...bingo.
But the Geyser Valley (?) in California is almost nearly tapped out. The companies who harness the natural geysers there have seen considerable drops in capacity as other plants have been built over the years.
Which is why a personal consumption model (or neighborhood/community consumption) seems to be the best model for stability.
Especially in rural areas of non-southwestern states. No offense, but you southern folks got this big, giant, yellow glowing object beating you down 365 days a year with more than enough energy for any rural location.
Michigan (among many others) doesnt have that luxury.
I am going to get lambasted for this, but it.
I am no Greenie, but I have a sneaking su ion I will someday go "off the grid" for good. In order to do that, I will need independence from basically all modern conveniences.
Thus the only reason I really have any interest in self-sustaining power systems.
IMHO you would have to have supply/return piping (inlet/outlet flow) plus substantial heat exchanger surface area at depth. Your medium would have to be absolutely pure. If water, de-ionized as a minimum. There are areas where it could be remotely feasible, but Central Texas isn't one of them.
There are binary systems that preclude the need for water at boiling temperature, they only require water at X temperature to boil another product to turn the turbine.
I've heard of geothermal heat pumps ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump ) for boosting heating/cooling efficiency, but I don't know if there's enough heat down there to really power anything. Unless, you use some exotic refrigerant.
I wouldn't mind being "off the grid". I also wouldn't mind being "off the pump". Would taxing the out of my carbon use give me more motivation? Perhaps, but I prefer the carrot to the stick.
It can't be that easy. I could heat LOTS of water to 160-180 here in Texas for probably 275-300 days a year using low technology, almost passive solar.
The binary exchange/expanding product must be either extremely expensive to produce or extremely toxic.
lol people providing random evidence for or against Global Warming.
Its already a done deal that its definitely real as far as the vast, vast majority of scientists are concerned. Its re ed to even have this argument anymore. Its like arguing that the Earth is flat at this point.
Re ed?
Oh thee is no arguing that global temperatures can fluctuate but the issue that is clearly NOT PROVEN is that it is MAN CAUSED.
Proven Science? More like academic circle jerk hubris.
Re ed?
Oh thee is no arguing that global temperatures can fluctuate but the issue that is clearly NOT PROVEN is that it is MAN CAUSED.
Proven Science? More like academic circle jerk hubris.
Random politically motivated laypersons laughing off the overwhelming majority of scientists.
Yep, I'd say we've passed the barrier point into Bull sville in this thread as well.
"Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. [...] Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686
"In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Ins ute's Directory of Geoscience Departments."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0119210532.htm
"A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0119210532.htm
"In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0119210532.htm
Speaking of climatologists (97 Percent of which believe in global warming):
""They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0119210532.htm
Ninety.
Seven.
Percent.
It is difficult. Not only must you have a gas that under pressure is liquid, but must have an adequate energy differential between states. Maintaining the operating range so there is enough pressure differential to turn a turbine and have both liquid and gas state in a closed system becomes an issue too.
You have to remember. All except a very small ignorant hand-full of people agree there has been, or is global warming. What is in dispute is how much is anthropogenic, and how much is natural. I am one that believes most the warming is natural, and that we would have no effect on the path the alarmists insist on.
Do you know what a climatologist is?
A climatologist is just one small discipline of the geosciences. Worse than that, to get a BS degree, most colleges only require one more class than what it takes for a meteorologists BS degree. It is a study that uses causation and correlation. There are so many other geocience disciplines that need to be listened to that are ignored.
97 Percent still doesnt make me give a more. You offer no affordable alternative to fossil fuels and use fear tactics of global catastrophe as a means to convince.
Youre no better than pro-war Hawks who lied their way into two wars. I seriously hate the political parties of this nation and their staunch adherents.
This is definitely somewhat true. Both sides have their doomsday scenarios that they play up.
Tbh I really don't even give a that much one way or the other, I'll be dead long before it gets to be a real serious problem. It's just funny to hear Conservatives come up with these convoluted, hilarious arguments to ignore the massively overwhelming evidence for man's enormous effect on global warming.Random politically motivated laypersons laughing off the overwhelming majority of scientists.
Yep, I'd say we've passed the barrier point into Bull sville in this thread as well.
"A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0119210532.htm
"In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0119210532.htm
You have to know you're lying to yourself at this point. I mean look in the mirror, your bull is a little too transparent. That said all liberals really do is whine about it and blame it on Conservatives. Pretty hilarious cycle tbh.
This is all trivial stuff compared to what's coming.
When the earth's poles shift a few degrees, causing the oceans to realign and thusly, the world has flooding of populated areas on a biblical level...
Well, your politics and bickering will matter for nothing on that day.
God save us.
We should all care about the future of our progeny.
They are not what you think. I have a very rounded understanding of the sciences, and can go toe to toe with any alarmist you wish to bring into this discussion.
Bull , you are delusional.
I speak with facts on my side when it comes to this topic.
That's just the nature of lib s.
A few degrees is not enough. How much are you talking about, and do you mean the magnetic pole, or a change in obliquity?
maybe I need to use simpler words. Do you know what Obliquity is without looking it up?
I would disagree. There are technical challenges, and only a few places are good for geothermal. It works great for Iceland.
Let me ask you something. You act as if 97% is a certainty. That said, if I gave you a parachute, asked you to jump out of a plain, and said there was a 3% chance it wouldn't open.... would you jump?
Did you know the precise wordings of that survey that says 97%?
I don't know it verbatim, and see no need to look it up. It effectively says that 97% agree there is global warming. How well do you parse words? I would say the 3% who disagree are not fit to be scientists, because global warming is real. See, the key is, it doesn't say that 97% agree that global warming is anthropogenic (man made.) Just that there is global warming. How many of those 97% might thing it's a natural cycle?
Well to be fair to mr Byrd.. its probably a lot hotter where he is right now...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
