Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

THANK GOD THE WORLD IS SAVEDFollow

#27 Nov 12 2013 at 11:17 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Elinda wrote:
They're already brain dead from the EMF's their cell phones are pelting them with. Smiley: wink

I thought that was from the ADHD meds.
#28 Nov 12 2013 at 11:18 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Catwho wrote:
We can expose the spiders to radiation to make them radioactive so they can bite the 7th graders! Smiley: schooled
The road to spider-pocalypse is paved by well meaning Spiderman fans.
#29 Nov 12 2013 at 11:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Elinda wrote:
They're already brain dead from the EMF's their cell phones are pelting them with. Smiley: wink

I thought that was from the ADHD meds.
Nope just the iPads.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#30 Nov 12 2013 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
Also, this does not seem to be patented. Which seems odd, if it is at the stage where it works in practice.
#31 Nov 12 2013 at 2:35 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Elinda wrote:
They're already brain dead from the EMF's their cell phones are pelting them with. Smiley: wink


Some of the young teen girls seem have had their cell phones surgically grafted to their hands.

Took one from a 14-year-old student who wouldn't put it away, and she threw a tantrum like an 8-year-old and broke down crying. I was like "What THE @#%^ is wrong with you?" but it didn't make it better. Smiley: frown

Kids... how do they work? Who knows? I sure don't.

Edited, Nov 12th 2013 9:36pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#32 Nov 12 2013 at 3:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Mazra wrote:

Kids... how do they work? Who knows? I sure don't.

Me neither.

Fortunately mine turned into adults.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#33 Nov 12 2013 at 4:02 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Mazra just gets a new batch every year.
#34 Nov 12 2013 at 5:30 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Ok, remember how I used to go on about CHP (Combined Heat and Power stations), Tri-generation, syn-gas and bio-char? Well, this stuff really WILL and really ALREADY is saving the world. Sydney is the latest city to drop CO2 emissions by 70%, in this case aiming for 2030.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/11/sydney-intends-go-100-renewable-2030/

What I like about it is how they've bribed private investors to build and run 95% of the plant and infrastructure, and the city council is just building the pipes between buildings.
#35 Nov 12 2013 at 6:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
If it's truly carbon negative, but all it does is capture carbon dioxide before we add more to the atmosphere, then it's still a fairly major improvement.


If the product they make (the various carbon polymers) can be sold for a price that covers the cost of capturing the CO2, then yes. If not, and the company is dependent on government subsidies, then the whole thing is really a means of disguising the capture costs under a thin layer of legitimate seeming tech business. The business model in that case isn't about recycling carbon from the air and turning it into useful products, but getting the government to pay them to take carbon out of the air (and presumably just from exit source of carbon in existing industrial processes).

I'm all for cleaner air and water. And I'm all for efficient use of our resources via recycling and whatnot. But I'm not a big fan of lying about the costs of those things along the way.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Nov 12 2013 at 9:12 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Catwho wrote:
We can expose the spiders to radiation to make them radioactive so they can bite the 7th graders! Smiley: schooled
The road to spider-pocalypse is paved by well meaning Spiderman fans.
Bedbugs injected with radioactive spider dna would work better anyway. More aggressive, better spread of delicious spider powers.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#37 Nov 13 2013 at 2:34 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
If it's truly carbon negative, but all it does is capture carbon dioxide before we add more to the atmosphere, then it's still a fairly major improvement.


If the product they make (the various carbon polymers) can be sold for a price that covers the cost of capturing the CO2, then yes. If not, and the company is dependent on government subsidies, then the whole thing is really a means of disguising the capture costs under a thin layer of legitimate seeming tech business. The business model in that case isn't about recycling carbon from the air and turning it into useful products, but getting the government to pay them to take carbon out of the air (and presumably just from exit source of carbon in existing industrial processes).

I'm all for cleaner air and water. And I'm all for efficient use of our resources via recycling and whatnot. But I'm not a big fan of lying about the costs of those things along the way.


Good thing the oil industry doesn't get any subsidies, eh? Might distort the market.
#38 Nov 13 2013 at 8:03 AM Rating: Excellent
If they're getting paid by other companies for carbon credits, though, is that okay?
#39 Nov 13 2013 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Speaking of being saved, this is kinda awesome.
Edit: Website title may be NSFW, if your work is particularly strict.

Edited, Nov 13th 2013 8:06am by Poldaran
#40 Nov 13 2013 at 11:26 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Speaking of being saved, this is kinda awesome.
Edit: Website title may be NSFW, if your work is particularly strict.

Edited, Nov 13th 2013 8:06am by Poldaran

It is kinda awesome, even though the thought of showering with reused liquids is kinda gross.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#41 Nov 13 2013 at 1:44 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
It depends on how the filtration system works. You're not actually wasting water when it goes down the drain you're wasting treatment costs and power from pumping the water to your home. That water is eventually added back into the system. If the cost of maintenance and filters is low enough to justify the cost of the system (pump, holding tank, heater, power to run it all etc) then it's a great step forward.

All this really does is decentralize the filtration process. Except you still need the filtration process for the other taps in your house so really all you are doing is lowering the amount of water the existing filtration system has to handle which is quite limiting since capacity isn't a huge issue for water treatment systems designed to serve cities given they're designed to handle toilets etc as well.

This is fantastic for people on wells and certain parts of the world where water is scarce though. It'll be much much better when they start creating entire home systems and adoption spreads as you'll then be able to start dropping municipal capacity.

