If you are unjustly kicking a man when he is down, and then you quit kicking for whatever reason (forced to quit or voluntarily quit), you simply cannot expect the man to get up, brush himself off and say "Why thank kind Sir, for stopping that brutal kicking!"

If he gets the opportunity, he's going to F you up. Especially if he perceives you resisted the change. — James Riley

:ok:

Sounds like you would need a massive rapid conversion of infrastructure, — Janus

No. That's precisely what these measures are designed to avoid. There would be infrastructure at isolated geographic locations, and LNG tanker ships, and de-fuelling ports - plus some minor modifications to power stations, and gas station forecourts, but compared to windmills and electric cars, that's not infrastructure intensive.

What many fail to realise is that after you've paid £200m per windmill, you need to be able to store the energy, or back-up those windmills with fossil fuel generating capacity, for when the wind doesn't blow. So that means expensive storage facilities; batteries or pumped storage, or else maintaining a full fossil fuel generating capacity alongside renewable energy infrastructure. Magma energy is the least infrastructure, applied specifically to the reap the greatest benefit. The drawback is distance between production and consumption, but then, the same could be said of oil, and yet somehow we get that from where it's produced to where it's needed.

p.s. liquified hydrogen gas contains 2.5 times more energy than petroleum per kg.

I'm not convinced it could be as simple as you make it sound...but carry on anyway...we need advocates for all potential solutions, and geothermal could certainly be part of the solution if hydrogen turns out to be viable

The greatest power to convince as to where the money is will likely win out. Don't forget that if hydrogen is actually viable, then it could be created by wind and solar with far less of the transportation required.

you need to be able to store the energy, or back-up those windmills with fossil fuel generating capacity, — counterpunch

Etc. etc. I get that. I also don't have a problem with your geo heat thing. But cars didn't become what they are today overnight or without subsidy. Pointing at wind/solar/whatever for it's failure to solve overnight and on it's own nickel is not how anything anywhere ever worked, ever. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling Musk, et al, are not stupid and they like money too. If I was them, with their resources, I'd sick the best dogs in the world on the problem. Kind of like I defer to the physicists when push comes to shove because, well, they've put the time in.

I could be wrong, but I have a feeling Musk, et al, are not stupid and they like money too. — James Riley

Critics say that Musk is riding on the wave of investment. By all accounts Tesla has never gone anywhere near meeting projected production, and yet is worth more than the top few of its conventional motor company competitors combined. People don't always invest sensibly, and Musk will make loads of money even if the whole electric car thing ultimately fails.

By all accounts Tesla has never gone anywhere near meeting projected production, — Janus

He could have found the money in a storm drain for all I know. But people who have that kind of loot usually have a bevvy of brains around trying to keep them from losing it, and then to compound it. Even if it's blind luck, it doesn't take a lot of genius to know one is lucky, and to then hire hands that know what they are doing.

It seems obvious that his money comes from investors, and that Musk is already, despite very limited production, extremely wealthy. What is not obvious is that he actually cares whether any of his projects succeed, as opposed to that he just sees the opportunities to make money regardless. You may call me cynical and I may call you gullible; which of us would be right? Only time will tell.

Don't forget that if hydrogen is actually viable, then it could be created by wind and solar with far less of the transportation required. — Janus

Windmills cost a lot of money to build, they last 25 years, and produce a trickle of power when the wind blows, whereas, magma is a massive source of constant high grade energy.

I'm not convinced it could be as simple as you make it sound — Janus

It's not simple. It's hugely complex in all sorts of ways. I'm giving you the headlines, based on some understanding of those complexities. I see a chink of light; a possible opportunity to do something amazing. You say:

In any case, such a thing will never happen, so there's not much point wasting too much thought on it. — Janus

It's improbable, that's true, but we are headed for extinction by the most probable course. The right answer will necessarily be improbable, so I'm delighted you think so. It shows I'm on the right track!

Be a drag if we screwed up the dynamo.

He could have found the money in a storm drain for all I know. But people who have that kind of loot usually have a bevvy of brains around trying to keep them from losing it, and then to compound it. Even if it's blind luck, it doesn't take a lot of genius to know one is lucky, and to then hire hands that know what they are doing. — James Riley

Musk and SpaceX just won the contract to build a space ship to go back to the moon for $3 billion, although Jeff is making a stink. They just launched astronauts to the space station. In less than 10 years Tesla has revolutionized battery technology. He's doing real stuff. Also, his girlfriend is a famous odd musician.

I also think it is likely a temporary phase. — T Clark

Chairman Mao's cultural revolution, which is very much like our wokester movement, lasted ten years. Fortunately Joe Biden is no Mao Zedong, and neither is Kamala.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

Chairman Mao's cultural revolution, which is very much like our wokester movement, lasted ten years. Fortunately Joe Biden is no Mao Zedong, and neither is Kamala. — fishfry

Yes. Of course. I agree. The current social justice movement is just exactly like the Cultural Revolution.



Just exactly the same.

I love the discourse around "Woke". Clown's performing semantic juggling so that the term can acquire whatever vague leftist meaning is needed. I guess in this sense it means equality of outcome (an abstraction rejected by Marx and Engels).

