Solar Energy

I would think there would be something astronomical if you compare Christians with a population of 2.1 billion and the scientist at barely 6 million. Can you name on thing you religious group did to make society a better place for all people? i.e. Science can be created for the polio vaccine, solar energy etc.

Oh yes that’s easy…

well there was the um….no that was science

plus the….oh no that actually killed all those people.

Can you come back to me?

Here is how I can prove that it is a universal principle to have a system where Government redistribution of wealth so every American has exactly the same amount of wealth….works…..let me explain why……

1) Suppose you have a pond, and then it rains heavily on one part of the pond. The rainwater would be redistributed equally across the surface of the entire pond. The depth of all parts of the pond would raise by exactly the same amount, whether or not rainwater fell on any part of the pond. And it still rains….because the rain pours on the pond not to enrich just where that cloud is situated, but for the greater good of the entire pond.

Scientifically, if ponds of water behaved like American society, there would be no ponds of water. Because all the rain clouds would have no incentive to exist unless each area of the pond did not connect to any other part of the pond.

As a society, we are all like a pond and we share the earth and wealth and food and solar energy…and this proves my point, we’d be happiest if like that pond, we shared each money cloud in common….

Does this anlogy work for most of you?
Now, to an extent we are like the pond. You give an employee wealth and he consumes goods and services, which helps businesses grow.

You give an employer wealth, and he may hire another worker, enriching that worker….

so why not expedite the redistribution process by just having the Govt do it
As for people, we have a system where people receive tattoos for hard work….just like ponds have ripples to show where rain fell……
Now those who are not working hard would have the least tattoos and people would be disgusted with them for not pulling their fair share…while they enjoy the same amenities for being human

Talk about a dumb example! The pond does nothing to create the water it holds. The pond doesn’t have human nature.

The government doesn’t create wealth, in fact the bureaucrats skim the cream off the top, gaining greater benefits & security than the private sector.

sustainable energy sources in the 1970’s?

Carter started and ethanol program which Reagan promptly stopped after Carter’s defeat. Reagan, to make a statement about which direction we would go, removed the solar panels from the White House roof when elected.

More intelligent societies like German who refuse to be lead my the nose by their corporate masters are light years ahead of us in solar technology.

If we don’t wake up, we will be using solar and wind technology purchased from the Chinese.

Most Americans aren’t smart enough to realize that we are sacrificing our future, our economy and our environment for the sake of oil companies.

Ethanol costs more than twice what gasoline does and causes food prices to rise because there being depleted for fuel. What we should do is tap our own vast resources of oil which is several times that of the middle east. Solar panels are a joke at best they are a supplemental energy source.

Claudine Schneider, the winner of the EPA’s Global Climate Protection Award medal for 2007, sits on the National Board of Advisors for a NGO called The Carrying Capacity Network, an organisation which wants to section off large areas of America from people as wilderness before:[QUOTE]

""it’s developed, overrun, consumed, and polluted by runaway population growth. It’s not too late, and we hope that you will join us in this effort.""

Claudine Schnieder, who also sits on the board of trustees of American Solar Energy Society, the Climate Institute, TERI (led by IPCC head, Rajendra Pachuari), and the Center for Resource Solutions was the former member of the house of representatives from Rhode Island who in the early days of the climate change debate said:

"Scientists may disagree [about climate change] but we can hear mother earth and she is crying"

- She now sits on the board of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Do you agree with Claudine Schneider that immigration must be effectively halted and population stabilised and then reduced to help prevent climate change and ensure we don’t exceed "carrying capacity"?

http://www.carryingcapacity.org/whatis.html
http://www.claudineschneider.com/

Well, it’s the 64 thousand dollar question.

I haven’t read those articles yet, but I will do.

The answer must lie with whether Climate Change is real or not, and if it is, whether man is adding to the problem.

If they’re real, then her point is valid, even if unpopular.

Even if you remove Climate Change from the equation, it still seems to me that we are overpopulating the planet. Again, if that’s also true, then it’s not just a question of immigration, it’s also a question of birth control. The more people on the planet, the more land is needed to sustain their needs, wherever they are.

Although the majority of the population explosion happens in underdeveloped countries, it’s people in the developed countries who place the most drain on world resources. Most of those are crammed into the cities, but we still require bio productive land to sustain our needs.

Take the population figures for the UK: http://puttheworldright.com/climate_change.html#ukpf

From the air it might look like we have plenty of space, but the figures say otherwise. It’s claimed if we never imported our requirements from elsewhere in the world, we would only have enough food for about three days.

Technology may reduce the problems to some extent, but the planet’s resources are still finite.

