So by "flat earth", you mean? What's the rate of viable material harvests by recycling? Why has this not overtaken mining? What are the potential environmental hazards posed by people throwing these batteries away and having them end up in landfills? How much recycling, outside of the U.S. And Europe is occurring world wide? And how do you expect third world countries to recycle when they have a hard enough time finding toilet paper? Flat earth indeed.......
Says the guy with no theory at all. You cant even tell me remedial information about it, how convenient. Also, yes every scientist knows his way around mundane lab procedures. Thats part of the job. Thats like saying a carpenter probably doesnt do anything but build houses. So, when are you actually going to post at leastbsome science about your ...what was it again...battery operated Sun or some (*)(*)(*)(*) like that? Cant wait to discuss where you think good comes from.
I am no expert, and no dummy either, I have been tinkering with electronics since the vacuum tube era, I spent an unearthly amount of funding in school, college etc...... and I never really cared what anyone thought, outside of my professors. As a child, I had TV sets I had fixed in my room, stereo sets, all stuff salvaged from neglected musty storage rooms in basements. My first paying job was at a local TV radio & repair shop. While other kids played, I got paid.
Thanks for pointing that out. What people don't realize is that if you want the energy output of the sun, you also get the temperature of the sun. Plus, it is highly naive to think that fusion, if mastered, will solve our energy problems. Think about when people produced energy from burning wood. They would have probably said that having oil as an energy source is going to solve all their energy problems. Yet, what happened when oil came on the market was that per capita energy consumption went through the roof, until people can't even imagine living without oil anymore (today). The same would happen if fusion was made viable: In a short period of time per capita energy use would skyrocket again, until energy from fusion also would become sparse again -- all that at the cost of skyrocketing temperatures.
dielectric image: http://1.1.1.1/bmi/cf.ydcdn.net/1.0.1.59/images/dictionaries/websters5.jpg image: http://1.1.1.1/bmi/cf.ydcdn.net/1.0.1.59/images/sound-button.jpg Play di·e·lec·tric Use dielectric in a sentence a material, as rubber, glass, etc., or a medium, as a vacuum, gas, etc., that does not conduct electricity but can sustain an electric field: dielectrics are used in capacitors, between adjacent wires in a cable, etc. Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/dielectric#XfiMp3KkmPuhAZEw.99 So as you can see, a dielectric is a functioning element of a capacitor, however, it is not an active element of a storage battery.
Did you even read the article you linked? It proved my point, not yours. It showed that Standard Oil became big without government subsidies, and that it primarily did so by doing things better than anybody else, not by a government monopoly. I swear, you seem like a smart guy, but you have reading comprehension problems. Here is a relevant quote:
Basically speaking, you can't create electricity without some kind of environmental damage. Solar, hydroelectric, nuclear, fusion, tidal, wind, etc. all effect the environment.
Absolutely. I just posted the above to counter the common wisdom that is trotted out in any discussion on energy that nuclear fusion will be the panacea and humanity will have no energy problems thereafter. It is highly naive to think like that.
Unless subsidized petroleum is corrected for actual cost there can be no accurate evaluation with renewables.
THAT is an excellent point. Petroleum's value has been volitile for decades.....The liberal funded EPA promulgated Draconian regulations penned by bureaucrats who have the need to validate their pay checks. Combined that with the political morass in the ME, along with the naked political refusal of the current regime to allow the XL pipeline and it seems that the price of oil is largely dependent on political whims. Oil has been so politicized, lied about, etc. that I think there may be no way to define it's real intrinsic value today. The only comparison I can come up with is that oil is easily transportable, always available, works 24/7 and currently has the largest infrastructure of energy needing tools, machines, cars, boats, etc. whereas, wind power is stationary and dependent on....the wind. Solar power is dependent on the sun shining...Which it does not sometimes more than half a day. The only comparison I can truly make is oil vs. nuclear power. All things taken into consideration, I say that nuclear power is superior to oil fueled power in all areas except easily transportable today. But if the anti nuke bed-wetters would stop the ridiculous hysteria about anything nuclear, this society would be the most energy efficient society on the face of the earth.
I went out and found one of Ralph E. Juergens papers compiled by Earl R. Milton after Juergens death. It is fairly convincing I have to agree, and brings up many interesting points. Here is the link for anybody that wants to read it. http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0801-electric-i.htm