I love the discourse around "Woke". Clown's performing semantic juggling so that the term can acquire whatever vague leftist meaning is needed. I guess in this sense it means equality of outcome (an abstraction rejected by Marx and Engels). — Maw

In my experience "woke" is primarily a disparaging term used by conservatives which acquires whatever vague right-wing meaning is needed. I guess in this sense it means everything is fine the way it is.

In my experience "woke" is primarily a disparaging term used by conservatives which acquires whatever vague right-wing meaning is needed. I guess in this sense it means everything is fine the way it is. — T Clark

To clarify, I mean that the term is snidely thrown around by right-wingers, moderates, etc. to refer to anything left-of-center that requires thought terminating dismissal (i.e. "whatever vague leftist meaning is needed) detached from the original usage by Black Americans.

Musk and SpaceX just won the contract to build a space ship to go back to the moon for $3 billion, although Jeff is making a stink. They just launched astronauts to the space station. In less than 10 years Tesla has revolutionized battery technology. He's doing real stuff. Also, his girlfriend is a famous odd musician. — T Clark

Musk's solar/battery approach is sub-optimal to say the least. Battery powered cars, fuelled by a 40-50% fossil fuel dependent electricity grid are not green. Neither are they thermodynamically efficient. Converting energy from one form to another costs energy. When conversion costs are factored in, from fossil fuels burnt to work done, the thermodynamic efficiency of electric vehicles must be worse than a steam train - at 12% thermodynamic efficiency.

Batteries require rare and toxic metals to construct, and are very difficult to recycle. Further though; logically, if battery powered cars were green cars, batteries would be interchangeable. You wouldn't have to wait 12 hours for the car to charge. You'd pull into a petrol station, they'd whip out the old battery, install a fully charged battery, and off you'd go. But no. A full charge gives you a mere 250 miles range, and then you can either wait 12 hours, or fast charging will damage the capacity of the battery to hold a charge, and you'll need a whole new car in five years instead of ten years - because, as mentioned previously, batteries are not interchangeable!

Hydrogen can be burnt in an internal combustion engine. This is the Hydrogen 7 - produced by BMW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7

Hydrogen is the natural storage medium for energy produced from magma, because it's made from electricity and sea water, it's light, compact, and can be transported without transmission loss, to be burnt in power stations, internal combustion engines, and hydrogen fuel cells. Unlike the solar roof, hydrogen fuels cells actually could decentralise electricity grids. It would be possible to get hydrogen delivered to a storage tank, for a fuel cell that would then generate clean electricity on site, for the home or business. Or vehicle! Maybe Musk needs to stop looking up at the stars, and start looking down at the 4000 miles of molten rock beneath his feet. It's like he's planning his getaway!

To clarify, I mean that the term is snidely thrown around by right-wingers, moderates, etc. to refer to anything left-of-center that requires thought terminating dismissal (i.e. "whatever vague leftist meaning is needed) detached from the original usage by Black Americans. — Maw

I misunderstood, but then again, I'll argue with anyone, even people I agree with.

I'll argue with anyone, — T Clark

No you won't!

I'm interested in this discussion, but I'm feeling guilty. We're way off subject. Start a thread and I'll participate. You've obviously thought about this more than I have.

No you won't! — James Riley

I agree.

I agree. — T Clark

:rage: . . . . :razz:

The point of this thread (until it was hijacked by my friend, Magma-tron :) was that the entire woke enterprise is really bad-news (which goes against my "equal amount of good and bad in everything" idea), but I simply cannot find any redeeming value in anything woke. Even the legit things they might offer are cloaked in such moronic garb that nobody could take anything they say seriously.

Do they really believe that you can accuse an entire race of being racist? This idea can only be enforced at the tip of a bayonet. Other then the sheer idiocy of their ideas, what this has exposed is the weakness in institutional leadership in America...higher education, corporations, everywhere.

If you don't believe that money corrupts now, you never will.

Yes. Of course. I agree. The current social justice movement is just exactly like the Cultural Revolution. — T Clark

It is in the most important way...self-censorship.

It is in the most important way...self-censorship. — synthesis

I would accuse you of a lack of perspective, but that does not seem nearly strong enough a statement. You've moved beyond that and are crossing the border into obscenity.

I would accuse you of a lack of perspective, but that does not seem nearly strong enough a statement. You've moved beyond that and are crossing the border into obscenity. — T Clark

What does that mean?

What does that mean? — synthesis

It's a strongly-worded statement of disagreement.

It's a strongly-worded statement of disagreement. — T Clark

You don't believe there is self-censorship going-on now? Or that it was the worst part of The Cultural Revolution (being a precursor to what would follow)?

You don't believe there is self-censorship going-on now? Or that it was the worst part of The Cultural Revolution (being a precursor to what would follow)? — synthesis

You and I are not going to agree on this. I can't think of any more responses beyond what I've already written.

You and I are not going to agree on this. I can't think of any more responses beyond what I've already written. — T Clark

What's the point of discussing something with somebody you agree with?

Well, by all means, get back to me when you think of something to say.

Well, by all means, get back to me when you think of something to say. — synthesis

I feel bad about being so harsh in my response. That's why I decided to stop.