State of mind for a viable future

Humanitarian catastrophes (including resource wars and conflicts), natural, climate and industrial (except nuclear or oil forum fossil and nuclear energy). Pollution of the sea and oceans.
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: State of mind for a viable future




View ABC2019 » 19/07/20, 08:51

eclectron wrote:
Your concern is that you reason in OR, therefore excluding, while AND is possible.
and you don't know how to read or / and zap ...
Which gives a strong impression of bad faith and manichaeism (with reasoning in OU) ...
I give up, I have something else to do than answer everything point by point and experience shows me that it is useless, you are unbeatable.
good luck : Lol:

I told you, value judgments that are not supported by examples don't really affect me ... for me it's more when we have no more rational arguments to present that we start to employ them. (the other solution that you also use is to walk away by announcing that we stop discussing because it is not worth it ...)
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2922
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 397

Re: State of mind for a viable future




View eclectron » 19/07/20, 09:12

ABC2019 wrote:
I told you, value judgments that are not supported by examples don't really affect me ... for me it's more when we have no more rational arguments to present that we start to employ them.

But you're absolutely right, I have no more rational arguments, they would also be useless, since you refuse to see and hear those that are offered to you, those that are contrary to your personal BELIEFS.
You don't listen and don't consider what the other is saying, so deaf dialogue can take a long time.
And you to believe that people give up because your arguments would be relevant, it's just hilarious! : Lol: : Lol: : Lol:

I'm talking about energy here and you answer me drinking water in Africa, if you want, frankly good luck ... : Lol:

And equally true, you have to know how to stop wasting your personal energy in bottomless pits.
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle. that I borrow from the signature of Sen no sen.
0 x
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 29083
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5717

Re: State of mind for a viable future




View Obamot » 19/07/20, 13:05

The example of the buoy made me laugh Eclectron! : Cheesy:

ABC2019 wrote:On the other hand, thermodynamic solar power plants are only used to amaze the gallery, and are expensive without changing the problem, it's true. We can do without them, moreover very few countries have them (those which have large sunny cities), but they remain just as dependent on fossils as if they did not have any.

I put thermodynamic solar in the balance with nuclear power (not with fossils ...) because this solar energy is essential to get out of carbon society (although we have to get out of it, but as a precaution ... Co2 = 0,7, XNUMX% of anthropogenic origin)

You tell us that thermodynamic solar is expensive!

Let's see the efficiency of power plants compared to nuclear fuel:

Fuel
Thermodynamic solar: fuel at zero cost, and zero carbon emissions.
Except gray energy to manufacture the power station, but afterwards the solar rays are “free” (except operating expenses).

Nuclear: only about 5% of the atoms of the fuel crack, you should know that if you were a physicist.
The output electricity produced / potential energy of the fuel is a lamentable 1.5% (breaking everything)
But it is never this performance that is shown! The pro-nuclear announce a phantasmagorical return of 30% based on the Carnot cycle, but this is not an “effective” but maximum return (from what this physical law allows)

Nuclear power emits Co2, and African ore enrichment plants in particular run on coal.

Average net return:
Thermodynamic solar: 15% ã Themis. 30% for Désertec. (Sahara, Morocco ...)
At night, production can continue by storing thermal energy in concrete blocks or molten sodium. And at night the demand decreases.

Nuclear power plants: 33% gross on the installed capacity but in reality only 22% after calculation of the realized capacity.
But theoretically it would be necessary to (partially) deduce the night production capacity, when demand is very low, since these plants must continue to produce 24 hours a day. This further reduces the interest in its availability by a third since only two thirds is used, i.e. between 24% and 15% of the capacity actually used VS 17% theoretical according to Carnot (if we consider that the plant is then running ã empty).

991C4E24-5FA8-4911-8C10-147D51539402.png
991C4E24-5FA8-4911-8C10-147D51539402.png (190.2 Kio) Consulté 1332 fois


ABC2019 wrote:they are expensive without changing the problem, it's true.

So wrong : Cheesy: We don't give a damn about operating costs, since such a plant will always cost less to operate than an atomic plant (ouch have to clean mirrors, it's really expensive that ...) and no nuclear waste, which we does not know what to do. If the yield is slightly lower than expected, (as in the US) it is not very serious either, it is enough to increase the catchment area a little ... 3,5% of the surface of the Sahara would cover the total global energy demand. Impossible with nuclear power ...

ABC2019 wrote: We can do without

The longer humanity waits, the more it will cost him dearly, and even at the incalculable cost of the exhaustion of all resources (at the cost of the geological time it took to constitute them ...)

ABC2019 wrote: moreover, very few countries have them (those with large sunny cities),

With superconducting high voltage lines, we can transport electricity over long distances, and the problem is the same for nuclear power, whose energy must also be transported ... Kif, kif.

ABC2019 wrote: but they remain just as dependent on fossils as if they had none.