I'd also be rather interested in what can/cannot be filtered by this system. What if I've been doused in gasoline and I hop in the shower? What happens when I clean my bath tub? Do I now need a checklist before I take a shower?
#42 Nov 13 2013 at 1:59 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
It depends on how the filtration system works. You're not actually wasting water when it goes down the drain you're wasting treatment costs and power from pumping the water to your home. That water is eventually added back into the system. If the cost of maintenance and filters is low enough to justify the cost of the system (pump, holding tank, heater, power to run it all etc) then it's a great step forward.

All this really does is decentralize the filtration process. Except you still need the filtration process for the other taps in your house so really all you are doing is lowering the amount of water the existing filtration system has to handle which is quite limiting since capacity isn't a huge issue for water treatment systems designed to serve cities given they're designed to handle toilets etc as well.

This is fantastic for people on wells and certain parts of the world where water is scarce though. It'll be much much better when they start creating entire home systems and adoption spreads as you'll then be able to start dropping municipal capacity.

I'd also be rather interested in what can/cannot be filtered by this system. What if I've been doused in gasoline and I hop in the shower? What happens when I clean my bath tub? Do I now need a checklist before I take a shower?


And, on that note, what is the point where it's too limited? What can/can't you use to clean your tub? Is bleach out? What happens if you need to declog the drain?

An industrial-quality filtration system that's community-funded and managed makes these a non-issue. My own personal threshold would be pretty low when it came to making allowances, to be honest.

That said, it's definitely a different scenario when we're talking about situations where municipal filtering wouldn't be available, or would be prohibitively expensive.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#43 Nov 13 2013 at 2:56 PM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
All this really does is decentralize the filtration process. Except you still need the filtration process for the other taps in your house so really all you are doing is lowering the amount of water the existing filtration system has to handle which is quite limiting since capacity isn't a huge issue for water treatment systems designed to serve cities given they're designed to handle toilets etc as well.
It doesn't just save water, but also the cost of energy to heat the water for your shower by something like 80% if I recall correctly. So that helps.
#44 Nov 13 2013 at 3:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kavekk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
If it's truly carbon negative, but all it does is capture carbon dioxide before we add more to the atmosphere, then it's still a fairly major improvement.


If the product they make (the various carbon polymers) can be sold for a price that covers the cost of capturing the CO2, then yes. If not, and the company is dependent on government subsidies, then the whole thing is really a means of disguising the capture costs under a thin layer of legitimate seeming tech business. The business model in that case isn't about recycling carbon from the air and turning it into useful products, but getting the government to pay them to take carbon out of the air (and presumably just from exit source of carbon in existing industrial processes).

I'm all for cleaner air and water. And I'm all for efficient use of our resources via recycling and whatnot. But I'm not a big fan of lying about the costs of those things along the way.


Good thing the oil industry doesn't get any subsidies, eh? Might distort the market.


At the risk of repeating (again!) the same response I've made the last 100 times someone made that observation: The oil and gas companies are not dependent on those subsidies. Take them away and their industries will thrive just as much as they do with them. Those subsidies exist as a means for the government to impose some controls on the industries (we'll pay you some cash if you do X instead of Y), not to fund them in the first place.

Take the subsidies from most "green" energy industries, and they will go bankrupt. So no, those are not remotely similar, nor can you justify one because of the existence of the other.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Nov 13 2013 at 3:38 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Yeah it'll help but you'll still have to maintain temperature in your water heater tank for the rest of your taps which will be significantly less energy than heating new cold water of course but will still eat into those savings. It's like adding a more efficient mini-fridge to hold your beer. You still have to power the big fridge for all of your food but you won't open it as much so you won't waste as much of the cold air inside. There's a balance there somewhere where it's worth it but I'd like to see those stats before I went ahead and installed one of these.
#46 Nov 13 2013 at 5:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Why would the government pay oil companies to do things when all they need to do is dictate what the oil companies can and can't do through regulation?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#47 Nov 13 2013 at 6:10 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Why would the government pay oil companies to do things when all they need to do is dictate what the oil companies can and can't do through regulation?

I just learned your government has an ISDR in an FTA with another nation and it's baaaad, man, it's baaaaad. It means that nations' private companies can sue Canada in an international court for compensation whenever a Canadian law or environmental regulation impinges on the companies' ability to make money. Canada has already been sued prolifically and paid out billions of taxpayer money in net compensation to private corporations under the ISDR clause in the FTA.
#48 Nov 14 2013 at 5:21 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Stupid government. Sure, sue them. Doesn't mean they actually need to pay it. Supposed to treat that **** like Kyoto--ignore it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#49 Nov 14 2013 at 6:21 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
My Prime Minister has put ISDRs on the table in tg=he 15 nation Trans Pacific free trade treaty negotiations. It'll position the conservatives to be able to repeal all kinds of laws and protections that "cost business money".
#50 Nov 14 2013 at 7:47 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Lol, Canada's GHG production has shot up like one of the developing countries.

Been eating many beans up there?

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#51 Nov 14 2013 at 10:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Elinda wrote:
Lol, Canada's GHG production has shot up like one of the developing countries.

Been eating many beans up there?

It's all a conspiracy, they have tons to gain from global warming. The whole planet below them may become a stinking swampy wasteland, but when the best wine in the world comes from shores of Hudson's Bay and the wheat grows continuously under 24 hour sunlight outside of Whitehorse, Canada will rule the world.

Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 352 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (352)