Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

KeensMustard Re:WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (35 comments)

Is that the one that's shrinking due to geothermal effects?

Is it melting due to geothermal effects? Can you point us to a peer reviewed article which details these effects?

You understand how your assertions are your responsibility to prove - right?

1 hour ago
top

Saturn's 'Death Star' Moon May Hide Subsurface Ocean

KeensMustard Re:What? (48 comments)

I think "rock" is synonymous with boring.

I daresay that geologists will disagree with you. So clearly, "boring" is not a scientific measure, it lacks objectivity.

Also regardless of that Mimas could hardly be considered a 'rock'. It's made of rock (well, mostly), but look at the thing: http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/s...

4 days ago
top

Saturn's 'Death Star' Moon May Hide Subsurface Ocean

KeensMustard What? (48 comments)

Saturn's moon Mimas was considered to be scientifically boring. Is there really such a thing as a scale of scientific boredom? What is the unit of measure?

I'd understand if TS said: considered a lower priority compared to the other bizarre and wonderful things in orbit around Saturn. That's believable given the level of freaky associated with some of the other satellites. But nothing about Mimas says 'boring'. As for scientifically boring I don't think that is a thing.

5 days ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

Your earlier reply was insufficient - hence you are given the opportunity to do better.

When you said "Power will need to mainly come from non-carbon-fossil-fuels, or non-fossil-fuels for it to be practical". you conceded the argument. I graciously accept your concession.

You may not have directly said:" there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary" but you conceded it was true. So obviously, to avoid insulting you by pointing out remarks that seemingly contradict this central theme, I just interpret your remarks in light of it.

about a week ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

At first.

And then sometime in the future converted by the addition of extra technology to convert CO2 to something else - thus making the technology CO2 neutral.

about a week ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

Moron

When you said "Power will need to mainly come from non-carbon-fossil-fuels, or non-fossil-fuels for it to be practical". you conceded the argument. I graciously accept your concession.

You may not have directly said:" there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary" but you conceded it was true. So obviously, to avoid insulting you by pointing out remarks that seemingly contradict this central theme, I just interpret your remarks in light of it.

about a week ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

You've neutralised the CO2 emitted from process A using process B - the whole process is now converted to be carbon neutral. Would we continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere (from process A) without mitigating it? Answer: no we wouldn't, so we've mitigated it with process B (on the proviso we power process B with carbon neutral technologies) - so taking into account all externalities,we have converted to carbon neutral technology.

In short, by introducing process B, you haven't avoided converting process A, you HAVE converted process A.

Your entire strategy relies on converting to carbon neutral processes.

Sorry, should have mentioned it earlier.

about a week ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

Because as you've already said: there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary.

More hallucinations from you.

When you said Power will need to mainly come from non-carbon-fossil-fuels, or non-fossil-fuels for it to be practical. you conceded the argument. I graciously accept your concession.

You may not have directly said: there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. but you conceded it was true. So obviously, to avoid insulting you by pointing out remarks that seemingly contradict this central theme, I just interpret your remarks in light of it.

about a week ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

Oh, I probably should have mentioned this before, but if you add a step to an existing process that converts the CO2 emitted to a different compound then you have (of course) converted that process to CO2 neutral. So your proposed process to convert CO2 to a different compound (sugars, organic compounds etc) is just another example of converting existing technologies to clean technology.

Should have mentioned that earlier - my bad :-)

about a week ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

No conversion of machines required. Existing machines keep working unchanged to generate power, manufacture goods, etc.

Sure. Except for the ones you've already said will be replaced. I.e the ones that generate CO2. Because as you've already said: there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary.

New machines do reverse conversion.

Of course, as you've already said attempting to convert CO2 to other compounds using energy sourced from CO2 emitting technologies will be net CO2 positive. So you would not continue to employ CO2 emitting generation technologies and then try and convert that CO2 to some other compound. That would be unbelievably moronic.

Thanks for admitting that you were wrong.

about a week ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

The CO2 -> fuel conversion starts with somewhat CO2 neutral technologies.

Or to put that in plainer english: We need to convert our existing CO2 emitting power generation technology to CO2 neutral technology. Attempting to convert CO2 to other compounds using energy sourced from CO2 emitting technologies will be net CO2 positive.

Or to use the more common phrase: there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. .

Agreed.

about a week ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

No, once reverse conversion is cheap, scalable and easy; CO2 neutral technologies are not necessary. There are other factors also which can cause this.

Assertion falsified - see discussion here

about a week ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

No, not a jot of difference - at least to the outcomes of this conversation.

To conclude then:

If you use clean technology you will require us to invest in clean energy on a scale equivalent to our fossil fuel energy generation capacity: In which case, your assertion There is a future point where converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. is false.

consider it power source neutral. Power will need to mainly come from non-carbon-fossil-fuels, or non-fossil-fuels for it to be practical.

So your assertion There is a future point where converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary is false.

about a week ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

Your machine requires massive energy input.

To convert CO2 to fuel (i.e de-oxidise it by breaking the C-O bonds) requires (in a perfect world), the same energy as was released when those bonds were created. there's nothing magical about it - the energy from burning (oxidising) fossil fuels comes from the point where that bond C->O is created. That's what burning means.

This means to power your machine you need a power source of at least the same size as the power sources that created the CO2 that goes in.

If you use clean technology you will require us to invest in clean energy on a scale equivalent to our fossil fuel energy generation capacity: In which case, your assertion There is a future point where converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. is false.

If you power your machine with fossil fuel more CO2 will be emitted powering your machine than it can convert. The end result is CO2 positive, and you've really achieved nothing. In which case, your assertion There is a future point where converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. is false.

Your assertion is false, even before we consider it's likely ROI.

about a week ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

This energy source is fossil fuel based (y/n)

about a week ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

What energy source supplies energy to power the machine that converts CO2 into fuel?

about a week ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

What energy source supplies energy to power the machine that converts CO2 into fuel?

about a week ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

Well, we'll return to the bit about Leprechauns later if we need to.

No, the "no energy be input " is your hallucination.

Uh huh. So: what power source supplies the energy needed by the machine to convert CO2 into fuel?

about a week ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

What are you talking about? We are still talking about ROI, just one aspect of it. First you will prove your perpetual motion machine works, then you will prove that such a venture has positive ROI. Failure to do both = you fail.

You are just too stupid to see what is going on.

about a week ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

Congratulations! Your logical fallacy is burden of proof. You claimed that such a machine could be built. You provided no proof. It's not my responsibility to disabuse you of your fantasies.

No. You claimed some particular event to be impossible. It is on you to prove it is impossible.

Answer the following questions:

1. Do leprechauns exist?

2. Will leprechauns exist in the future?

The null hypothesis is that everything is possible at some point in the future, unless proven impossible. You fail logic 101.

3. Will leprechauns exist in the future?

4. Will we, in the future, be able to create what is defined as a perpetual motion machine - a machine that defies either the first or second law of thermodynamics?

You admitted that your proposed machine defies the laws of thermodynamics.

No

You said that your machine creates fuel and doesn't require the equivalent energy be input to do so.. Your machine defies the laws of thermodynamics.

. I told you so and you didn't contradict me = you admitted it.

about a week ago

Submissions

Journals

KeensMustard has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?