Yeah, sure. It was an object lesson, not a poo-flinging. As the dead Australian guy said - “What a croc!”
Well, elucidator’s stuck in “trying to be funny” mode and talking to him in this incoherent state is about as fruitful as talking to someone who’s been tweaking on meth for two weeks straight, so when he finally crashes maybe this conversation can continue calmly in some future environmentalism-related thread.
Good luck, all.
I for one regret even attempting to post anything constructively factual here.
I would have been interested to hear what you might offer regarding recent stuff I’ve seen flitting across the media about “liquified coal” as the panacea and Day of Jubilee. Don’t have anything from sources I trust, was looking forward to your input.
So, that was your victory lap, was it? Yeah, I do prefer humor to make my points. Lot more fun, too, than pointing out that someone is a sombre and self-righteous knob. In your case, I’ll make an exception: blow it out yer ass, you sombre and self-righteous knob.
Liquified coal? Or gasified coal? There is only one coal slurry plant of note right now (Mohave) which has been embroiled in years of knock-down drag-out protests by environmental, Indian, and other groups. I honestly don’t know if that one’s worth keeping open.
Gasified coal…that’s a long story. The summary is that by gasifying coal, you can presumably clean the emissions very heavily, even to the point of removing the CO2 from it - thus no global warming from CO2 emissions. At a huge decrease in efficiency, of course - although the economics could conceivably work, depending, because coal is just so damn cheap. It’s important to note that no plant of any real size in the US actually does this (yet…) The reasons are cost and newness. Conventional plants are cheaper, and until carbon emissions are taxed or otherwise have their intangible impacts made tangible to the plant owners, no one is going to pick the highest-cost option in a competitive environment. And it is new tech, not well known, and still semi-experimental. Reliability is a key concern here, and there is not a good track record of established operation.
I actually can’t give a lot of fine details because I am working under an NDA for coal gasification technology from two clients.
Personally, I have my doubts about its viability from an economic standpoint. It can work technically, sure. I’d rather see a combination of massive conservation efforts, wind, solar, and renewables take off and get the investment dollars first and foremost. I’d increase renewables funding and research by a huge amount. I’d also pass a law to mandate that all coal plants, even the grandfathered ones, be required to meet current New Source emissions regulations - with 90%+ mercury removal - within 10 years or be shut down. Something that could make the air over the US cleaner than any other industrial country on earth.
And I also support nuclear fully…but that’s another conversation.
Darlin’, no sweat, we got lawyers up the ying-yang here at the SDMB, our amassed legal talent not only would have got OJ acquitted, but got damages from the Goldmans for stress! I’ll set up the lectern, get the chairs, and you just let 'er rip!
Preach it, sister!
I don’t regret you did, since I was previously unaware of “coal gasification”. It looks technically interesting, but without heavy subsidisation (at least early on) I figure the economic hurdles are too great.
They’re big hurdles, and even if they didn’t exist, I’m very wary of the carbon sequestration aspect of it. Carbon fixing chemically I can trust, but filling huge underground reservoirs with CO2…I have difficulty from a safety and stability standpoint envisioning how that works. My geologist tells me it’s all kosher and can deluge me with cites, but I still don’t like it. It may be irrational, but it’s just my gut feel.
One gasification project I’m working on is just about able to compete with natural gas in terms of $/MWhr, but only because of a subsidy, a grant, tax breaks, and a special break from the railroad which no one else would have got. Absent those free gifts, however, it’s still cheaper than solar.
So is this the “feminist intuition” I’ve heard so much about?
Depends, generally when these “free gifts” are showered upon the deserving, they are referred to as “incentives”. Tomato, potato.
But imagine for a moment if the research currently frittered away on solar power had been begun thirty years ago? I remember the time, when the first crackpots-in-waiting dare to broach the subject seriously, hard headed realists with grants from oil companies rolled about on the floor, howling with derision and pointing their fingers.
Where might we be had we started sooner? Where might we yet be if we start now?
A question impossible to answer factually. I’m sure we’d be further down the route, but since many inventions depend upon others (just like playing “Civilization”), I for one can’t say how much further. It’s definitely a GD thread. It’s debatable, for example, whether there would have been any practical solar energy at all without the space program, as I’m pretty sure that drove it much moreso than any renewable energy desire down here on the surface.
We have started now. We are making some real breakthroughs. Solar is getting cheaper and easier to work with. In many backwards countries without a good power distribution system, people are beginning to buy up and install small solar panel systems to get some power during the say.
Large Companies are making the social investment of putting solar on their buildings. Individuals are making the social investment to be early adopters. It is happening. It is happening now. It is slowly picking up steam commercially and much progress is being made in production of the panels.
Jim
[QUOTE=Una Persson]
…(just like playing “Civilization”)…QUOTE]
Knew you were a Civ player! Just knew it! Lemmee guess: Romans, right?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Actually, yes, I typically chose the Romans. And I played Civ1 until XP stopped allowing it to work. 
If anyone knows how to make Civ1 work on XP…
uh, What, old chum? Your link takes one a Pit thread about an ATMB thread. Oopsy, repeat, oopsy.
D’oh :smack:
I will try this again and try it raw, no coding.
Jim (Previewed and clicked to verify)
[QUOTE=Una Persson]
Hey, talk about your cold reads… Anyway, I have XP, play Civ, no prob. Been to web site, downloaded upgrades?
(My brother is a Romans, too. And reactionary…! Lawdy, just to the left of Kublai Khan…)
Upon review: duh! Civ 1, you said. One, not three. Three works great, but you really need a muscle machine, not like mine, on the cutting edge of Bulgarian technology
[QUOTE=Una Persson]
If it is the original Civ for Dos, try running it in DOSBox
There was also a version released for Windows, called Civilization for Windows. You could try getting a copy of that. It was also bundled with Colonization for Windows as The Explorers.
A version of WinCiv can be downloaded here.
There is also an open source version called FreeCiv.
For all things Civ related try Apolyton
Good links and ideas, rayh. I’ll try them when I’m not at work - thanks!
I understand most your post and agree with it…but why in Morgoth’s name are you discouraging fellatio?