Various interesting stuff

Nonononono. Germans the muslim übermenschen. That's what I meant.

Jad.3 wrote:

Nonononono. Germans the muslim übermenschen. That's what I meant.

How does it even mix?

When everything is muslim, there are some muslims better than the rest! May have been posted here.

Sometimes even an 8000 year old design gets an update. https://futurism.com/physics-just-made-the-axe-cooler/

Why am I not even surprised it was invented in Finland...? Good find.

As for why Middle East is poor (environmental mismanagement):
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/09/lost-forests-middle-east-environment-lebanon-rubbish-150902115715642.html

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-18/inconvenient-fact-morgan-stanley-says-electric-cars-create-more-co2-they-save

So politicians and their buisness cronies made a transmision belt of money from the taxpayer to their friends? How surprising... Of course it was under progressive, eco-friendly maskirowka, what else.

It is more energy efficient to create energy through burning fossil fuels in power plants and then transfering it to electric cars than it is to generate energy through fossil fuels on the car itself.

This article is irrelevant

ThePhilosopher wrote:

It is more energy efficient to create energy through burning fossil fuels in power plants and then transfering it to electric cars than it is to generate energy through fossil fuels on the car itself.

This article is irrelevant

Are you very sure you accounted for the energy losses on transmission? Your calculation is lacking.
Besides, what type of car engine have you taken as a standard to compare to what type of generator turbine, if I may ask? I would be curious to google efficiency specifications.

As I do research in related field, I found this really interesting:
http://www.tfp.org/medieval-antibiotics-offer-effective-medical-solutions/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Medieval+medicine+proves+successful&utm_campaign=TFP170818+-+Effective+medieval+medicine%3F

Feral wrote:

ThePhilosopher wrote:

It is more energy efficient to create energy through burning fossil fuels in power plants and then transfering it to electric cars than it is to generate energy through fossil fuels on the car itself.

This article is irrelevant

Are you very sure you accounted for the energy losses on transmission? Your calculation is lacking.
Besides, what type of car engine have you taken as a standard to compare to what type of generator turbine, if I may ask? I would be curious to google efficiency specifications.

I agree with my furry friend, even nuclear power plants still work with steam, it is not efficient. Gasoline engines on the other hand, I'd say very.

Are solar panels still so expensive to disassemble it's really not worth manufacturing them?

On a totally different note, I would not be dissapointed it it turned out true:

The higher the temperature at which you burn fuel, the more efficiently you can transform thermal energy into work which then powers a rotor to either turn wheels (if you're burning fuel in an engine) or create electric energy (thermal powerplant). If you want to achieve high temperatures in a power plant you have to deal with fewer limitations than if you try to do it in a car engine, so it is to be expected that a power plant will burn the fuel more efficiently.

I don't expect there to be much in terms of loses during transmission when it comes to electricity either.

My understanding of the matter is that claims that electric cars cost more CO2 than they save are misleading, but not entirely false. The operating costs of an electric car are lower than the operating costs of a regular car, but the production of a new car carries an additional upfront cost which may or may not be payed off by lower operating costs, depending on the car's eventual lifetime. And even if it does pay off in the long term, it still causes a short term increase in CO2.

So if you want to minimize CO2 emissions and your old car is still fine you should keep it. If your old car isn't fine you should buy a used hybrid. But if you must have a completely new car then you should buy an electric one.

Dragatus wrote:

The higher the temperature at which you burn fuel, the more efficiently you can transform thermal energy into work which then powers a rotor to either turn wheels (if you're burning fuel in an engine) or create electric energy (thermal powerplant). If you want to achieve high temperatures in a power plant you have to deal with fewer limitations than if you try to do it in a car engine, so it is to be expected that a power plant will burn the fuel more efficiently.

That is partially true, but not quite. You could release only as much energy as is stored in chemical bonds prone to oxidation in any given substance. Speed and efficiency of the release of this energy depends on oxygen availability at the combustion's place. Temperature is a result, not a cause here, save for the ignition at the beginning. It is however true that higher temperature could increase an efficiency of a steam generator, albeit this is due to higher stem pressure on turbines, not temperature per se. Car engine bypasses this problem, as there is no intermediary (stem) between force generation and it's usage. As far as oxidation of a unit of fuel is similar, there should be little difference in efficiency. No heat engine could exceed efficiency set by Carnot equations, however.
TL:DR: heat engines are wasteful by nature. We could inherently get only as much energy out of fuel as it contains, and not in full even.

Dragatus wrote:

I don't expect there to be much in terms of loses during transmission when it comes to electricity either.

I am afraid you forget about electric resistance. It is a main reason why power plants are build quite close to one another, not one huge one per country/state/territory. As long as the wires are made of copper, it is manageable. You simply calculate how much will be lost per km of a grid. As cheaper aluminum wires are often used, losses increase. Only small countries could have one nuclear plant per country. Even small Belgium operated two, only to start importing electricity from French nuclear plants from just across the border after green lobby had their own shut down. Electricity prices rose significantly still, also due to cost of transport and losses. Not to mention the infrastructure to be build consumes a lot of mined, smelted and cast metals.
TL:DR: on any length of wire some portion of electricity turns into heat to be dissolved into space.