1) Does the battery ever need replacing?
2) How often do you have to recharge it?
3) If it’s left out in the sun for long periods can that be harmful?
4) I want to be able to use a laptop in the middle of nowhere away from society. Is there any way I can recharge it like with solar energy or something, so I don’t have to go back into society every time I want to charge it?
5) Laptop or ipad, which do you think is better?
ty

1-yes
2- 1 to 4 hours
3-the sun will damage it
4-yes
5- ipad’s suck

Does it look like there is no debate?

What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man’s influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth’s warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists’ main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can’t have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Ocean cycles

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth’s great heat stores.

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh it gets better from there! How badly will the MMGW crowd cripple our economy and damage our national security over AN UNPROVEN THEORY?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
"One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up."
I hear ya folks. Looks like Al needs a new scam!
Great answers thanks. Here’s an interesting flashback…

1633, In April, the Inquisition formally interrogates Galileo, who has been detained in the building of the Inquisition for several weeks. Galileo agrees to plead guilty in order to receive a lenient sentence, and on April 30 he confesses that he advocated Copernican theory too vigorously in the Dialogue. He agrees to modify his opinions in his next work.

In June, the Pope orders Galileo imprisoned indefinitely under house arrest. Galileo makes his way back to his villa in Arcetri, near Florence, where he spends the remainder of his life under house arrest…end
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/galileo/life.html

Flash forward to *Pope Albert of The Blessed Church of MMGW* ~ LOL!
"The Copernican heliocentric model, with the sun at the center of the universe, demonstrated that the observed motions of celestial objects can be explained without putting the Earth at rest in the center of the universe."

couple this with the fact that the AGW crowd lost another "in the pocket" german scientist by the name of Professor Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz Institute who by the way is a "peer reviewed" scientist that the AGW crowd likes to throw in our faces….who said,
"that we are entering a period in which the earth is likely to cool for a period of one to two decades."

also…"Dr. Mojib Latif, a prize-winning climate and ocean scientist from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of Kiel, wrote a paper last year positing that cyclical shifts in the oceans were aligning in a way that could keep the next decade or so relatively cool, even as the heat-trapping gases linked to global warming continue to increase."

but here’s something interesting…

"But Dr. Latif, who gives around 200 talks to the public, business leaders and officials each year, {{said he had been met with confusion and even anger when he tried to describe this normal variation in climate while at the same time conveying the long-term threat of global warming.}}"

but the best is here….

"Still, those projections are based on models, interpretations of tree ring variations and other indirect assessments of past temperatures that, while persuasive to most climate scientists, are not infallible."

and we all thought and have been told…"there is no debate", this is settled science….one more thing to add insult to injury, the antartic is thickening to unprecidented levels and recent satillite photos show the artic ice expanding….i wonder, how much longer before the AGW crowd finally understands that "the wolf can only cry for so long" !!!

There are many people who love America for its free enterprise system, but we have entered a day of age where free enterprise seems to do more harm than good. We are facing environmental problems that are degrading water supplies, the ground, polluting the air, and contributing to climate change. We as a society need to consume less, by implementing controls on industry that require them to either switch to a different source of energy, or cut pollution by at least 75%. It will be costly, but it is worth every penny if it means securing the future of America, and breaking the need for oil dependence. Solar, wind, and other renewable energy technology needs to be improved. I would like to hear some input from you people.

The hidden problem of your idea is called the Kutznets curve. It appears that when a country like the United States creates regulations like that, the firms just move to places with lower regulation not only permitting continued production and pollution, but higher pollution than had been occurring in the United States. Any regulation which is not mandatory on all countries will not work. The ideas are good, but the data appears to imply that you end up adding global pollution not reducing it.

Now government can help by switching ITS inputs to renewable forms. That would create sustainable demand, but the political problems would require a grass roots movement to enact.

I need a Nice scienctic title for my high school science fair project..My Project is this….

When people think of deserts, they picture a barren wasteland devoid of all water. Through this experiment I will show how water can be generated, cleanly and affordably from the atmosphere. The application of this generator can benefit our society both commercially and financially. If people can generate their own water they will save money on their water bill and put less strain on our current water supply. This generator can be easily converter to satisfy any energy source, from solar and wind to traditional energy sources.

And if you have any ideas, tips or comments on improving my project, please help

Well, water can be extracted from air. Your air conditioner is a device which accomplishes this task. If you use your air conditioner in a humid region, you will see a flow of condensate draining from the device. In the case an air conditioner operating in humid regions, you usually discard the condensate. Here you are looking for a system which will save and use the condensate as domestic water.

Will it work in a dry region? It will, but it will be much more difficult. And its economics may not be as ideal as you may think. I’ll give you some typical data and show you just how expensive the water will be. At your request, I will e-mail you how I did my calculation if you are interested.

