headers
Mike Ballard | 1 Dec 2002 01:28
Picon

Re: Arctic Ice Melting Much Faster Than Thought: maybe they'll make amphibious SUVs


--- "Jose G. Perez" <jgperez <at> netzero.net> wrote:
> >>The science and technology exist to run internal
> combustion engines on
> hydrogen.  Capitalism is the true fetter on
> producion.  It's basically set
> for self-destruct now.<<
> 
> Yes, but where are you going to get the hydrogen?
*********

Here's a piece from the UK Herald, Jose.  You judge. 

Best,
Mike B)
*******************************************************

Islay set for hydrogen power
JAMES FREEMAN and VICKY COLLINS 
Scientists want to turn Islay into the world's first
hydrogen-powered island.

They plan to make the clean fuel by treating water
with electricity generated from a wave power station
already operating on the island. They will then store
the hydrogen in batteries known as "fuel cells", which
local people will take home to run everything from
tumble-driers to tractors.

The plan is the brainchild of the Scottish Fuel Cell
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Mike Ballard | 1 Dec 2002 01:52
Picon

Re: Arctic Ice Melting Much Faster Than Thought: maybe they'll make amphibious SUVs


--- Mark Jones <markjones011 <at> tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> At 30/11/2002 09:48, you wrote:
> 
> >The people who rule us are only in it for the
> money.
> >Most of the energy money is invested in fossil fuel
> >technologies.  The science and technology exist to
> run
> >internal combustion engines on hydrogen. 
> Capitalism
> >is the true fetter on producion.  It's basically
> set
> >for self-destruct now.  Hopefully, we'll wake up
> >before the whole shit-house goes up in flames and
> set
> >up a society of our own, one where the condition
> for
> >the freedom of each is the condition for the
> freedom
> >of all.
> 
> 
> This is wrong. It is pure happy-happy self-delusion
> to suppose that 
> hydrogen is an alternative to petroleum. People
> ought to understand by now 
> the very simple and basic rules of physics and of
> thermodynamics which 
> explain why hydrogen is not an alternative to fossil
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Walters | 1 Dec 2002 02:05
Favicon

H2 as energy bridge/Natural gas reserves.

Jose is correct. The promise of H2 is not in it's ability to 'generate
electricity' (or mechanical energy), it's that it bridges the problem of
energy storage, something that the folks in the solar and windpower
industries need.

I've debated, publicly, Greens and others, who, without any understanding of
the electrical grid, think Solar and Wind are the holy grail.

Currently Holland and Denmark lead the world in wind power, most if it ocean
based. It's a remarkable achievement and a great example. But...for every
megawatt of power they can produce while the wind is blowing they will need
either of two things:
1. A means of storing the power for the when the WIND DOESN'T BLOW or
2. An equivalent, 'stand by' form of fossil  'on demand' power source for
their grid...or...
They will go black.

IF they can covert, and as Mark and Jose point out, the wind power at a
'near' efficient form H2, then they will be on their way to a truly fossil
free economy. "Efficiency" is an interesting term, and highly relative,
politically charged. IF we had enough solar power or wind power to convert
the excess to H2, since the motive force of the generation is free (mostly),
who cares? One could, in theory, build way to excess, even if the H2
efficiency quotient was very low. It's a question of dedicating resources
and priorities....

In California, where I live, the same holds true, obviously, for solar,
which is way way way more expensive than fossil fuel is. But H2 can be a
bridge, here to, with Solar, if enough solar panels can be built and then
the excess daylight power be converted via electrolysis into H2, stored, and
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Mike Ballard | 1 Dec 2002 02:04
Picon

RE: Asimov on Orwell's 1984


--- Martin Spellman <mspellman <at> cix.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Mike Ballard wrote:
> 
> with enough ferocity; didactism; scorn and lack of
> humour to be a leader
> writer for 'Newsline'
> >
> > (More sour grapes from a writer whose fiction
> never
> > reached as wide an audience--perhaps because of
> its
> > being rather dull, dicactic, repetitious,
> motionless
> > prose by comparison.)
> >
> 
> 	The reason why Orwell's books had such a high
> circulation, and why we are
> even discussing them on this list, is simply because
> they were set books for
> schools in Britain (and most of the English speaking
> world, from what I can
> gather). 

Funny, I thought we were discussing them in the
context whether they were socialist critiques of
totalitarianism or whether they were just tools used
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mike Friedman | 1 Dec 2002 03:47
Favicon

Re: Arctic Ice Melting Much Faster Than Thought: maybe they'll make amphibious SUVs

This is wrong. First, as any high school student will tell you, ice is less 
dense than water, which is why ice floats, so actually only a small 
proportion of the frozen water's volume is displacing liquid water. The 
problem is that a) antarctic ice and much of the polar ice is actually on 
land, and b) even the arctic ice cap is under tremendous pressure, is 
condensed under the weight of the ice above. Yes, sea-level increase is a 
problem.

