first to discard most, if not all the carbon emitting "things" they could, because my God, we only have 12 years to live otherwise.  they need the "scientists" to keep finding things to support the junk science so they can continue to divert money to "green things"  who is profiting from the "green things"?  in other words, re-distribute our money to unproven, inefficient, expensive "green things"  if the "scientists" find the solution to global blah blah, they will not have a reason to keep axking for money to "save" the planet, eyn'a?

follow the money

Not trying to be insulting, just trying to understand your line-of-thought, correct me if I'm wrong.

You agree with the idea that the climate is changing, in part because of human action, including the burning of hydrocarbons, but you don't think that there are any long-term negative impacts that will be the result of said change.  Your reasoning for this is because "global warming alarmists" are not doing everything they can in their everyday lives to have the smallest, possibly non existent, carbon footprint possible.

[Jon]

Do we, though?

Our country's policy is too actively encourage the use of more coal and oil.

This is not true.

Stick to something you actually have knowledge of. Like moving to Canada. Oh, wait, you're still in the US.

Ok, then, stick to idle, gutless threats.

[Jockey]

This is not true.

Stick to something you actually have knowledge of. Like moving to Canada. Oh, wait, you're still in the US.

Ok, then, stick to idle, gutless threats.

You actually posted without making it about you. Bravo!!!!!

In truth, our president has called for lowering gasoline standards for cars. Our president called for (and promised) increased coal usage. I guess maybe I wasn't wrong. You can lie as well as he does, but I am still correct.

PS - I apologize for making this semi-political. That is not my intention - it was merely to let Mr. Hey-look-at-me know that his lie carries no weight and there was no other way to say it. In my earlier post, I used the terminology "our country" so as to avoid being political.

[rocket surgeon]

This is not true.

Stick to something you actually have knowledge of. Like moving to Canada. Oh, wait, you're still in the US.

Ok, then, stick to idle, gutless threats.

thanks for re-enlisting jonny and going over to kick some terrorist arse for us

[JWags85]

"Mr Hey Look at Me" actually has experience and connections in the field.  There is often more than meets the eye than a blustery Commander in Chief running his mouth for lobbyists and interest groups.  Crash and others in his field are working on long term solutions that supersede the talking point of the month or day.  I know its SHOCKING, but there are people from both sides who work, often together, within that unfathomable grey area of DRILL BABY DRILL and THE WORLD WILL BE DEAD IN A DECADE.

We had a really productive conversation with both sides for the better part of a day.  But of of course we always have to get political and tribal.  Good grief.  Carry on

[Cheeks]

We just had had a validation study completed by Southwest Research Institute which verified a 50% uptick in indicated thermal efficiency for a methane-based hydrogen generation system. What this means is that the energy output or yield of a unit of base fuel is increased by half.

What once yielded 100 calories/joules/BTUs/therms/kW/dynes now delivers 150. More to follow but we did this for both stoichiometric and lean burn systems.   

You need to alter your paradigm to look for ways of increasing effective yield. That's the real solution.

SwRI....that brings back memories.  I would fly to San Antonio every month to meet with them and EG&G down there and their testing labs in my first job out of Marquette.