Condition of naturally existing air in a dry region:
Temperature: T1 = 30 C
Relative humidity: phi1 = 25%
Air pressure: P1 = 100 kPa

System of extracting water:
You limit the refrigeration device from cooling air below T2=2 C (to prevent formation of ice).
COP of ideal vapor-compression refrigeration operating between T1 and T2 with refrigerant R134a: COP = 8.5
Price of electricity: 4 ¢/Megajoule. This is equivalent to about 15 ¢/kw-hr.

——————–

Results of interest (all per kilogram or liter of water desired, unless otherwise stated):
Mass of incoming air required: m[1] = 447.5 kg
Minimal Refrigeration load: Qnet = 15.13 MegaJoules
Electrical energy required: Wreq = 1.781 MegaJoules
Price per liter of water: CPL = 7.124¢
Price for about four liters of daily drinking water (likely needed in dry climate): 30¢
Price for about 350 liters, typical daily use for all purposes: $25

Comments:
I think $25 every day is a lot of money to pay for my daily water use. Also, we cannot use this air directly in our homes, because it will be too dry to for human comfort once it is warmed. We will need to route it in ducts around our house (to cool our house without accepting the air’s mass) and then exhaust it to the background.

Another practical consideration is that a lot of non-water build-ups occur on the outside of evaporator coils. We will need a good design of filtration to prevent dirt and mold from become part of our water supply.

Firstly.. Capitalism will be deemed a failure and socialism re-installed with a controlled form of capitalism.

The socialistic aspect will bode perfectly for the times we live and the tasks at hand.. CLEANING THE PLANET!!

Regenerating our waterways and bringing ot life our arrible farmland so food becomes abundant for all as it should be..

The reliance on fossil fuels will also cease or be scaled down to a minor protion of life’s needs..

mostly solar and kinetic forms of energy such as wind and wave generation will be adopted.. this will take massive pressure off key rivers and moutainous agricultural lands used for mining and forestry..

I’m not sure beyond that.. still working on it..

But essentially it will be along the lines that every man will be worth his worth by the effort and contribution he makes to society..

Wealth can only be accumulated by acheiving such goals.. no more upper class!

a good life needs to be earnt!

is this is a fair system??

Your vision is flawed. Socialism doesn’t work. How do you propose to scale down the use of fossil fuels? You talk about using wind, solar and wave energy but how do you plan to fund this massive overhaul of the worlds energy supply? There will always be an upper class, no matter what system of government is in place. "every man will be worth his worth by the effort and contribution he makes to society" First, what does that mean? and second how is that any different than what is going on today? if you work hard you will be wealthy, and how will that eliminate an upper class? Lastly, earnt is not a word, you mean Earned. no this system is not fair and it will not work.

What will we do when we use up all of our natural resources, over populate, and completely pollute our planet? Of course we will try to develop renewable fuels, keep building new homes, and recycle more trash. But what if we have lead our world to complete chaos, what if we have no place to go? Our next way out is moving out, in other words, building colonies in space. Developing housing in unknown areas can be risky but there would be endless space for shelter. So the sooner we start the more beneficial it will be for not only us, but for future generations.
If we start developing technology in space that can end up as a mass transit network then we need to start development now. We can start renewing energy by using massive solar panels as big as entire cities, making enormous generators that will float literally in the middle of nowhere, and hydrogen powered vehicles and buildings. The reason why we should use solar panels the size of cites is because in space, no matter what might happen, there will always be sunlight in space. Large floating generators can be powered by themselves by using low powered motors to spin the turbines, using only a fraction of the energy they produce on reproduction of electricity. Using hydrogen is another way of renewability because hydrogen is found in water, and Earth has an overabundance of water. If we can extract hydrogen from water at low costs and at a high rate, that will be considered a renewable resource for decades, if not centuries. Using renewable resources will keep us from polluting Earth even more, and in space, we don’t know what pollution can do in space, so it would be best to keep emissions down and keep income at a high rate.
What will happen if we overpopulate Earth? We will either have to live in apartments while neighborhoods with lots of land will be destroyed and turned into cities. If we stay on Earth long enough, we will end up living with our neighbors in our faces. No matter how rich someone may be they will have to live with or near a highly prolific family with children crying at night and with criminals lurking in the shadows. Wouldn’t it be nice to live in an isolated place with peaceful neighbors, a perfect view of the stars above, below and around? Of course it will, when we slowly and unsuccessfully turn Earth into a colossal slum. Highly ranked people in our society or just people who love peace will have to move to a peaceful place or they will turn into the slum itself. With the enormous size of the planet it may seem like a while until people will overpopulate Earth, but it is closer than we might think or even want to think, because new families will always be established, and the population will constantly increase. We will need to move out into space, build colonies there and perhaps make cities out of space stations. Homes in space might be built on land like the moon or they might be like satellites, orbiting planets and other larger objects.
At this rate we will burn a hole in our atmosphere and we will need to escape Earth before we die of inhalation of smoke and other airborne bacteria, as well as get fried by the sun’s UV rays. We will kill all of our natural materials by polluting them, if we keep filling up dumps, throwing away toxic chemicals into rivers, and puffing away smoke into the atmosphere we will eventually kill Earth and it will kill us. We will have to pollute other planets or just build big reservoirs that can store all solid waste, we can build large pressurized tanks that can keep all harmful gasses out of our atmosphere, and we can try to purify all liquid waste by using filtering facilities. Sending hazardous materials into space can lead into unknown situations, like explosions that might affect our colonies, and the citizens of those colonies. Polluting space can lead to unforeseen consequences, like asteroids directing towards Earth, chemicals eating through our atmosphere from the outside, and loose baggage like trash just floating around and damaging equipment.
The point of establishing space travel is that if we start traveling now we can still discover ways to keep on living and thriving but not necessarily on Earth, because we can and will eventually burn up all of our fuels, we will overpopulate and crowd Earth, and we will damage the environment by polluting every natural, living thing. So if humanity is to prosper, let it take a huge step outside, into the new frontier, into space.