You have just given the best possible argument for solar energy, which cannot run out and which does not depend on a problem of availability / extraction / security of supply!
So you have to reject your argument as it is, as far as the real facts are concerned.
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: State of mind for a viable future




View ABC2019 » 20/07/20, 07:40

eclectron wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:
I told you, value judgments that are not supported by examples don't really affect me ... for me it's more when we have no more rational arguments to present that we start to employ them.

But you're absolutely right, I have no more rational arguments, they would also be useless, since you refuse to see and hear those that are offered to you, those that are contrary to your personal BELIEFS.
You don't listen and don't consider what the other is saying, so deaf dialogue can take a long time.
And you to believe that people give up because your arguments would be relevant, it's just hilarious! : Lol: : Lol: : Lol:

again, you could write the same to defend any nonsense like flat Earth, claiming that it is you who are rational and I who am not, so the argument presented like that did no value.

I'm talking about energy here and you answer me drinking water in Africa, if you want, frankly good luck ... : Lol:

I'm just talking about wasting money and materials.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: State of mind for a viable future




View ABC2019 » 20/07/20, 07:45

Obamot wrote:The example of the buoy made me laugh Eclectron! : Cheesy:

ABC2019 wrote:On the other hand, thermodynamic solar power plants are only used to amaze the gallery, and are expensive without changing the problem, it's true. We can do without them, moreover very few countries have them (those which have large sunny cities), but they remain just as dependent on fossils as if they did not have any.

I put thermodynamic solar in the balance with nuclear power (not with fossils ...) because this solar energy is essential to get out of carbon society (although we have to get out of it, but as a precaution ... Co2 = 0,7, XNUMX% of anthropogenic origin)

You tell us that thermodynamic solar is expensive!

Let's see the efficiency of power plants compared to nuclear fuel:


if you want to compare solar and nuclear power plants, you should go to eclectron, I told him that IN HIS LOGIC where there is no more money and that the cost is not a problem, it would be better to do solar than nuclear, and it is he who does not agree.

In my logic, I see that neither is feasible without materials made with cheap fossils, as any system of mass electricity production anyway, so nothing of this kind is feasible. fossil-free, and they will not be used to replace fossils. Without fossils we hardly know how to use other than animal power or hydraulic or wind mills.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 29083
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5717

Re: State of mind for a viable future




View Obamot » 20/07/20, 09:50

In your reasoning by the absurd you speak of water supply, but still it is necessary to have water ... thermodynamic solar allows water to be desalinated, then to transport it.

ABC2019 wrote:
Obamot wrote:You tell us that thermodynamic solar is expensive!

Let's see the efficiency of power plants compared to nuclear fuel:


if you want to compare solar and nuclear power plants, you should go to eclectron, I told him that IN HIS LOGIC where there is no more money and that the cost is not a problem, it would be better to do solar than nuclear, and it is he who does not agree.

In my logic, I see that neither is feasible without materials made with cheap fossils, as any system of mass electricity production anyway, so nothing of this kind is feasible. fossil-free, and they will not be used to replace fossils. Without fossils we hardly know how to use other than animal power or hydraulic or wind mills.


No, you didn't say that, but that "Thermodynamic solar energy would be expensive", but the only point of comparison is nuclear if we exclude fossil fuels or any other means of CO2 production such as biogas (what your post suggests not to want to do?)! However, I have shown you that in both cases, thermodynamic solar energy is not expensive:

- It costs zero ore and ...
- 80% of the energy received is convertible into directly usable energy.
If you think it would be expensive, name an energy source that would be affordable in comparison ...?!?!?
And who wouldn't produce Co2 ...?!?!?

And be reasonable (in the 'realistic' sense) don't tell me that it would be better ”do nothing" : Cheesy: that we can do without : Cheesy:
Unless on a philosophical level you would like to get out of the extractivist society [...] but then in that case it would be another debate, it would cost “much more expensive”Than thermodynamic solar in“ economic ”terms, since that would imply going back several centuries, which no politician or population who followed them would agree to tackle. So not realistic.

And admitting that, the only way out during a smooth transition would be the use of thermodynamic solar energy! CQFD.

(And again if I extrapolate, you would still have to tell us how to passivate the 97% of existing buildings or to heat them with geothermal energy, but this would hardly be possible without gray energy if solar is not used)
Last edited by Obamot the 20 / 07 / 20, 10: 05, 1 edited once.
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: State of mind for a viable future




View ABC2019 » 20/07/20, 10:01

Obamot wrote:In your reasoning by the absurd you speak of water supply, but still it is necessary to have water ... thermodynamic solar allows water to be desalinated, then to transport it.