Dragatus wrote:

My understanding of the matter is that claims that electric cars cost more CO2 than they save are misleading, but not entirely false. The operating costs of an electric car are lower than the operating costs of a regular car, but the production of a new car carries an additional upfront cost which may or may not be payed off by lower operating costs, depending on the car's eventual lifetime. And even if it does pay off in the long term, it still causes a short term increase in CO2.

So if you want to minimize CO2 emissions and your old car is still fine you should keep it. If your old car isn't fine you should buy a used hybrid. But if you must have a completely new car then you should buy an electric one.

Again, I would not quite agree. Operating costs on electric cars could be lower, making parts for them is not. Prices are relatively affordable mostly due to taxpayer paid subsidies.
Separate problem is the batteries: they are not eco friendly at all. To the contrary: heavy metals used in their manufacture are almost perfect pollutants, only cadmium could be bound into insoluble salts and effectively removed from the circulation in the ecosystem in any sensible time.
It may be promising technology, but it drives on borrowed fossil fuel as it is. Unless it is improved or many new nuclear plants are built, it is mostly a fad.

It is worth to note that operating costs and carbon dioxide emissions are not directly correlated; price of energy is composed mostly of taxes and those are not the same for various kinds of energy: coal, petrol, electricity etc may be taxed and subsidized in such an intricate way you would need an accountant to get it.

As for not buying cars, and wider other things, unless needed, I could only agree.

How stupid you have to be to cheer for closing a nuclear power plant.

Here I thought the article said the clean electric car's power still comes from coal power plants.
Most efficient are biogas plants, up to 60%, followed by coal then nuclear (rarely above 50%), biomass burning and solar plants suck at 25%. 1998 data. Regular car engine is at 25%, turbocharged at 35%.

Vampires are cool, too.

Jad.3 wrote:

How stupid you have to be to cheer for closing a nuclear power plant.

Here I thought the article said the clean electric car's power still comes from coal power plants.
Most efficient are biogas plants, up to 60%, followed by coal then nuclear (rarely above 50%), biomass burning and solar plants suck at 25%. 1998 data. Regular car engine is at 25%, turbocharged at 35%.

Vampires are cool, too.

Biogas is quite a promising one. Especially so if sewage is finally used for its production at any scale. Sadly, there is simply not enough biowaste to satisfy the need for energy. Especially so in agriculture: biogasing manure means loss of a fertilizer (nitrates lost completely), which means we have to use much more artificial fertilizers that cost a lot in terms of energy necessary to fix nitrogen from air. Usually at the cost of burning natural gas...

Feral wrote:

That is partially true, but not quite. You could release only as much energy as is stored in chemical bonds prone to oxidation in any given substance. Speed and efficiency of the release of this energy depends on oxygen availability at the combustion's place. Temperature is a result, not a cause here, save for the ignition at the beginning. It is however true that higher temperature could increase an efficiency of a steam generator, albeit this is due to higher stem pressure on turbines, not temperature per se. Car engine bypasses this problem, as there is no intermediary (stem) between force generation and it's usage. As far as oxidation of a unit of fuel is similar, there should be little difference in efficiency. No heat engine could exceed efficiency set by Carnot equations, however.
TL:DR: heat engines are wasteful by nature. We could inherently get only as much energy out of fuel as it contains, and not in full even.

My bad. I was sloppy and posted based on fuzzy memory instead of refreshing it. I actually had the Carnot engine in mind.

Feral wrote:

I am afraid you forget about electric resistance.

i totally did and I should have known better.

http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2017/04/phd-students-face-significant-mental-health-challenges

So Feral, how Malakvian are you feeling?

Mad PhDs confirmed for sure... We even crack jokes at those youngbloods who seem still sane at the laboratory. I will have to give it a thorough read when I am not so tired as now...

SCIENCE, MOTHER FUCKERS

http://www.guidingtech.com/60823/supermeat-startup-using-science

BUT PHILO IS BASICALLY GMO DAS BAD EMERGERD ILLUMINATI CONTROLLING US THROUGH GMO.
GL;HF scientists. Might as well make our stay on the planet a little more comfortable as we ruin it.

I have already known about cultured meat for several years. It's a promising technology.

https://futurism.com/nasa-has-a-3-46-billion-plan-to-ensure-the-yellowstone-supervolcano-doesnt-erupt/

I would stay German fit engineer anyway... But yes, it is good news, both in terms of environmental protection and prevention of animal cruelty.

As for Yellowstone, I am a bit surprised. Iclanders have been doing that for decades now. Whole Reykjavik is heated and provided electricity for that way...

Well then . . .
I'm not sure where to start with a counterargument to this.

And can anyone fully translate that extension to "LGBT" that they used? I get lost at the sixth letter..