What will we do when we use up all of our natural resources? Over populate? Completely pollute our planet?

Of course we will try to develop renewable fuels, keep building new homes, and recycle more trash, but what if we have lead our world to complete chaos? What if we have no place to go?

Our next step is moving out. Building colonies in space. Housing developments in unknown areas can be risky but there would be endless space for shelter. The sooner we start the more beneficial it will be for not only us, but for future generations.
If we start developing technology in space that will one day end up being used as a mass transit network then we need to start development now.
We can start renewing energy by using massive solar panels as big as entire cities, making enormous generators that will float literally in the middle of nowhere, and hydrogen powered vehicles and buildings.
The reason for solar panels the size of cities? Because in space, no matter what might happen, there will always be sunlight. Large floating generators can be powered by light by using low powered motors to spin the turbines, using only a fraction of the energy they would need to produce on reproduction of electricity.
Using hydrogen is another way of renewability because hydrogen is found in water, and Earth has an overabundance of water. If we can extract hydrogen from water at low costs and at a high rate, that will be considered a renewable resource for decades, if not centuries.
Using renewable resources will keep us from polluting the Earth even more. We don’t know what pollution can do in space, so it would be best to keep emissions down and keep income at a high rate.
What will happen if we overpopulate Earth? We will either have to live in apartments and neighborhoods with lots of land will be destroyed and turned into cities.
If we stay on Earth long enough, we will end up living with our neighbours in our faces. No matter how wealthy someone may be they will have to live with, or near a highly prolific family with children crying at night and with criminals lurking in the shadows.
Wouldn’t it be nice to live in an isolated place with peaceful neighbours, a perfect view of the stars above, below and around? Of course it would. Highly ranked people in our society, or just people who love peace will have to move to a peaceful place or they will turn into the slum itself.
With the enormous size of the planet it may seem like a while until people will overpopulate Earth, but it is closer than we might think, or even want to think. New families will always be established, and the population will constantly and consistently increase. We will need to move out into space, build colonies and perhaps make cities out of space stations. Homes in space might be built on land like the moon or they might be like satellites, orbiting planets and other larger objects.
At this rate we will burn a hole in our atmosphere and we will need to escape Earth before we die of inhalation of smoke and other airborne bacteria, as well as get fried by the sun’s UV rays. We will kill all of our natural materials by polluting them. If we keep filling up dumps, throwing away toxic chemicals into rivers, and puffing away smoke into the atmosphere we will eventually kill Earth and it will kill us. We will have to pollute other planets or just build big reservoirs that can store all solid waste, we can build large pressurized tanks that can keep all harmful gasses out of our atmosphere, and we can try to purify all liquid waste by using filtering facilities. Sending hazardous materials into space can lead into unknown situations, like explosions that might affect our colonies, and the citizens of those colonies. Polluting space can lead to unforeseen consequences, like asteroids directing towards Earth, chemicals eating through our atmosphere from the outside, and loose baggage like trash just floating around and damaging equipment.
The point of establishing space travel is that if we start traveling now we can still discover ways to keep on living and thriving but not necessarily on Earth, because we can and will eventually burn up all of our fuels, we will overpopulate and crowd Earth, and we will damage the environment by polluting every natural, living thing. So if humanity is to prosper, let it take a huge step outside, into the new frontier, into space.