Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

jez123

Members
  • Content Count

    362
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jez123

  • Rank
    HPC Regular
  1. Steve everyone who has a PhD gets their PhD thesis published Not in journals though, scientific journals are for journal articles. See this is just ridiculous not to understand this then bandy a pseudo science argument about. If you want to read about this area I suggest you try looking at the research coming out of the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory (SSRL) However, what you've just written is the standard guff on the hydrogen economy, we're all aware of the problem, we're also all aware that the goal is to produce hydrogen from electrolysis using renewable energy. We're also aware that there's a problem with this regarding costs, and quite why you've written all this I don't know, and even worse without any references.. If you want a proper debate try backing it up with references. Now, the fundamental problem with your argument is the fact that you haven't taken economies of scale into account when talking about costs. You've thrown at me costs, but no figures and no references. A lot of the research funding is going into how to implement cost effective strategies such as: [Victor A. Goltsov, and T. Nejat Veziroglub From hydrogen economy to hydrogen civilization] [Michael Balla Martin Wietschelb and Otto Rentzal Integration of a hydrogen economy into the German energy system: an optimising modelling approach ] They also reference a lot of good sources that you can trace back and find out how costs scale up when the hydrogen economy grows. Read these, get back to me. Incidentally, you still haven't understood that as you're forecasting something the onus is on you to back up your assertions, and mine are to question yours. So Steve, how will economies of scale affect the costs you've just thrown at me?
  2. I agree it sounds unfair but, I've been perfectly reasonable with Steve, up until the point he made an entire post that flamed me and called me a liar. I'm pretty f*cked off with right now.
  3. Carbon nanofibres already are already in about half of lithium batteries, this is expected to increase to about 80-90% within the next few years. This doesn't sound like much but when a technology starts becoming commercial its growth rate improves. We're very dependent upon the koreans to deliver at the moment. They're also expected to be incorporated into the majority of fuel cells over the next four or five years. Everyone in the industry accepts predictions are speculative hype, so you can only take a personal view on it. Ok, the postage stamp thing is over the top, but realistically I think we can move towards transportation that doesn't require oil over the next five years if we really need it. This excludes airplanes. Now what's the significance for this? It would put a large dent in oil consumption, which would give us more time to come up with alternate solutions. The other potential for electricity when you consider conumption is that with a more efficient storage device you can charge these devices through solar energy and use them for the purposes of small devices. If we took this load off the electricity consumption we'd be in a better position to plug the gap. However, the problem isn't a technological solution really, it's a coherent plan. The fact that the government have got us into a potential energy shortage is to do with their incompetence rather than anything to do with technology. It's a coherent plan to implement this technology that can get them out of it, rather than the technology itself. I just wouldn't draw a conclusion that we're going to be in the sh1t so confidently.
  4. That's not worth it How about you go 100K A levels, BSc MSc PhD? Probably not because all the little mice that are coming out to take a swipe are full of it
  5. Wrong, I didn't say how effectively you could grow them, I just said you could. You seem to be missing the point, I didn't come into this argument with the conclusion that there will be a food shortage. It's not up to me to show you the math, becuase I'm not the one with the predictive model. The onus is on the person with the predictive model to tell us how much food can be grown indoors to supplement the food produced outdoors. http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Argument_from_incredulity And what's wrong with that pray tell? Again debunk it or don't assert it. Are you now saying you can't grow vegetables indoors? The wind turbine and solar panel would probably improve the efficiency, but how much? You tell me, I'm not the one with the predictive model leading to the food shortage conclusion that needs to factor it into their calculations, along with every other thing I've thrown at them that they've shrugged off without even so much as a thought. GM crops, technological improvements, hell what's the probability of a climate change pertaining to better environmental conditions for growing crops? None of this is being stated, yet if you don't agree that there is going to be a food shortage based on a few basic land calculations somehow your argument is irrational. Sounds a bit like a "God exists" argument to me I didn't assign any probability to it. However, someone assigned a probability that they will never change Perhaps you could join their camp and update their predictive models with the calculations you are clearly itching to do to impress.....
  6. People in the city spend longer at their desk/in meetings etc. People doing PhD's spend 24/7 working (at least they should be by the time they've gotten to their 3rd year) One is as easy as speaking, the other is a brain fry.
  7. So let me see, on the one hand, you say this countries going to sh1t On the other hand you say the people "going on to do PhD's don't generally want the hassle of working in the city." It's a very revealing view. Most of the PhD's (at least the ones that saw it through) went into it because they were actually interested in science. Do you think living on a pittennce and doing a PhD is not "hassle"?. Comparing both, I would say working in the city is a walk in the park. 9-5 lifestyle with decent pay, what's so difficult about that? You'll also find that your ex Uni or any other good Uni would not accept anyone onto a PhD without being particularly bright. So where you are getting this idea that PhD students are dossers, I don't know. The countries also going to sh1t because people outside of the science world think they know about scientists. In my experience they don't have a bloody clue so are quite prepared to give them all manner of digs. Whereas if you're a wide boy with a large car then many people seem to think that somehow you've earned it. Anyway I'm bored of this, it's the typical BS.
  8. Not where I did my PhD. But then I suppose you know all about american space agencies too, being all of two years out of graduation? Then again if you want to get into a personal shitfest, the recent crop of grads don't really cut it IMO. Too much linear thinking and parental involvement in their education. I would say a grad 2 years out probably knows less than a shoe shine boy about the world.
  9. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6945732.stm That can't be right can it? The laws of thermodynamics, they say no
  10. On the flipside I worked in the city for 6 years before doing a PhD and I found it to be full of boorish muppets that were full of themselves. Give someone a decent salary and you'll be surprised how much guff they believe about themselves.
  11. I'm not proposing anything. You've just constructed a strawman argument. The thing about solar cells is just a flippant comment. I'm simply saying the food doom people know sweet FA about science or technology. It's not up to me to propose a solution since I'm not walking around to claim to know it all. And yeah I do think it's possible we will get a huge amount of storage onto something the size of a postage stamp and in many respects we already have, but then, I wouldn't start a thread and get a soapbox about it because it's neither here nor there. We're already at a point where a house can be supplied with fundamental energy needs through solar and wind energy. By the way feel free to let me know how many times people have thought the second law of thermodynamics has been falsified this decade? Another twot that beleives science is rigid Bloody doom moongers, you do realise you're crazy fools foaming that the world is going to end etc. etc. etc. ? And all I'm doing is saying technology will evolve
  12. The only problem I can foresee is more to do with wage inflation killing savings. I don't think the cheap credit argument stacks up as well as that one.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.