Mike

>On amphibious SUV's: Sea ice melting doesn't affect the level of the oceans.
>The volume of seawater released in liquid form nby melting is the same as
>the volume of the water previously displaced by the floating ice that has
>now melted.

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Mike Friedman | 1 Dec 2002 03:55
Favicon

(unknown)

This is problematic, too, since that "stable layer" of warmer, lower 
salinity water is also expected to halt upwelling, which is the basis for 
plankon blooms. Also, the Globe and Mail and NASA's points are not mutually 
contradictory, if that is your implication. No more time...

Mike

>NASA
>In the short term, reduced ice cover would open shipping lanes through the
>Arctic. Also, massive melts could increase biological productivity, since
>melt water floats and provides a stable layer conducive to plankton blooms.

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mike Friedman | 1 Dec 2002 03:55
Favicon

Re: Arctic Ice Melting Much Faster Than Thought: maybe they'll make amphibious SUVs

This is problematic, too, since that "stable layer" of warmer, lower 
salinity water is also expected to halt upwelling, which is the basis for 
plankon blooms. Also, the Globe and Mail and NASA's points are not mutually 
contradictory, if that is your implication. No more time...

Mike

>NASA
>In the short term, reduced ice cover would open shipping lanes through the
>Arctic. Also, massive melts could increase biological productivity, since
>melt water floats and provides a stable layer conducive to plankton blooms.

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jose G. Perez | 1 Dec 2002 04:52
Favicon

Re: Arctic Ice Melting Much Faster Than Thought: maybe they'll make amphibious SUVs

>>This is wrong. First, as any high school student will tell you, ice is
less
dense than water, which is why ice floats, so actually only a small
proportion of the frozen water's volume is displacing liquid water.<<

Where is Archimedes now that we really need him? At any rate, if a lesser
authority will do:

"Melting sea ice would not affect sea levels, but it could profoundly impact
summer shipping lanes, plankton blooms, ocean circulation systems, and
global climate." That's what NASA says. Notice they're talking about
"melting SEA ice."

As to why it must be that displaced liquid water is equal to the volume the
water that is now ice if it were melted, the reason is that the mass of the
water --or to oversimplify, its weight-- remains constant, whether in frozen
or liquid form. The ice floe displaces just enough water to equal its
weight. That gives it the bouyancy to float. It is, in a sense, being "held
up" by the water pushed aside. Because ice is less dense than water in
liquid form, there is a little bit of the ice that is "left over" after
enough water has been displaced to equal the mass/weight of the ice floe,
and that section is above the water line and is the proverbial "tip of the
iceberg."

In a common sense way, think of a light, plastic bowl floating on top of
your son's bathwater (can you tell I have an 8-year-old son?). The more
heavy stuff you put inside the bowl, the lower in the water it goes. If the
object, or collection of objects displacing the water is denser than water,
the object sinks to the bottom and the amount of water displaced is equal to
the volume of the object. If the object floats, then the amount of water
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tom O'Lincoln | 1 Dec 2002 05:33
Picon

Melbourne anti-war march

I've just come from the march (today is Sunday). The organisers are claiming
20,000 but that's nonsense. Perhaps 10,000. This is actually a quite good result
consider most political activists were tied up with electioneering, due to the
State elections. The political quality was quite good I thought.

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Les Schaffer | 1 Dec 2002 05:50
X-Face
Favicon

Re: Arctic Ice Melting Much Faster Than Thought: maybe they'll make amphibious SUVs

Jose wrote:

> On amphibious SUV's: Sea ice melting doesn't affect the level of the
> oceans.  The volume of seawater released in liquid form by melting
> is the same as the volume of the water previously displaced by the
> floating ice that has now melted.

this is (strictly) true, but only would be relevant if all melting ice
were free-floating ice, but as you are probably aware there is much
ice which is not free-floating, and that is what creates the potential
for rapidly rising sea levels.

see:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCcarbon/Carbonomics/13c04/13c04c_f.html

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/arctic/

and a host of other sites via google: "glacier melting rising ocean
levels"

remember too that a significant component of predicted sea-rise is in
thermal expansion of sea-water due to rising temps. also, loss of ice
sheets means earth absorbs more sunlight, etc., so accelerated
warming. thus in a deeper sense, sea ice melting COULD affect level of
oceans via feedback mechanism.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane