Moderator: Community Team
Viceroy63 wrote:Forget about the production of coal or hydrogen for the moment, why should any of us truly have to pay, "THROUGH THE NOSE," to light and heat our homes?
Viceroy63 wrote:To say, as Timminz wrote, that because the source of the information was some Christian Organization makes it invalid is incredibly ignorant.
Lootifer wrote:nietzsche wrote:I got this Viceroy.
Lootifer, we all know that Australians can't even use a calculator. All you do is play with your kangaroos.
So back off, and go to the gym or kayaking because it's clear you don't know what you are talking about.
You're just grumpy because BBS found the secret sugar inlet into your supposed never ending candy floss machine in the fun-room!
Viceroy63 wrote:Lootifer; What makes you believe that energy is "NOT" the most abundant, lowest costing commodity available to us?
Forget about the production of coal or hydrogen for the moment, why should any of us truly have to pay, "THROUGH THE NOSE," to light and heat our homes?
I am just wondering why you would think that?
And I am not talking about perpetual motion because it is just common sense that the universe as a reality "IS" winding down even as I write but why should that mean that we are not right now, this very moment, drowning in cleaning renewable energy?
Lootifer wrote:... The energy cost to produce artifical coal is greater than the energy output of it. I.E. why waste time making a fuel, when the initial fuel (electricity/combustion heat/whatever) required to make it has a higher energy content than the product fuel;...
Viceroy63 wrote:Is the separation of Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules from water so expensive that a person can power his auto with a glass of water but not his home? If it did take more energy to get the hydrogen from water then why would people do it? There are kits that you can purchase to convert your current car into a hydrogen, H2O Vehicle. Why would people buy these kits if it is more expensive to get the hydrogen out of the water then to drive the car with regular gasoline?
Please lets try to keep this simple.
So all I really want to know is why would we move towards making things more costly and even more difficult rather than keeping things simple since the technology already exist so that we should be literally drowning in practically free energy anyway?
BigBallinStalin wrote:If Troll Physics was as profitable as it claimed to be, then why aren't we seeing the conspiratorial scientists investing into the required research and development to convert those claims into reality?
Obviously, the scientists are in a conspiracy. They're all a bunch of liars.
BigBallinStalin wrote:I didn't watch that video, but I fully agree with it or disagree with it if it supports or fails to support my preconceived notions. My stance may or may not make much sense, but having put no critical thought into it, I feel certain that I am right, and everyone else--except for those within my group--are wrong because they are liars.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Of course! That goes without saying because it's a self-evident truth because it's self-evident.
AndyDufresne wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Of course! That goes without saying because it's a self-evident truth because it's self-evident.
What would Wittgenstein say about this?
--Andy
PLAYER57832 wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Of course! That goes without saying because it's a self-evident truth because it's self-evident.
What would Wittgenstein say about this?
--Andy
Maybe that its a cat in a box?
Viceroy63 wrote:OK; Let's back track a bit because you obviously seem to want to complicate a simple question. You had stated...Lootifer wrote:... The energy cost to produce artifical coal is greater than the energy output of it. I.E. why waste time making a fuel, when the initial fuel (electricity/combustion heat/whatever) required to make it has a higher energy content than the product fuel;...
This of course leads us to the fact that no matter how you look at it, you need to expand some energy in order to make more energy. Whether you drill for oil or dig it out of the ground you are converting energy into more efficient forms of energy.
So my question again is:
Why are we not drowning in the most efficient, cost effective, most abundant energy possible, able to power all of our toys, planes and auto mobiles?
Very simple Question!
Is the separation of Hydrogen and Oxygen particles from water so expensive that a person can power his auto with a glass of water but not his home? If it did take more energy to get the hydrogen from water then why would people do it? There are kits that you can purchase to convert your current car into a hydrogen, H2O Vehicle. Why would people buy these kits if it is more expensive to get the hydrogen out of the water then to drive the car with regular gasoline?
OK; Let's examine a simple hydro-generator for example. I use this term to describe a Dam where water forcing it's way through turbines turns a generator and produces power for a million homes lets say. In no way do I know the cost of building a dam but let's say that a dam cost some $20,000,000 dollars to construct over a two year period. And it powers a million homes. If Each home paid only $1.00 dollar per year to the electric company to pay for the construction of that dam then the dam would be paid off in 20 years. Do I have the math right?
Please lets try to keep this simple.
If then each home, instead of paying $1.00 Dollar per year paid $20 Dollars per year (That's less than $2.00 Dollars per month) then the cost of the dam that powers a million homes would be paid off in just one year. Every year after that at $20.00 per year for lighting and heating of our homes would be the construction of another dam. So that energy as a principle is produced from less energy.
So why do people pay up to and above $100.00 Dollars per month for electricity when the logic simply does not add up. I am not a math mathematician or have a degree in the arts but the cost of maintaining a thing, anything at all, is never any where as high as the construction of a thing. So why shouldn't we be drowning in cheap, inexpensive, renewable energy?
And while here let me ask then, Why would we move to a source of energy (Nuclear energy), when the cost potential of Nuclear energy is actually even more expensive than that of Oil or gas? That does not make sense to me to keep building nuclear power plants when from the very beginning we knew that it was just not cost effective not even in military ships. Especially when the technology for getting the hydrogen out of the water was realized by Nazi Germany towards the end of WWII?
So all I really want to know is why would we move towards making things more costly and even more difficult rather than keeping things simple since the technology already exist so that we should be literally drowning in practically free energy anyway?
Lootifer wrote:Viceroy63 wrote:OK; Let's back track a bit because you obviously seem to want to complicate a simple question. You had stated...Lootifer wrote:... The energy cost to produce artifical coal is greater than the energy output of it. I.E. why waste time making a fuel, when the initial fuel (electricity/combustion heat/whatever) required to make it has a higher energy content than the product fuel;...
This of course leads us to the fact that no matter how you look at it, you need to expand some energy in order to make more energy. Whether you drill for oil or dig it out of the ground you are converting energy into more efficient forms of energy.
So my question again is:
Why are we not drowning in the most efficient, cost effective, most abundant energy possible, able to power all of our toys, planes and auto mobiles?
Very simple Question!
Is the separation of Hydrogen and Oxygen particles from water so expensive that a person can power his auto with a glass of water but not his home? If it did take more energy to get the hydrogen from water then why would people do it? There are kits that you can purchase to convert your current car into a hydrogen, H2O Vehicle. Why would people buy these kits if it is more expensive to get the hydrogen out of the water then to drive the car with regular gasoline?
OK; Let's examine a simple hydro-generator for example. I use this term to describe a Dam where water forcing it's way through turbines turns a generator and produces power for a million homes lets say. In no way do I know the cost of building a dam but let's say that a dam cost some $20,000,000 dollars to construct over a two year period. And it powers a million homes. If Each home paid only $1.00 dollar per year to the electric company to pay for the construction of that dam then the dam would be paid off in 20 years. Do I have the math right?
Please lets try to keep this simple.
If then each home, instead of paying $1.00 Dollar per year paid $20 Dollars per year (That's less than $2.00 Dollars per month) then the cost of the dam that powers a million homes would be paid off in just one year. Every year after that at $20.00 per year for lighting and heating of our homes would be the construction of another dam. So that energy as a principle is produced from less energy.
So why do people pay up to and above $100.00 Dollars per month for electricity when the logic simply does not add up. I am not a math mathematician or have a degree in the arts but the cost of maintaining a thing, anything at all, is never any where as high as the construction of a thing. So why shouldn't we be drowning in cheap, inexpensive, renewable energy?
And while here let me ask then, Why would we move to a source of energy (Nuclear energy), when the cost potential of Nuclear energy is actually even more expensive than that of Oil or gas? That does not make sense to me to keep building nuclear power plants when from the very beginning we knew that it was just not cost effective not even in military ships. Especially when the technology for getting the hydrogen out of the water was realized by Nazi Germany towards the end of WWII?
So all I really want to know is why would we move towards making things more costly and even more difficult rather than keeping things simple since the technology already exist so that we should be literally drowning in practically free energy anyway?
Before I reply I just want to get your premise correct:
You are saying that the energy cost of converting water into hydrogen should not be an issue because we have so much energy it should be really cheap, and thus making the water -> hydrogen conversion also really cheap? (cheap in comparison to digging oil out of the ground and burning it, or even worse digging uranium out of the ground...)
I.E. we should just build a big hydro generation plant (or similar renewable power plant) right next to a water -> hydrogen plant and fuel our cars off this infinite supply of "fuel"
Does that summarise your position?
Viceroy63 wrote:We chose to go Oil and Nuclear because it was more expensive and not cheaper. In this way mankind is enslaved to itself as if it were all one big game of monopoly only with real people instead of make belief properties. Some one has to hold all the "power" (Pun intended), so some one will always figure out how to keep the rest of the slaves working for them. It's the same thing with our current callapseable economic system. If we had invested in practically free energy then no one would have any "Power" over anyone else.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Great. Viceroy misunderstands evolution and economics.
Trolling harder on more fronts!
(or doubling down on the stupidity)
Viceroy63 wrote:Which question is it then? I think there are several here. I am only one simple man, Ma'am. And I would like to give only one simple answer.
Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee