• Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  

New Tech for the win!

This topic is 2507 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

any day now corn could mutate into flesh eating plants. We should stop growing corn for this reason.[/quote]
Thank you for that valuable contribution, which is the last of its ilk I will comment upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

any day now corn could mutate into flesh eating plants. We should stop growing corn for this reason.

Thank you for that valuable contribution, which is the last of its ilk I will comment upon.


[/quote]

well that's essentially the argument. It's an organism therefore it could evolve into something negative. It also is used over large land spaces so there is a large risk of contamination to other species. Therefore we should not use it.

The same is true of corn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jan Wassenberg' timestamp='1299454485' post='4782599']
any day now corn could mutate into flesh eating plants. We should stop growing corn for this reason.

Thank you for that valuable contribution, which is the last of its ilk I will comment upon.


[/quote]

well that's essentially the argument. It's an organism therefore it could evolve into something negative. It also is used over large land spaces so there is a large risk of contamination to other species. Therefore we should not use it.

The same is true of corn.
[/quote]

Ah, no. It is a highly unnatural organism (with a completely unknown reaction to a wide range of environments) that directly produces diesel fuel. It Already is a potentially very harmful lifeform, aka "something negative", and the issue in question is its ability to mutate to survive, one of the most basic aspects of life and the foundation of the theory of evolution. Can you, in all your infinite wisdom, actually claim that there is no way such an organism can survive in the wild, and there wreck havoc with ecosystems? (hint, go read "Invasive species" on Wikipedia.)

(And yes, I'm against the general dicking around with genetics in crops. We already have problems with normal natural invasive species, and I have heard several cases of genetically modified crops going beyond their plantings already.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, no. It is a highly unnatural organism (with a completely unknown reaction to a wide range of environments) that directly produces diesel fuel. It Already is a potentially very harmful lifeform, aka "something negative", and the issue in question is its ability to mutate to survive, one of the most basic aspects of life and the foundation of the theory of evolution. Can you, in all your infinite wisdom, actually claim that there is no way such an organism can survive in the wild, and there wreck havoc with ecosystems? (hint, go read "Invasive species" on Wikipedia.)

(And yes, I'm against the general dicking around with genetics in crops. We already have problems with normal natural invasive species, and I have heard several cases of genetically modified crops going beyond their plantings already.)

Invasive species are generally species that easily adapt and quickly reproduce that are transported to an ecosystem they are well suited for where they have no natural predators.

An organism with no natural terrestrial ecosystem will not become invasive, because as soon as it gets out it dies.

I already gave the example of it probably needing high quantities of moderate temperature, high nutrient, non-saline non-chlorinated water with an abundance of CO2. I'm sure puddles surrounding volcanic hot springs are thoroughly terrified, but not the hot springs themselves as they are probably too hot for it to survive.

I'll take energy independence and gas that is both carbon neutral AND 1/3 the price of the oil we are using today thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One full tank (car tank thingy) of biodiesel = 1 year of food for a human. (seen on TV)
And roughly the equivalent of 1000 old refridgerators containing chlorofluorocarbons in terms of ozone killer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Luckless' timestamp='1299502407' post='4782790']
Ah, no. It is a highly unnatural organism (with a completely unknown reaction to a wide range of environments) that directly produces diesel fuel. It Already is a potentially very harmful lifeform, aka "something negative", and the issue in question is its ability to mutate to survive, one of the most basic aspects of life and the foundation of the theory of evolution. Can you, in all your infinite wisdom, actually claim that there is no way such an organism can survive in the wild, and there wreck havoc with ecosystems? (hint, go read "Invasive species" on Wikipedia.)

(And yes, I'm against the general dicking around with genetics in crops. We already have problems with normal natural invasive species, and I have heard several cases of genetically modified crops going beyond their plantings already.)

Invasive species are generally species that easily adapt and quickly reproduce that are transported to an ecosystem they are well suited for where they have no natural predators.

An organism with no natural terrestrial ecosystem will not become invasive, because as soon as it gets out it dies.
[/quote]

1. What is its reproductive rate?
2. What is its ability to change and adapt to new environments?
3. What natural predators does this have?

The ecosystem you described isn't that wildly different from those found on a very large portions of earth's landmass.

I'm not saying that such a development doesn't deserve research, but it really needs to weighed against alternatives already in development. (Such as solar fields generating hydrogen as their storage medium, and tidal generators.) Why on earth would you go after something that could easily be a threat to the environment when we have other options without such risks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. What is its reproductive rate?
2. What is its ability to change and adapt to new environments?
3. What natural predators does this have?

these are all unknowns given just the article, but I don't think it's fair to assume they'd design an organism that could so easily take over the globe.

