Questions for Evolutionists

[Viceroy63]

LOL. Kangaroos???

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?

And lets just talk for a bit before we start to break out the big "Links!"

[tzor]

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?

First, we don't pay "though the nose" to light and heat our homes. "Light" is an interesting notion; there is more light in the average refrigerator than the average person in the 18th century ever dreamed of.

Similar arguments can be made for heat. No matter what roadblocks progressives put on fuel production, energy is enormously cheap; it's one of the reasons why alternative solutions generally can't get off the ground.

Can even cheaper alternatives be found? I think the answer is yes but here again, more progressive roadblocks get in our way. The old Model T was originally designed to run on help oil. But the Model T is significantly lower in horsepower compared to the modern transportation system.

[Timminz]

To say, as Timminz wrote, that because the source of the information was some Christian Organization makes it invalid is incredibly ignorant.

For an organization to START with the conclusion, precludes them from being considered a reputable source on the subject. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but that's how the world actually works.

[BigBallinStalin]

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!

I've turned into an artificial beef jerky machine which is fueled by beef jerky; therefore, radiothermologicalistical carbonoxonic-bubonic testing is impossible.

[Lootifer]

Lootifer; What makes you believe that energy is "NOT" the most abundant, lowest costing commodity available to us?

/rubshandstogethergleefully!

But before I get started. I am still confused how this relates to -a- evolution and -b- your comment that people are not focussing on the core issues being debated (i.e. evolution) - however that comment was in the other thread so I guess you are open to hyjacks and other discussion in here...

Now back to your question! Where did I say that? I simply said thus:

using any kind of energy to make coal that contains less energy than that which was used to make it in the first place is always, regardless of technology level, going to be a stupid idea (assuming the only use for coal is producing energy).

Energy is, i'd guess, up there with air in terms of abundent commodities. However it's cost (energy that is) is hugely variable. The cost of warmth on a beach in the carabbian in the middle of their sunny season is likely pretty low (though anyone who doesnt live there needs to work out how to get there - that cost needs to be factored in); however if you want a 3-phase direct connection with a constant supply of 8760 gigawatt-hours per year (1GW average supply), that, my man, is probably going to cost you a fair bit.

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?

That is a hard one to answer; there are hundreds, if not thousands, of different electricity systems in the world; all of which are run slightly differently. I cant possibly tell if you are paying through the nose or not for your electricity supply. However I am an energy economist/analyst and I can say that generally speaking you are not paying through the nose; most costs allocation systems within the world tend to focus on least cost models; that is they aim for the lowest cost electricity system they can and the resulting electricity price tends to reflect exactly what it costs to produce that electricity.

I can explain this concept further if you would like, but we quickly get into some economic jargon. But generally speaking the answer is you dont pay through the nose, you pay roughly what it costs to produce.

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?

You are kind of correct: we currently are not faced with any renewable energy constraints; theres lots of places where we canb build wind farms, plenty of good spots for solar panels, heaps of holes in the ground with volcanic activity that can produce geothermal energy and even the whole ocean can be tapped through some clever engineering.

However none of this deals with the economics of the situation.

The reality is to harness all this wonderful excess energy will cost; and currently for things like solar power and marine, it will cost you A LOT.

[Viceroy63]

OK; Let's back track a bit because you obviously seem to want to complicate a simple question. You had stated...

... 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?

[AndyDufresne]

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?

Is the separation of Harlem and Shake molecules from Youtube so expensive that a person can power his computer with a few videos but not his home? If it did take more energy to get the Harlem Shake from Youtube then why would people do it? There are kits that you can purchase to convert your current computer into a Harlem Shaking vehicle, an HSV. Why would people buy these kits if it is more expensive to get the Harlem Shake out of the Youtube then to power the computer with regular electricity?

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 dancing in practically free energy anyway?


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

[AndyDufresne]

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.

BBS, I have just found evidence supporting your argument. Look at this propaganda film used to indoctrinate children and weak minded adults.




--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

[jonesthecurl]

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.

...and of course damned to eternal torture.

[BigBallinStalin]

Of course! That goes without saying because it's a self-evident truth because it's self-evident.

[AndyDufresne]

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]

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?

[AndyDufresne]

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?

Don't confuse your Schrodingers with your Wittgensteins.


--Andy

[jonesthecurl]

That would be half-Wittgenstiened.

[Lootifer]

OK; Let's back track a bit because you obviously seem to want to complicate a simple question. You had stated...

... 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?

[BigBallinStalin]

@Andy,

I'm not sure. Wittgenstein was a bit more meta in his writings and dealt with other issues. He dealt with foundational concerns about certainty in response to the general Cartesians/radical skeptics of the times.

[Viceroy63]

OK; Let's back track a bit because you obviously seem to want to complicate a simple question. You had stated...

... 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?

"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?"

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]

Great. Viceroy misunderstands evolution and economics.

Trolling harder on more fronts!
(or doubling down on the stupidity)

[PLAYER57832]

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.

Except how, exactly do you believe this would be helped by disbelief in evolution. That does seem to be your premise, after all.
Note, unlike BBS, I don't completely disagree that oil and nuclear power came about to benefit a few, though I absolutely disagree in how you think it came to be. The truth was a lot simpler, as I already explained. GM and timber companies, for example very specifically worked to make sure that marihuana was targeted as a "nasty drug", and that southern CA had no really decent mass-transit. They were helped by misunderstandings of earthquakes, the fact that Marihuana was not a substance traditionally used by whites. However, no need to bring in all your other conspiracy theories.

And, you STILL don't explain how you think all this would somehow be benefitted by denying that coal and petroleum crude were made a very long time ago.

[Viceroy63]

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.

[jonesthecurl]

may I, Player?

ON the topic of power,artificial coal, etc, all of which you brought up: what is the point you re trying to make with this?

[Lootifer]

Great. Viceroy misunderstands evolution and economics.

Trolling harder on more fronts!
(or doubling down on the stupidity)

This is a major dilemma for me as since he is discussing a subject area I am very involved with (you could almost call me knowledgable... wait lets not go overboard...) I find I should really get stuck in and try amd explain my position (and correct his mistakes), on the other hand its Viceroy; the guy who believes the lochness monster exists.

[AAFitz]

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.

Simple is one thing you do seem to excel at.

Anyways, I think the important question, was where do you think oil comes from?

How was it made?

When?