No, you didn't say that, but that "Thermodynamic solar energy would be expensive", but the only point of comparison is nuclear if we exclude fossil fuels or any other means of CO2 production such as biogas (what your post suggests not to want to do?)! However, I have shown you that in both cases, thermodynamic solar energy is not expensive:

We will have to explain why no country has based its electricity production system on this, then, despite the very wide variety of means used and the diversity of solutions adopted ...
- It costs zero ore and ...

that's joke ... you make a thermodynamic power station with wood and leaves yourself?
- 80% of the energy received is convertible into directly usable energy.

ooh there ... no Carnot output in your plant? what's your hot spring and cold spring temperature?

If you think it would be expensive, name an energy source that would be affordable in comparison ...?!?!?
And who wouldn't produce Co2 ...?!?!?

there is not any. That's why we continue to produce CO2 precisely ...

And be reasonable (in the 'realistic' sense) don't tell me that it would be better ”do nothing" : Cheesy: : Cheesy: : Cheesy:
Unless on a philosophical level you would like to get out of the extractivist society [...] but then in this case it would cost “much more expensive” than thermodynamic solar in “economic” terms, since it would imply going back several centuries, which no politician or population that would follow them would agree to tackle. So not realistic. CQFD

it is not what I "wish", as I do not "wish" to die one day. I just think it will be inevitable (either way).
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 29083
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5717

Re: State of mind for a viable future




View Obamot » 20/07/20, 13:07

Yes but now it looks like I pushed you to the splits ... : Cheesy:

ABC2019 wrote:
Obamot wrote:In your reasoning by the absurd you speak of water supply, but still it is necessary to have water ... thermodynamic solar allows water to be desalinated, then to transport it.

No, you didn't say that, but that "Thermodynamic solar energy would be expensive", but the only point of comparison is nuclear if we exclude fossil fuels or any other means of CO2 production such as biogas (what your post suggests not to want to do?)! However, I have shown you that in both cases, thermodynamic solar energy is not expensive:

We will have to explain why no country has based its electricity production system on this, then, despite the very wide variety of means used and the diversity of solutions adopted ...

This sentence does not mean anything. Ru told me it was “expensive”, I proved it wasn't. Just because they don't do it (and they do ...) doesn't mean it's expensive .... Paralogism ...

In short, a few reasons:

DA3F3BE3-ABF2-4D23-BADE-49F13A1B67B2.jpeg

ABC2019 wrote:
- It costs zero ore and ...

that's joke ... you make a thermodynamic power station with wood and leaves yourself?

I was telling you about the fuel. Or there, the whole industry must stop ... You will have to occupy people : Cheesy:

ABC2019 wrote:
- 80% of the energy received is convertible into directly usable energy.

ooh there ... no Carnot output in your plant? what's your hot spring and cold spring temperature?

Where did you see that I was talking about “yield”, this is downstream, in fact thermodynamic solar energy is 30% no more, since I have already said it (while nuclear .... but ok, let's talk about something else) : Mrgreen:

ABC2019 wrote:
If you think it would be expensive, name an energy source that would be affordable in comparison ...?!?!?
And who wouldn't produce Co2 ...?!?!?

there is not any. That's why we continue to produce CO2 precisely ...

Yes, solar ... And stop talking about gray energy, it's a false debate, it can also be electric.
The day when the bulk of CO2 emissions will be limited to foundries and cement plants, we will talk about it again ... :D
We will have a CO2 emission so low, that it will not even enter the background noise of natural absorption.

ABC2019 wrote:
And be reasonable (in the 'realistic' sense) don't tell me that it would be better ”do nothing" : Cheesy: : Cheesy: : Cheesy:
Unless on a philosophical level you would like to get out of the extractivist society [...] but then in this case it would cost “much more expensive” than thermodynamic solar in “economic” terms, since it would imply going back several centuries, which no politician or population that would follow them would agree to tackle. So not realistic. CQFD

it is not what I "wish", as I do not "wish" to die one day. I just think it will be inevitable (either way).

We talk about what is achievable here and now, no science fiction ... There man does not even know 4% of matter ... When that happens, you will have mutated into a boson : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadebois
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6532
Registration: 24/07/19, 17:58
Location: 04
x 982

Re: State of mind for a viable future




View GuyGadebois » 20/07/20, 13:12

(Personally, I fucked up Kiki and AVC in ignore and pinch, that changes your life!)
0 x
“It is better to mobilize your intelligence on bullshit than to mobilize your bullshit on intelligent things. (J.Rouxel)
"By definition the cause is the product of the effect". (Tryphion)
"360 / 000 / 0,5 is 100 million and not 72 million" (AVC)
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 29083
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5717

Re: State of mind for a viable future




View Obamot » 20/07/20, 13:52

As long as you have people who will not take responsibility, it will give people undecided (which makes a lot of people) ... : Cheesy:

But I have no compassion for the sheep of the “least effort”, they have chosen ... by deliberately limiting themselves.
(except the depressed)
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "humanitarian disasters, natural, climatic and industrial"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 59 guests