The ecosystem you described isn't that wildly different from those found on a very large portions of earth's landmass. [/quote]
how do you figure? There are almost no places where there are large quantities of nutrient rich high CO2 non-saline water between 30-40 degrees celsius.

I'm not saying that such a development doesn't deserve research, but it really needs to weighed against alternatives already in development. (Such as solar fields generating hydrogen as their storage medium, and tidal generators.) Why on earth would you go after something that could easily be a threat to the environment when we have other options without such risks?
[/quote]
Because this solution works with existing technology. It requires no added investment by the population. It will actually lower their costs with their current investments.

Hydrogen is an ok alternative, but it's also explosive and has to be contained at high pressure. Tidal generators fine, but how is that going to refill my car when I'm on a road trip through montana?

I'm all for alternatives, but a carbon neutral form of gasoline is an AMAZING option till we have the technology to have a power plant in our cars or someone comes up with a better way to store hydrogen. I am aware that they are coming up with better ways to store hydrogen, but it's still a far cry from where it needs to be to gain mass market appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder, if nuclear plants make energy out of heating heavy water. Couldn't the same be done by cooling down some sort of liquid that boils at ambient temperature? It will probably take some energy to cool it down I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder, if nuclear plants make energy out of heating heavy water. Couldn't the same be done by cooling down some sort of liquid that boils at ambient temperature? It will probably take some energy to cool it down I guess.


the problem is that liquids that boil at most ambient temperatures don't exist in normal situations. You would expend more energy collecting/compressing the liquids than you would get from their expansion into a gas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This whole "If an entire series of things goes wrong, then it could result in a shitstorm the dimensions of which we can't really predict," is the reason we've had a thirty-year moratorium on construction and development of nuclear power.
I would definitely prefer to see a bunch of modern nuke plants, rather than the myriad of coal plants that provide the overwhelming majority of our electrical power. That's the turd in the punchbowl of the electric car argument, from an environmental standpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would definitely prefer to see a bunch of modern nuke plants, rather than the myriad of coal plants that provide the overwhelming majority of our electrical power. That's the turd in the punchbowl of the electric car argument, from an environmental standpoint.


This is what I hate about nuclear plants. And it is not that it takes a 8º earthquake to break them. Just lack of money and/or human negligence (more than anything) can fuck it up very bad for everyone nearby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='EricRRichards' timestamp='1299540217' post='4783023']
I would definitely prefer to see a bunch of modern nuke plants, rather than the myriad of coal plants that provide the overwhelming majority of our electrical power. That's the turd in the punchbowl of the electric car argument, from an environmental standpoint.


This is what I hate about nuclear plants. And it is not that it takes a 8º earthquake to break them. Just lack of money and/or human negligence (more than anything) can fuck it up very bad for everyone nearby.
[/quote]

it anything that is a testament to how nuclear power can be safe. By all accounts, that nuclear power plant should be a lot worse off all things considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='owl' timestamp='1299942965' post='4784827']
[quote name='EricRRichards' timestamp='1299540217' post='4783023']
I would definitely prefer to see a bunch of modern nuke plants, rather than the myriad of coal plants that provide the overwhelming majority of our electrical power. That's the turd in the punchbowl of the electric car argument, from an environmental standpoint.


This is what I hate about nuclear plants. And it is not that it takes a 8º earthquake to break them. Just lack of money and/or human negligence (more than anything) can fuck it up very bad for everyone nearby.
[/quote]

it anything that is a testament to how nuclear power can be safe. By all accounts, that nuclear power plant should be a lot worse off all things considered.
[/quote]

[font=arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif][size=2]At one point, the plant was releasing each hour the amount of radiation a person normally absorbs from the environment each year.
[/font][font=arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif][size=2]Virtually any increase in ambient radiation can raise long-term cancer rates, and authorities were planning to distribute iodine to residents in the area, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iodine counteracts the effects of radiation.[/font][/quote]


By all accounts, it gotta suck to live nearby that plant right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"]At one point, the plant was releasing each hour the amount of radiation a person normally absorbs from the environment each year.
[/font][font="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"]Virtually any increase in ambient radiation can raise long-term cancer rates, and authorities were planning to distribute iodine to residents in the area, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iodine counteracts the effects of radiation.[/font]



By all accounts, it gotta suck to live nearby that plant right now.
[/quote]

I don't doubt it, but it's cooling system is getting no power, it's been through an 8.8 earth quake, and it's had an explosion in the immediate vicinity of the reactor. To just be putting out radiation is pretty good compared to what could be happening.

edit: a single CT scan has more radiation than an average american absorbs from the environment in a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='forsandifs' timestamp='1298851873' post='4779899']
There are conspiracy theories that renewable energy is not further developed than it is because there are powerful vested interests in the current fossil fuel business, and therefore against renewable energies.
That's not a conspiracy theory, it's common knowledge -- e.g. lots of alternative energy inventions are patent-horded by those "powerful vested interests"...
[/quote]

Yeah, its common knowledge, just like 'people use only 10% of their brains'.

Patents are publically available as part of the whole process; you cant patent anything behind closed doors. So give us a few examples, or STFU.

Next time you adhere to a conspiracy theory, pick one that at least makes sense. There is no incentive whatsoever to sit on a fossile fuel busting technology. The profitable thing to do would be to take it into production, the other branches of your company be damned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Among the known social facts associated with the dissemination of GE crops are the continued consolidation of the seed industry and its integration with the chemical industry. Another is the change in relationships between farmers and their seed suppliers. Testimony to the committee suggested that farmers of major crops have fewer opportunities to purchase non-GE seed of the best-yielding cultivars even when a GE trait is not perceived to be required in a particular cropping situation.[/quote]
And there we have one of the apparent driving forces behind GM - corporate greed.
I would be a lot more confident in the technology if it were at least extensively tested before commercialization, which probably necessitates the public sector. Fortunately, China is starting to invest heavily there, so maybe we will see improvements actually aimed at feeding people instead of profits.
[/quote]

There is a kind of dark irony there, dont you think? I mean, they tried the whole 'people before profits' in China quite thoroughly, just a few decades ago, and it was the single bigest lollercaust in human history. LOL?

Rethoric such as yours is of the same type of creepy as talk of 'final solutions'. Except of course that yours is fashionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Among the known social facts associated with the dissemination of GE crops are the continued consolidation of the seed industry and its integration with the chemical industry. Another is the change in relationships between farmers and their seed suppliers. Testimony to the committee suggested that farmers of major crops have fewer opportunities to purchase non-GE seed of the best-yielding cultivars even when a GE trait is not perceived to be required in a particular cropping situation.

And there we have one of the apparent driving forces behind GM - corporate greed.
I would be a lot more confident in the technology if it were at least extensively tested before commercialization, which probably necessitates the public sector. Fortunately, China is starting to invest heavily there, so maybe we will see improvements actually aimed at feeding people instead of profits.
[/quote]

There is a kind of dark irony there, dont you think? I mean, they tried the whole 'people before profits' in China quite thoroughly, just a few decades ago, and it was the single bigest lollercaust in human history. LOL?

Rethoric such as yours is of the same type of creepy as talk of 'final solutions'. Except of course that yours is fashionable.
[/quote]
No, that was still profits before people. Force farmers into state-run farming groups so the state can buy low and sell high. That so the money raised will go into steel production and create more profit. Also, many farm workers were forcibly moved from the farm to the steel factories because of this plan by Chairman LMAO. Just because it's publicly peddled as "for the people" doesn't mean that's what it is.

You know better....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patents are publically available as part of the whole process; you cant patent anything behind closed doors. So give us a few examples, or STFU.[/quote]
Bullshit. German, UK and US patent laws - and certainly others - provide for `secret' patents/applications under rather loosely defined circumstances. See http://www.ipo.gov.u...ecuritylist.pdf for examples; in Germany, it's basically "whenever the exterior safety of the Federal Republic might be negatively affected".

Rethoric such as yours is of the same type of creepy as talk of 'final solutions'. Except of course that yours is fashionable.[/quote]
Thank you for proving Godwin right yet again. I don't intend to dignify further ridiculous comments along those lines with a reply.

You know better....[/quote]
Sadly, it's not apparent he does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1298858302' post='4779925']
[quote name='forsandifs' timestamp='1298851873' post='4779899']
There are conspiracy theories that renewable energy is not further developed than it is because there are powerful vested interests in the current fossil fuel business, and therefore against renewable energies.
That's not a conspiracy theory, it's common knowledge -- e.g. lots of alternative energy inventions are patent-horded by those "powerful vested interests"...
[/quote]Yeah, its common knowledge, just like 'people use only 10% of their brains'.

Patents are publically available as part of the whole process; you cant patent anything behind closed doors. So give us a few examples, or STFU.

Next time you adhere to a conspiracy theory, pick one that at least makes sense. There is no incentive whatsoever to sit on a fossile fuel busting technology. The profitable thing to do would be to take it into production, the other branches of your company be damned.[/quote]Next time you tell someone to "shut the fuck up", try doing 10 seconds of googling first.

As for incentive - the emergence of new technologies lowers the value of existing infrastructure. Also, investing in infrastructure for new tech is risky while the pace of innovation is still high. Safest bet is probably to proceed with development in private, while stifling competitor's developments, until new tech is mature enough to warrant large scale investment (which in turn will significantly devalue existing oil-based investments).

As posted above though, why post at all if you're just going to use straw-man arguments and generally be an offensive ass-hat? Forum software should automatically lock threads upon posting of the word "godwin"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement